What's that word? Loss of _____ when a lens is stopped down. I normally use the 'sweet spot' in my aperture choice of f/8 on my macro lens. I have been experimenting with different...

NormanHarley Loc: Colorado

I normally use the 'sweet spot' in my aperture choice of f/8 on my macro lens. I have been experimenting with different lighting and stopped my lens down to f/16 for this shot and I am not happy with the sharpness of the image. I remember seeing a word used when there is a degradation of quality as the aperture becomes smaller. I know it's not IQ, but what is the word so I can explore it. Links would be welcome. Thank you.
Norman

(Download)

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

NormanHarley wrote:

I normally use the 'sweet spot' in my aperture choice of f/8 on my macro lens. I have been experimenting with different lighting and stopped my lens down to f/16 for this shot and I am not happy with the sharpness of the image. I remember seeing a word used when there is a degradation of quality as the aperture becomes smaller. I know it's not IQ, but what is the word so I can explore it. Links would be welcome. Thank you.
Norman

Diffraction.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

diffraction limiting

NormanHarley wrote:

I normally use the 'sweet spot' in my aperture choice of f/8 on my macro lens. I have been experimenting with different lighting and stopped my lens down to f/16 for this shot and I am not happy with the sharpness of the image. I remember seeing a word used when there is a degradation of quality as the aperture becomes smaller. I know it's not IQ, but what is the word so I can explore it. Links would be welcome. Thank you.
Norman

NormanHarley Loc: Colorado

RWR wrote:

Diffraction.

That's it! Now I can google it. If anyone has any links, they would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! :thumbup:

NormanHarley Loc: Colorado

oldtigger wrote:

diffraction limiting

:thumbup:

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

EXIF data says you were using a 24mm lens.... Not a macro lens

NormanHarley Loc: Colorado

Screamin Scott wrote:

EXIF data says you were using a 24mm lens.... Not a macro lens

I have my 24 AI-s f2.8 lens recorded in the first memory slot of my D610, when I put my 105 Dines f2.8 lens on, my camera thinks it's the 24mm prime instead. Not sure how to change it, maybe delete the 24mm from the memory slot in my camera? :P

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

NormanHarley wrote:

That's it! Now I can google it. If anyone has any links, they would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! :thumbup:

Proper term is "Small Aperture Diffraction". Read more here:
FAQ: Why are my Digital Images Sharper at f/8 than f/22?
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-59819-1.html

More technical articles:
FAQ: How Does "Small Aperture Diffraction" Effect Macro-Photography?
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-284203-1.html

FAQ: How to Avoid Small Aperture Diffraction In Photography
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-284491-1.html

NormanHarley Loc: Colorado

Nikonian72 wrote:

Proper term is "Small Aperture Diffraction". Read more here:
FAQ: Why are my Digital Images Sharper at f/8 than f/22?
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-59819-1.html

More technical articles:
FAQ: How Does "Small Aperture Diffraction" Effect Macro-Photography?
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-284203-1.html

FAQ: How to Avoid Small Aperture Diffraction In Photography
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-284491-1.html

Thank you, Nikonian! That will keep me busy.
And Scott, here is a shot I just took of a very wet bug. I hope the exif data reads 105mm now, f/11 at 1/200 shutter speed.

(Download)

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

NormanHarley wrote:

That's it! Now I can google it. If anyone has any links, they would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Diffraction is a serious topic from physics; you should expect to find many many discussions which have no direct application to photography.

NormanHarley Loc: Colorado

rehess wrote:

Diffraction is a serious topic from physics; you should expect to find many many discussions which have no direct application to photography.

Nikonian gave me some excellent links that I am slowly digesting... but it's about time to digest a beer or two now! Cheers! :thumbup:

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

rehess wrote:

Diffraction is a serious topic from physics; you should expect to find many many discussions which have no direct application to photography.

Seriously? I hope your comment is satirical :lol:, because if not, you are out of your depth of understanding. :thumbdown:

In macro-photography we battle Small Aperture Diffraction daily.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Nikonian72 wrote:

Seriously? I hope your comment is satirical :lol:, because if not, you are out of your depth of understanding. :thumbdown:

In macro-photography we battle Small Aperture Diffraction daily.

As a college student, physics was my minor. My comment was very serious and displays definite depth of understanding of both physics and English.

I did not say that diffraction has no effect on photography.
I own a small-sensor Pentax Q-7, and I do see the effects of diffraction on a regular basis.

I did say that there are all kinds of effects and uses of diffraction that have nothing to do with photography, and so a web search might produce all kinds of articles in which photography is never mentioned.

The Wikipedia entry, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction, has at least ten applications of diffraction, and only two of them relate directly to photography (if you understand what you are reading, since they tend to take their examples from other domains, such as telescopes and microscopes)

LiamRowan Loc: Michigan

Norman, the EXIF data indicates you did not use a flash. I am wondering how you got enough light to shoot at f16?

Thx.

NormanHarley Loc: Colorado

LiamRowan wrote:

Norman, the EXIF data indicates you did not use a flash. I am wondering how you got enough light to shoot at f16?

Thx.

Both shots were taken with my Lester A. Dines 105mm f2.8 macro lens using my Dines ring flash on it's lowest output setting which optically triggered my Yongnuo 565EX off camera slave behind a diffuser. Too much light! And I don't know why my camera doesn't recognize that flash, maybe there is a setting in the menu to designate it like I do with the lenses? I am not the greatest when it comes to these digital cameras! Slowly getting there, though. I will take a test shot with a Yongnuo on the hot shoe and see if my camera can see it in the exif data. Thank you :thumbup: