Aperture

kind of embarrassed to ask this since it seems like a rookie question (who knows, maybe i am) but i've been seeing a lot of beautiful tack-sharp landscapes mostly on this forum but also on others where the aperture was set to f8 or f9. that confuses me because my impression was if you want greater depth of field (as you would in a landscape) you need to use a higher aperture like f18 or 22 (narrow opening) whereas for something up close like a macro you need a smaller number like f2.5-5.0. so how is it Mr Gerad Coles came with this terrific shot?..

Wide Morning Glory at Bow Lake by Gerad Coles, on Flickr

notice the f9 aperture and the 50mm focal length (click on link).

one thing i've noticed in most of these pics i've seen is that they were shot with a Canon EOS 5D which makes me wonder since it is not a pro-level camera. just saying..

just trying to learn and become better

Focal length plays a large role.

If you stop a lens down too much difraction comes into play,ime not a landscape shooter but i think using the hyperfocal distance is important.

Slipperman said:

kind of embarrassed to ask this since it seems like a rookie question (who knows, maybe i am) but i've been seeing a lot of beautiful tack-sharp landscapes mostly on this forum but also on others where the aperture was set to f8 or f9. that confuses me because my impression was if you want greater depth of field (as you would in a landscape) you need to use a higher aperture like f18 or 22 (narrow opening) whereas for something up close like a macro you need a smaller number like f2.5-5.0. so how is it Mr Gerad Coles came with this terrific shot?..

Wide Morning Glory at Bow Lake by Gerad Coles, on Flickr

notice the f9 aperture and the 50mm focal length (click on link).

one thing i've noticed in most of these pics i've seen is that they were shot with a Canon EOS 5D which makes me wonder since it is not a pro-level camera. just saying..

just trying to learn and become better

Click to expand...

This image is a 65MP panorama shot. It is also heavily sharpened in post.

F/8 or 9 will give plenty of DOF depending on the focal length and where you are standing (how far from the subject. The closer you stand, the longer focal length, or both will give you less DOF .

I don't really go much past f/11 sometimes f/18 on my landscapes. I also use a shorter FL unless I'm doing panorama's.

Diffraction does become more of a negative factor (affecting sharpness) as we stop down, and when we can, staying around f/5.6 to f/11 does have advantages in regular situations. But sometimes more depth of field is required. Stopping down more greatly increases depth of field. Regular picture scenes don't require extremes, but in special situations, it is very common when depth of field helps more than diffraction hurts (often a LOT more), and then we'd be stupid not not to use stopping down, when it helps (that's what it's for).

Learning to Never stop down more than f/11 is too simplistic, counter productive, misses the big picture. We should also learn about when it helps (when needed, not implying for every situation).
There's a page about diffraction at Diffraction limited pixels? Really? In Support of Depth of Field

Macro work (near 1:1) has nearly zero depth of field, and should always be stopped down to at least f/16, and even more can help greatly (macro).

Depth of field in longer lenses (telephoto) can regularly be helped by using f/32, which is why f/32 is provided (however, of course it reduces exposure, requiring ISO or shutter speed).

Ansel Adams founded his f/64 Group in the 1930s, promoting sharp reproduction of detail (his view camera lenses were longer lenses).

Landscapes normally involve some of the scene at infinity distance.. Which is not especially a problem, but sometimes for pleasing effect, it is very desirable to also show some object at very close distance too, like maybe four feet, to emphasize great depth, but which becomes a depth of field problem. The posted f/9 picture here did not do that (no old tree stump in very close foreground), and f/9 worked fine. But it is a strong landscape technique, which then needs extreme depth of field, which isn't easy. Stopping down is the starting point for that.

But one more thing we need to know is about hyperfocal distance (in reference to controlling depth of field).
See Depth of Field Calculator. Want to blur the background? Comparing Depth of Field of Two Lenses

The focal length of the lens does appear to have an impact on depth of field, with longer focal lengths having a shallower DoF. For instance a 200mm lens, focused at twelve feet will, have a wafer-thin DoF as compared to a 20mm lens focused at the same distance. However, if the subject occupies the same portion of the frame, the depth of field is essentially the same whether you're shooting with a wide-angle lens or a telephoto. Obviously you would have to move closer with a wide-angle lens or further away with a telephoto lens to maintain the same subject size. The reason longer lenses appear to produce a shallower depth of field is thanks to their narrow angle of view: compared to a wide lens a telephoto will fill the frame with a much smaller area of background, so background blur appears magnified too. Clear as mud?

I'm not really concerned about diffraction but neither have I noticed a significant improvement when stopping down to f/22. So, as a general rule, I shoot landscapes at f/11 or f/16.
.....