Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

There is a discussion about diffraction on another thread. I did a test.

Canon 90D, 180mm Macro lens, aperture priority, ISO 100, King Oscar mackerel fillets in olive oil. Starting with the widest aperture, the insets are crops at 100%.

mack01 on Flickr f/3.5

mack02 on Flickr f/4.0

mack03 on Flickr f/4.5

mack04 on Flickr f/5.0

mack05 on Flickr f/5.6

mack06 on Flickr f/6.3

mack07 on Flickr f/7.1

mack08 on Flickr f/8.0

mack09 on Flickr f/9.0

mack10 on Flickr f/10

mack11 on Flickr f/11

mack12 on Flickr f/13

mack13 on Flickr f/14

mack14 on Flickr f/16

mack15 on Flickr f/18

mack16 on Flickr f/20

mack17 on Flickr f/22

mack18 on Flickr f/25

mack19 on Flickr f/29

mack20 on Flickr f/32

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Great DOF vs. aperture example.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

That confirms my tests shooting closeups. DOF is most important, and diffraction isn't really an issue. For all you diffraction-phobes - where is the terrible diffraction at f32?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Maybe for some it's "If it exists in the universe, it's worth worrying about.".

therwol Loc: USA

Diffraction does exist. There are many illustrations of this in postings on the Internet. DOF may trump diffraction when it is called for. If you pixel peep your photos at 100%, you may see the effect at the smaller apertures. You didn't store your original photos in your posting, so it's not possible for us to do that and draw any proper conclusion. In the end, it's probably not important the way most photos are displayed on a screen. You're just unlikely to see it.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I certainly don't look for it.

Oh, wait, I don't pixel peep.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I do pixel peep, and my tests shooting closeups don't show any effect from diffraction that a little sharpening won't fix.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

"You didn't store your original photos..."

Good grief. You must be kidding. It is a comparison, and pretty well done at that. It took me a couple of hours. It shows the effect of diffraction. I never claimed it implied that diffraction doesn't exist. No need to post the entire originals, I posted crops at 100% of the area around the focal point for each image.

therwol Loc: USA

I missed the fact that you posted 100% crop images, and I apologize. You didn't state a conclusion in your post, and I just don't see any worsening of the images in the thumbnails as the aperture becomes smaller. In fact, my conclusion is that the images improve as the depth of field increases. My conclusion based on your images is that diffraction doesn't matter much. That's where I was coming from. I do appreciate that this sort of testing is tedious and time consuming. I've done it myself.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Way too many photos. I think just shooting full F-stops would have been easier and more effective.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

This set of responses is a complete laugher. Look at the detail in the metal scratchings in the 100% insets. By f14 it is turning to mush and only gets worse from there. Clearly the deniers have no clue what to look for! No wonder they have not experienced it their own work.

Blenheim, thanks for putting this together.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

No problem!

Correct, I did not state a conclusion, because there isn't one. As is always the case with photography, and with life I guess, there are trade-offs.

Diffraction matters much more on a larger subject than on a smaller one. Let's take two photographs, one of a butterfly, one of a two story suburban house. Let's say that in each the subject more or less fills the frame. Let's say that diffraction causes a 3 pixel smear on the edges of the subject in each image. 3 pixels of blur on the edge of a butterfly wing may be acceptable, while 3 pixels of blur on the edge of a building may not be acceptable. Why? Because viewers know that a building is much bigger than a butterfly.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I simply did as CHG_CANON suggested we do.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-794209-1.html#14328513

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

People who believe that diffraction matters a lot think that my example proves their point, while people who do not believe that diffraction much matters think that my example proves their point.

Does diffraction matter? It depends.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

As you mentioned diffraction was and has been discussed here and in other forums before. In the most recent post I mentioned that British photographer Derek Forss, an Olympus Ambassador, uses f16 often in his beautiful photography. It is said not to use f16 with Micro Fourths Thirds because diffraction starts at f8. Does Mr. Forbes know what he is doing? I bet he does.

I have seen practically every video he has posted in YouTube and in many of his photographs, mostly landscapes, he has used f16. He sells many of his images in England and a majority of them go to publications there, like magazines. Ask him if he ever had a complaint from those publications about softness in his photographs. I also use Olympus cameras and although depth of field is not my primary concern when I shoot Micro Fourths Thirds, I have plenty of depth of field even at f5.6, using f16 is not an issue.

I am not saying diffraction is not there but there is nothing in the details that some added sharpness will not fix. I am not a pixel peeper either, the images by the OP could easily fit a 20x30 inch enlargement and still they show plenty of details without editing.
I never have had an issue either using film or my dSLR when I had to use f16, which I did often. With macro photography I have been many times at f22 to gain some more depth of field and again, diffractuion was not a problem.

As Bryan Peterson has said, "if you need f16 just go ahead and use it."