Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
High ISO Performance and Fast Lenses
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 472223" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>Sure, f/22 diffraction does make it slightly softer (so does f/11 being two stops past f/5.6, as is f/22 two stops past f/11), but the f/22 depth of field can improve the picture greatly (some pictures, depending). When comparing slightly vs greatly, you do sort of have to look at the whole picture, but greatly usually wins. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Do you remember the days of shooting ASA 10 Kodachrome? (10 as I recall, around 1960). We thought it was so wonderful, and it was wonderful, but some of it was because even bright sun required shooting not past f/5 to have any shutter speed at all. It was sharp film, but some of the effect was that f/5 also improved our lenses (those in that day). <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> I didn't have Nikon F until about Kodachrome 25. Digital sure has come a long way. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> But the Kodachrome DOF (and the density range) was real tough sometimes. </p><p></p><p> Diffraction definitely exists, and DOF definitely exists, and they are definitely related, but I fear the whippersnappers today may not all have the experience to understand everything. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> And to make it worse, in this respect, we hear some pretty bad advice today.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's just wrong. Wait and you will be surprised by the truth. Or you can be surprised today if you just look around, at actual pictures instead of reading the internet.</p><p></p><p>Whatever the size of any imagined Airy disk, what we see depends on the size of the image viewed, whether it is resampled to 1/16 size to show near full screen on the monitor (when you see 256 pixels combined into one monitor pixel - do you really imagine the original pixel size actually affected the diffraction you can see?)</p><p></p><p>Or resampled to 1/2 size to print 8x12 inches (and you see 4 pixels in one, but which resample is still enlarged about 9x size, because that is what printers can do). Printing is the harder case.</p><p></p><p>The DOF AND Diffraction seen depend on the size of the image viewed, how much enlargement of the smaller film or sensor. Fuzziness shows bigger as we enlarge it. I think many people using DOF calculators don't realize the numbers apply to 8x10 inch image enlargements. Monitor images are much smaller (NOT 3000 pixels size), so DOF will appear greater than the calculator indicates. And diffraction will appear less. They look better on the monitor, and it is not dithered color either. The internet geeks don't care, they only see their little calculators, and imagine Airy disks being centered on pixels. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>I show my crops on those diffraction pages, and they are quite extreme crops. The first page is 100% crops (except the f/40 ruler is larger, about 1/4 frame height). The second page is not 100%, but almost, it is a very small crop, FX is only about 2x 100% crop.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 472223, member: 12496"] Sure, f/22 diffraction does make it slightly softer (so does f/11 being two stops past f/5.6, as is f/22 two stops past f/11), but the f/22 depth of field can improve the picture greatly (some pictures, depending). When comparing slightly vs greatly, you do sort of have to look at the whole picture, but greatly usually wins. :) Do you remember the days of shooting ASA 10 Kodachrome? (10 as I recall, around 1960). We thought it was so wonderful, and it was wonderful, but some of it was because even bright sun required shooting not past f/5 to have any shutter speed at all. It was sharp film, but some of the effect was that f/5 also improved our lenses (those in that day). :) I didn't have Nikon F until about Kodachrome 25. Digital sure has come a long way. :) But the Kodachrome DOF (and the density range) was real tough sometimes. Diffraction definitely exists, and DOF definitely exists, and they are definitely related, but I fear the whippersnappers today may not all have the experience to understand everything. :) And to make it worse, in this respect, we hear some pretty bad advice today. That's just wrong. Wait and you will be surprised by the truth. Or you can be surprised today if you just look around, at actual pictures instead of reading the internet. Whatever the size of any imagined Airy disk, what we see depends on the size of the image viewed, whether it is resampled to 1/16 size to show near full screen on the monitor (when you see 256 pixels combined into one monitor pixel - do you really imagine the original pixel size actually affected the diffraction you can see?) Or resampled to 1/2 size to print 8x12 inches (and you see 4 pixels in one, but which resample is still enlarged about 9x size, because that is what printers can do). Printing is the harder case. The DOF AND Diffraction seen depend on the size of the image viewed, how much enlargement of the smaller film or sensor. Fuzziness shows bigger as we enlarge it. I think many people using DOF calculators don't realize the numbers apply to 8x10 inch image enlargements. Monitor images are much smaller (NOT 3000 pixels size), so DOF will appear greater than the calculator indicates. And diffraction will appear less. They look better on the monitor, and it is not dithered color either. The internet geeks don't care, they only see their little calculators, and imagine Airy disks being centered on pixels. :) I show my crops on those diffraction pages, and they are quite extreme crops. The first page is 100% crops (except the f/40 ruler is larger, about 1/4 frame height). The second page is not 100%, but almost, it is a very small crop, FX is only about 2x 100% crop. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
High ISO Performance and Fast Lenses
Top
