Landscape Photog: There is a Shuttertalk conversation on Landscape Photography Tip: The Myth of f22. Theme seems to be extra DoF carries penalties. Experts chime in on this.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

There is a Shuttertalk conversation on Landscape Photography Tip: The Myth of f22. Theme seems to be extra DoF carries penalties. Experts chime in on this.

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

The smaller the aperture the greater the risk of diffraction. However...unless you are making very large prints you probably won't notice anything. I have seen comparison test photographs and they required extreme enlargements to discern diffraction.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Everything in photography is compromise. If you feel you need the DOF of a very small aperture, that probably outweighs the danger of diffraction. If you don't need the extra DOF, it's probably better not to use them.

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

JohnSwanda wrote:

Everything in photography is compromise. If you feel you need the DOF of a very small aperture, that probably outweighs the danger of diffraction. If you don't need the extra DOF, it's probably better not to use them.

Well said. Generally I will back off to f16 or f11 if I don't need DOF for the foreground in landscapes.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

In the DoF derivations, there is the hyoerfocal distance which is the focal length squared, divided by the f-stop number, divided by the circle of confusion diameter. Setting the focus distance to the hyperfocal puts everything from 1/2 the focus distance to infinity into tolerable focus. So, aside from diffraction risk, using f22 would define a smaller hyperfocal distance than smaller f-stops. So it seems that the distance to the main interest of the scene would be an indicator of best f-stop. Of course, the fly in the ointment is exactly what is the circle of confusion diameter value. The mere mention of circle of confusion begs a whole new thread, but lets not go there in this one - or at least not very far.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

John_F wrote:

In the DoF derivations, there is the hyoerfocal di... (show quote)

Which is why, if I want maximum DOF, I will probably err on the side of the smaller aperture.

Mundj Loc: Richmond TX

First, I am not an expert, but Bryan Peterson devotes a chapter to this subject in his book, " Understanding Exposure, 3rd Edition". He basically is saying that the losses due to diffraction are minimal as opposed to the gains in DOF. So if DOF is important, take advantage of the smaller aperture.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

John_F wrote:

In the DoF derivations, there is the hyoerfocal di... (show quote)

The DOF required is certainly going to govern the aperture you select, but if sharpness is important to you, it's useful to keep the effects of defraction in mind when choosing aperture, as the effects are real and visible as low as f11 in certain cases. Below are several articles for your consideration with comparative photos at various apertures. I'm also including the Wiki link on circle of confusion which I've found useful. As stated in the reference, there have been numerous formulas suggested for calculating CoC (Ziess, Kodak...), but an average seems to be ~.029 mm for full frame 35mm as shown in the accompanying chart.

http://phototechmag.com/diffraction-resolution-taxed-to-its-limits/
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/diffraction.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

John_F wrote:

There is a Shuttertalk conversation on Landscape Photography Tip: The Myth of f22. Theme seems to be extra DoF carries penalties. Experts chime in on this.

Under those circumstances I would back off on the iso or increase speed or perhaps both while shooting at f-8 or 11. So as to limit noise.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

If the subject is stationary, focus stacking is very simple and can give great results.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

As has been explained already by one of the members, small lens apertures carry a penalty and that penalty is diffraction. Lenses perform better when closed about 3 stops from maximum aperture and that is a fact. Usually 3 stops closed from a prime does not offer necessarily the best depth of field with prime lenses and hence we go to small apertures. I work regularly with f16 and if diffraction shows I cannot actually see it. I seldom print beyond 13x19 and I am not a pixel peeper.
Crop sensors and large format appear to tolerate small apertures better than smaller sensors.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

John_F wrote:

There is a Shuttertalk conversation on Landscape Photography Tip: The Myth of f22. Theme seems to be extra DoF carries penalties. Experts chime in on this.

I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination but, this post got me to thinking and I believe my question will tie in nicely with your post.

Most of us know that small aperture diffraction as at lease one penalty. However, it's my understanding (which is very basic) that diffraction from say f22 would be less noticeable on a sensor with a lower pixel density, at least to some extent. For example: a FF 36mp vs. a 24mp crop sensor and all else being equal. Wouldn't diffraction at f22 have more of a negative effect on the crop sensor with the higher pixel density or isn't it at least more susceptible to diffraction?

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Most people use very wide angles for landscape.
At least that's what everybody here seems to always think is the holy grail of landscape.
With super wide angles one generally has completes DoF from close to the end of their nose to infinity at almost any f-stop, so I can never quite understand why there is always this diffraction scare!
I realize that some actually do landscape with a 600mm lens, but those folks are the exception, not the rule and they already know how to maximize their lens.
Just my two cents.
SS

joseph premanandan

to me hyperfocal distance seems rather subjective.i prefer focus stacking.you definitely need a tripod and you have to manually focus to different distances from foreground to infinity by rotating the focus ring and take multiple shots keeping the aperture constant between f8 to f16 without changing the ISO and the shutter speed and merge all the images in the photoshop and by doing that the foreground and the background will look very sharp,joseph

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

joseph premanandan wrote:

to me hyperfocal distance seems rather subjective.i prefer focus stacking.you definitely need a tripod and you have to manually focus to different distances from foreground to infinity by rotating the focus ring and take multiple shots keeping the aperture constant between f8 to f16 without changing the ISO and the shutter speed and merge all the images in the photoshop and by doing that the foreground and the background will look very sharp,joseph

Doesn't seem stacking would be of much use if there were any breeze moving plants around or moving water was in the picture, which would be a large percentage landscape shots.