Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

f/22
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:37 am    Post subject: f/22 Reply with quote
Two quick notes:

- it seems to me that photographers today give attention and consideration only to one end of the aperture spectrum: the wide end.
Nobody, instead, seems to be interested in the other end anymore, the full stopped down end. And this in spite of many's claimed admiration for Ansel Adams,
who was somebody who instead often explored the full stopped down avenue;

- I really hate it when I read this type of advice to newbies: "never shoot more stopped down than f/8 (or f/11), because after that limit, diffraction will ruin your pictures".
Often said by people who frequently use wide open aperture, but never notice/complain about the problems of residual aberrations of various kind, which really can -and do-
"ruin" their pictures just like diffraction, if not even more!

The reality is, that not to use the extreme apertures of a lens, is like having a piano and not using the two extreme octaves.
Sure, you can play beautiful music without them, but it's a limitation of your expression. The extreme octaves don't get used often, but when they do,
they provide specific effects that are unique. The same is with photography: you don't use often wide open (at least, you shouldn't), and you don't use often full stopped down,
but when you do use them, in an appropriate way, they expand your expressions vocabulary.

Here's a picture I took when testing Gelios-103 53mm f/1.8 lens on my M9. This picture is taken with the lens fully stopped down to f/22. The focus is on the foreground plant:



I think that the result is quite convincing, and is something that is different from what you commonly see around in web albums.
It is a creative possibility that many people never explore because they believe that shooting f/22 will ruin their pictures.
Well, here's a 100% crop from this picture, that shows that in spite of diffraction, there is still plenty of detail in the photograph,
surely more than enough to obtain a good quality print:



So, don't be afraid, and don't let commonplaces scare you away from the other end of your lens' aperture. Explore it without fretting!


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for sharing it! I use F16 for product shoots and happy with that Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A very good point, Orio. I couldn't help noticing in that magazine zoom test, posted in the lens forum, that all the lenses were resolving best at f8 to f16.

Great photo to illustrate your point too.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Recently I began exploring narrow apertures using macro lenses I'd previous only stopped to f/8 to get maximum resolution; f/16-f/22. I am liking the results -- I can't see any diffraction effects; the extra dof seems to make for me more keepers. With landscapes I cannot discern any difference between f/8 & f/16; I continue to use f/8.

edit:

I should say the camera sensor (FF, 5D) diffraction limit is f/8 -- why I didn't go smaller -- only f/5.6 for crop. This is not a 'problem' with film! (Anybody know the diffraction limit for film?)

Last edited by visualopsins on Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:49 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for the lesson on f22,I appreciate your thoughts and experience.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cannot agree more! Well done Orio!


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
erm On a film camera you would have to carry a tripod around to use a tele lens @f16 or f22 to avoid camera shake Rolling Eyes In sunny Ibiza I was using a 135mm lens @ 1/250, f11 with 100asa film and the pictures came out sharp, but f16@ 1/125...........................

Last edited by Excalibur on Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:36 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I was having thoughts along the same line a while ago: http://forum.mflenses.com/diffraction-limited-aperture-in-real-life-t48718.html

Another aspect worth mentioning is that if you want star effects from lights or pronounced sun rays, you need a small aperture.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
And this in spite of many's claimed admiration for Ansel Adams

Ansel Adams used f64, f64 on the large format is f8 on 24x36 and f4 on m4:3
using f22 on 24x36 is like using f176 on large format
f22 can be useful for macro if focus stacking cannot be used
btw you can also use focus stacking for landscape
f22 of 24x36 is f4 on my phone, my phone is always at f2,8 who is f16 on 24x36

Orio wrote:
I think that the result is quite convincing, and is something that is different from what you commonly see around in web albums.
It is a creative possibility that many people never explore because they believe that shooting f/22 will ruin their pictures.
Well, here's a 100% crop from this picture, that shows that in spite of diffraction, there is still plenty of detail in the photograph,
surely more than enough to obtain a good quality print

indeed f22 can be used differently that common web albums
even at wide open, pics can look very different depending where we put the focus point
experiment is always interesting and when I was testing the Samyang 14:2.8, I make each shot at every aperture available
I show wide open shots not because it is the way the lens should be used
but to show that the lens can be trusted at every aperture click here to see it
digital is 'free', don't care to take shots that will not be used


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I used to get people telling me I was stupid for using f22 to shoot my panoramic landscapes, that diffraction would make them soft.

Simply not true, not with my NEX-3 at least. Whatever diffraction there is is hardly visible, the images are still more than sharp enough, even if printed large (1.2m width).

This was f16 (min aperture of the lens) with a Konica Hexanon 3.5/28:



PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Two quick notes:

- it seems to me that photographers today give attention and consideration only to one end of the aperture spectrum: the wide end.
Nobody, instead, seems to be interested in the other end anymore, the full stopped down end. And this in spite of many's claimed admiration for Ansel Adams,
who was somebody who instead often explored the full stopped down avenue;
...

Don't forget that Ansel Adams was using a pretty large format film which behaves very different than a crop sensor Wink

But otherwise I also couldn't agree more. F16-F22 can be very useful, especially stacked for landscape etc. - there's a reson why except a very few all lenses have them.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I generally head for the closed end, and it's a rare occasion when I haven't got a tripod, or at least my beloved monopod, with me. If there's any distance in my picture, a landscape, I always close down.
Good point though Orio, we read these 'words of wisdom' about going wide and accept it as the best way. It isn't, it's just one way.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have re-discovered an (almost) infinite DoF by using the Voigtländer Heliar 4.5/15 on my Leica M8 recently.
You're perfectly right, Orio. Not in every shot the DoF has to be narrow.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is a very interesting discussion topic, kudos for coming up with it. I have to say that I have reservations regarding the original message. The diffraction effect is real, it's not a scary tale for people that don't know any better. There are two major reasons for using wide aperture: to thin the DOF and to improve exposure (get lower ISO or faster shutter). And yes, almost all lenses are better stopped down than wide open. So when going to the wider aperture, there is a clear tradeoff and it's up to photographer to decide on the best compromise.

Now, when stopping the lens down to f22, I don't see what the trade-off is. The downside is that the picture is less sharp than at optimal aperture and you lose shutter speed as well, but what is the upside? The DOF does not necessarily increase, since the whole picture is more blurry, the only difference is that in focus part looks less sharp. This could be an advantage for portraits, but hardly in pictures where one would consider using F22.

So unless one does gain DOF by stopping down, I don't see a photographic benefit. Then there must be a critical aperture, closing past which is not advisable. This aperture is not necessarily at the diffraction limit though. For me the interesting questions is how to determine such aperture.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
This is a very interesting discussion topic, kudos for coming up with it. I have to say that I have reservations regarding the original message. The diffraction effect is real, it's not a scary tale for people that don't know any better. There are two major reasons for using wide aperture: to thin the DOF and to improve exposure (get lower ISO or faster shutter). And yes, almost all lenses are better stopped down than wide open. So when going to the wider aperture, there is a clear tradeoff and it's up to photographer to decide on the best compromise.

Now, when stopping the lens down to f22, I don't see what the trade-off is. The downside is that the picture is less sharp than at optimal aperture and you lose shutter speed as well, but what is the upside? The DOF does not necessarily increase, since the whole picture is more blurry, the only difference is that in focus part looks less sharp. This could be an advantage for portraits, but hardly in pictures where one would consider using F22.

So unless one does gain DOF by stopping down, I don't see a photographic benefit. Then there must be a critical aperture, closing past which is not advisable. This aperture is not necessarily at the diffraction limit though. For me the interesting questions is how to determine such aperture.


Interesting question, one I'd like to know the answer to as well.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
fermy wrote:
This is a very interesting discussion topic, kudos for coming up with it. I have to say that I have reservations regarding the original message. The diffraction effect is real, it's not a scary tale for people that don't know any better. There are two major reasons for using wide aperture: to thin the DOF and to improve exposure (get lower ISO or faster shutter). And yes, almost all lenses are better stopped down than wide open. So when going to the wider aperture, there is a clear tradeoff and it's up to photographer to decide on the best compromise.

Now, when stopping the lens down to f22, I don't see what the trade-off is. The downside is that the picture is less sharp than at optimal aperture and you lose shutter speed as well, but what is the upside? The DOF does not necessarily increase, since the whole picture is more blurry, the only difference is that in focus part looks less sharp. This could be an advantage for portraits, but hardly in pictures where one would consider using F22.

So unless one does gain DOF by stopping down, I don't see a photographic benefit. Then there must be a critical aperture, closing past which is not advisable. This aperture is not necessarily at the diffraction limit though. For me the interesting questions is how to determine such aperture.


Interesting question, one I'd like to know the answer to as well.


I don't think that you could find a precise DIY solution. Determining the diffraction limit needs a scientific apporach with lab-like surroundings.

Here is a little more about it:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-diffraction.shtml


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:


I don't think that you could find a precise DIY solution. Determining the diffraction limit needs a scientific apporach with lab-like surroundings.

Here is a little more about it:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-diffraction.shtml


It's not that hard provided you are ready to make reasonable simplifications (e.g. doing calculations for green channel only, assuming no AA filter, etc). The first link that you've supplied has a calculator similar to DOF calculator. It's as simple as combing this one with DOF calculator. The answer will obviously depend on FL and subject distance, but still having ballpark figures would definitely be useful.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
This is a very interesting discussion topic, kudos for coming up with it. I have to say that I have reservations regarding the original message. The diffraction effect is real, it's not a scary tale for people that don't know any better.


You are a master in twisting the meaning obviously.
I never said that it wasn't real and that it was a scary tale for ignorant people.
I said that the consequence of diffraction is:

- not worse than the consequences of shooting a lens wide open
- not enough to make the picture useless

any other conclusions that you allege are not present in my message and I have to say, that I find your attitude offensive towards me.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
May be it is a "problem" due to the prices for lenses. If you must pay a lot of money for lenses with good wide open performance you will use it. Like a fast car. You will drive faster then too. But I fully agreee. In some situations f/16 or f/22 will be the right choice.

And btw some negative effects of lenses you can read in photo magazines and the test there are only visible in the test lab with test charts.

Wink


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
The DOF does not necessarily increase, since the whole picture is more blurry


This assumption you make is not correct, and the whole reasoning you started from it, is affected by this error.

1- DOF does not exist. At any aperture, there is only one focus point, everything else is out of focus;

2- It is correct instead to speak of perceived DOF, meaning the apparent focused area determined
by the inability of the human vision to resolve the circles of confusion (COC) that are smaller than a given size
compared to the ideal focus point. This "acceptable" size (known as "acceptable COC") obviously changes with
the enlargement (this is why small pictures, such as 800x600, may look focused even when they're out of focus)
and can also vary with the sight ability of the individuals, but there is a general limit that is considered standard
for human vision and which corresponds to 0.05 mm for a 35mm negative/sensor size;

3- The narrower the lens aperture, the deeper the preceived DOF. This is a progressive optical illusion and it is
wrong to think that there is a moment when the apparent DOF stops to increase. An f/22 picture has a deeper
perceived DOF than a f/16 picture, and a f/16 picture has a deeper perceived DOF than a f/11 picture, and so on;

4- One must not mistake the unsharpness with the blurryness. It is wrong to say that in a f/22 "the picture is more blurry".
That is not only false, but, in terms of optical perception, the opposite is true: the whole picture appears less blurry at f/22,
because the perceived DOF is deeper. The consequence of diffraction is simply that the resolution of the image is reduced,
and thus the preceived sharpness affected. Note: the sharpness, not the focus. The opposite of sharp
is unsharp, the opposite of blurry is focused. The consequence of diffraction is that the image appears less sharp in the
focused point, but still perfectly focused and not more blurry;

To get back to your question: what is the up-side of stopping the lens fully down? That the apparent DOF is increased.
Combined with the different focal lenghts, this optical effect can be used creatively. With a super wide angle lens, the apparent
DOF of a lens at full stop down can be virtually infinite, this way approaching the result that one would obtain with a pin-hole camera.
With a 50mm lens, such as the one I used in this example, what you obtain is a more gradual transition from focused to
unfocused/blurry. Applied to a landscape that offers uninterrupted sight from foreground to infinity, such as the one I photographed,
this more gradual transition reinforces the sense of depth and of the natural aerial perspective (if present).
Instead of making the subject "pop", as with an abrupt transition, you make it appear more "immersed" in the landscape. The
result is an image that looks more "credible" (realistic) than a "pop" image.
Note that the reason why the effect changes with the focal lenght, is the same as already mentioned in point #2: the enlargement.
The perceived DOF is affected by the enlargement not only at print/screen level, but also at taking level: of course, longer focal
lenght lenses enlarge the scene more than shorter focal lenght lenses.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Would this calculator be of use http://www.photozone.de/depth-of-field?
See how the near/far limits change when you alter the Circle-of-Confusion parameter.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:



I said that the consequence of diffraction is:

- not worse than the consequences of shooting a lens wide open
- not enough to make the picture useless

any other conclusions that you allege are not present in my message and I have to say, that I find your attitude offensive towards me.


Shrug. No offense was intended. I don't know why you interpret slight disagreement as offense.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
fermy wrote:
The DOF does not necessarily increase, since the whole picture is more blurry


This assumption you make is not correct, and the whole reasoning you started from it, is affected by this error.

1- DOF does not exist. At any aperture, there is only one focus point, everything else is out of focus;

2- It is correct instead to speak of perceived DOF, meaning the apparent focused area determined
by the inability of the human vision to resolve the circles of confusion (COC) that are smaller than a given size
compared to the ideal focus point. This "acceptable" size (known as "acceptable COC") obviously changes with
the enlargement (this is why small pictures, such as 800x600, may look focused even when they're out of focus)
and can also vary with the sight ability of the individuals, but there is a general limit that is considered standard
for human vision and which corresponds to 0.05 mm for a 35mm negative/sensor size;



DOF is a widely accepted shortcut for what you expanded in 2, so in 1 (and 4 as well) you are arguing semantics.

Quote:

3- The narrower the lens aperture, the deeper the preceived DOF. This is a progressive optical illusion and it is
wrong to think that there is a moment when the apparent DOF stops to increase. An f/22 picture has a deeper
perceived DOF than a f/16 picture, and a f/16 picture has a deeper perceived DOF than a f/11 picture, and so on;


Why would that be? The perceived DOF would increase only provided that COC shrink, which is precisely not the case at f22 due to diffraction effects.

Quote:

To get back to your question: what is the up-side of stopping the lens fully down? That the apparent DOF is increased.


Yes, provided this happens, I agree that there is a clear upside. The gist of my argument is that for any given photographic situation (e.g. FL, subject distance and acceptable COC) apparent DOF does not increase past certain aperture, because past that aperture the COC do not shrink with aperture decrease.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh dear, I hope this interesting topic isn't going to be ruined by a rather pointless disagreement.

I remember when one of my early cameras had only one speed of film, one shutter speed and a lever which altered the aperture for cloudy or sunny settings. Aperture control is for adjusting the light entering the camera, just like the iris in your eye, not for adjusting the DOF. This is only a relatively recent advance brought about by the development of high speed films and fast shutter speeds.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
Orio wrote:
fermy wrote:
The DOF does not necessarily increase, since the whole picture is more blurry


This assumption you make is not correct, and the whole reasoning you started from it, is affected by this error.

1- DOF does not exist. At any aperture, there is only one focus point, everything else is out of focus;

2- It is correct instead to speak of perceived DOF, meaning the apparent focused area determined
by the inability of the human vision to resolve the circles of confusion (COC) that are smaller than a given size
compared to the ideal focus point. This "acceptable" size (known as "acceptable COC") obviously changes with
the enlargement (this is why small pictures, such as 800x600, may look focused even when they're out of focus)
and can also vary with the sight ability of the individuals, but there is a general limit that is considered standard
for human vision and which corresponds to 0.05 mm for a 35mm negative/sensor size;



DOF is a widely accepted shortcut for what you expanded in 2, so in 1 (and 4 as well) you are arguing semantics.

Quote:

3- The narrower the lens aperture, the deeper the preceived DOF. This is a progressive optical illusion and it is
wrong to think that there is a moment when the apparent DOF stops to increase. An f/22 picture has a deeper
perceived DOF than a f/16 picture, and a f/16 picture has a deeper perceived DOF than a f/11 picture, and so on;


Why would that be? The perceived DOF would increase only provided that COC shrink, which is precisely not the case at f22 due to diffraction effects.

Quote:

To get back to your question: what is the up-side of stopping the lens fully down? That the apparent DOF is increased.


Yes, provided this happens, I agree that there is a clear upside. The gist of my argument is that for any given photographic situation (e.g. FL, subject distance and acceptable COC) apparent DOF does not increase past certain aperture, because past that aperture the COC do not shrink with aperture decrease.


I agree on all points. To emphasise - the DOF model does not include diffraction effects. Focus blur decreases with increasing lens f-number. Diffraction blur increases with increasing f-number. At some point diffraction wins.

There may be a case for using a large f-number - to increase depth of field - since there are lots of of reports which indicate that diffraction blur is particularly susceptible to removal by sharpening methods which use deconvolution algorithms (try Google for "Richardson-Lucy"). But I'm no expert. Those with ACR (CSX, LRX) may know something about it. Also Raw-Therapee (free ?) is supoosed to use a good implementation.

Norman Koren gives a "rule of thumb" approach to obtaining the optimum aperture - best compromise between DOF and diffraction blur.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Techniques
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2