finalimage Loc: Brattleboro, VT

Ever since I began taking pictures and began to learn about f/stops vs depth of field I have had it in my brain that smaller was better. I think of the 1/64th group of notable photographers on the west coast back around the turn of the 20th century. Anyway, fast forward to today and digital and I have been led to believe that the correct f/stop is f/9 or f/11. I went shooting with an accomplished photographer yesterday and learned that he and a group of professionals that he shoots with all use F/16 or f/22. So I ask this seasoned group, who is right? And why? My gut tells me that smaller is better-but maybe I just have indigestion.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Correct f/stop for what type of shooting?

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Let is put apertures in proper perspective. The "f/64" group photographers were using 8x10 film cameras (80-sq.in. format), so their print enlargements were not exceeding the resolution of their media. A 20x30 print is 3x enlargement.

A modern APS-C sensor is approximately 24-mm x 16-mm = .94-inch x .63-inch = .59-sq.in. format = 0.74% of 8x10 format. An 8x10 print is a 10x enlargement; a 20x30 print is a 30x enlargement. Viewing on a large screen monitor, or projecting to a wall screen, is even more enlargement. Circular aperture diffraction will greatly influence enlargements of this magnitude.

Each lens has a "sweet spot" where maximum resolution is obtainable, usually two full spots above wide open.

Read more here:
FAQ: Why are my Digital Images Sharper at f/11 than f/22?
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-59819-1.html

PhotoMan1929 Loc: Virginia, USA

I appreciate your dilemma, but your question does not have a definitive answer.

Successful photography is a matter of options and choices. The wise photographer tries to maintain a balance in all things. Thus, we might establish a very loose "rule of thumb." - do not use an aperture that is too wide or too small.

Referring to DSLRs.most lenses do not perform at their best at their widest aperture. On the other hand, small apertures can be affected by diffraction, which lessens sharpness.

Where possible, I use medium apertures, 5.6, 8, 11, but if I wish to isolate the subject by using shallow Depth of Field, I will not hesitate to use the widest aperture available. On the other hand, if I want maximum Depth of Field, I will use a smaller aperture and accept the resultant diffraction.

In dealing with compact type P & S cameras, they are diffraction limited at apertures starting at f/3.5 or 4, so it is best to use these cameras at their widest apertures at all times.

There is no definitive answer to your question, but experience will make things clearer. Remember "options and choices" and try to keep a balance.

finalimage Loc: Brattleboro, VT

Good question-I do mostly landscapes where my hope is to get as much in sharp focus as possible.

finalimage Loc: Brattleboro, VT

Thanks for a thoughtful answer. I have gone to the links and they are helpful.

MtnMan Loc: ID

f/16 will do that for you. Some lenses degrade image quality rapidly above that.

Vetteran Loc: Yorkshire. So big it has to be split.

Echo what has been said. Lenses do not perform best at their limits.
You might not want depth of field so stop down.
DOF will also depend upon the focal length.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

I think of the 1/64th group of notable photographers

There was a group called the f.64 club (UK) who used 5 x 4 or larger format cameras. The lenses for these cameras usually had f64 marked aperture settings, and the lenses were computed (designed) to avoid problems usng such small apertures.

Jackaroo Loc: Canberra Australia

Sorry Nikonian but I think you need to check your math.

By me an 8x10 with a apc sensor is more like an enlargement of 135 times and the 20x30 again around 1010 times.

This is if my general math still works of course and there are not any special formula that needs to be applied.

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

Nope, Nikonian is right on!

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

The f/stop you use depends on many different things. I recommend "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson.

DaveHam Loc: Reading UK

If you are photographing landscape then depending on conditions (sunlight, wind movement of foliage or the surface of water etc.) then a narrow aperture with a correspondingly long exposure would be a good starting point. On a sunny day f16 is suggested by many as a base line. If I can I usually take several exposures at different f stops bracketed around what I think will work best. I find in many circumstances that f22 provides the sort of depth of field I'm looking for with long shots.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Technically all lenses have an optimum opening at which they perform at there best. With 35mm format type lenses this setting will be approximately 3 F stops down from the maximum opening of the lens. For most lenses of this type F8 is the "sweet" spot. When you start going past this "sweet" spot you start having to deal with diffraction and degradation of the image. Yes you can have better depth of field but at a certain point the quality of your images will degrade. One thing that you have to consider is that everybody is an expert and some people just dont know what they are talking about. When you look for guidance make sure that the people you are dealing with know what they are doing. There are good books on the subject and some reading will certainly make you the expert that you are looking for.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

The f.64 group (they used f.64 not f/64 was organized to give a type opf photography that was not the pictorlist (sp) venue that was being used by most photographers of the time. The pictures of the time were made slightly fuzzy so they were more like paintings. I have a 1932 photo yearbook that had what they juged to be the best pictures of that year -85% are soft focus or out of focus. The f.64 was to indicate they were sharp and in focus. In practice they did use larger f/stops. Probable they organized to sell their new sharp pictures in an art show. All their prints were $10 except Westons that were $15. This was in the eaarly 1930's. - Dave