Diffraction (Page 2): The size of the sensor does not change the amount of diffraction. I.E. FF or crop.

Joexx

TriX wrote:

Cambridge in Color has a tool to allow you to view... (show quote)

The size of the sensor does not change the amount of diffraction. I.E. FF or crop.

User ID

TriX wrote:

Cambridge in Color has a tool to allow you to view... (show quote)

True ! Diffraction is more visibly evident on a test target than in complex scenes.

And so what does that clearly say about the effect of diffraction in our real world photography ? EZPZ. Just ask Captain O.

(Download)

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

CO wrote:

I did my own diffraction test once. I got a circuit board from a computer repair shop. I thought the circuit board would be good for this test because there's a lot of detail. My camera was on a tripod and I took photos at f/11, f/29, and f/36. I created a triptych of the three photos in Photoshop. The upper photo is f/11, the middle photo is f/29, and the bottom photo is f/36. You can see how the image quality is getting softer.

Thanks for spoon-feeding us this great practical show and tell!
Smile,
JimmyT Sends
Bravo Zulu

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Joexx wrote:

The size of the sensor does not change the amount of diffraction. I.E. FF or crop.

Yes it does - not directly but indirectly because of the smaller lenses and therefore smaller absolute f-stop sizes used for equivalent FOV.
.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Urnst wrote:

We have all heard that small lens apertures cause diffraction, which degrades images. What does that really mean in practice? How much difference does it really make?

In 4/3rds photography, it occurs before where it occurs with full frame. This is why most of us 4/3rds shooters do not shoot past f11. It usually starts to be noticeable at f11. One of the hazards of shooting 4/3rds. Luckily, most 4/3rds lenses are the sharpest wide open and bodies now have built-in ND "filters". Yes, in 4/3rds photography, diffraction is real and shows up in practice if one is not careful.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

flyboy61 wrote:

It is the Physics of light...but in the real world, makes no practical difference, except for endless, useless discussions.

Well, it DOES make a difference ......a small difference. Does it MATTER for YOU ?? Maybe, maybe not. It is controllable. I would say for most of us here on UHH, it DOES matter.
If I am paying big bucks for a lens, I like to think I am getting my money's worth ....
.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Joexx wrote:

The size of the sensor does not change the amount of diffraction. I.E. FF or crop.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. I suggest taking a look at the Cambridge in Color calculator here: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

And for a more theoretical discussion including definitions of the Airy disc, see the section under diffraction limited imaging in Wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

User ID wrote:

True ! Diffraction is more visibly evident on a test target than in complex scenes.

And so what does that clearly say about the effect of diffraction in our real world photography ? EZPZ. Just ask Captain O.

Depends on the nature of the scene (and the interest of the photographer in acuity) as to whether it’s noticeable in real world photography. Test targets are handy because when performing a test, they allow you to quantify changes in perceived resolution in an objective manner, but they’re not necessary to see the effects of diffraction as the images of the circuit boards posted above shows.

wireloose

Any thoughts on sharpening algorithms vs diffraction? Depth of field benefits of f22 are clear, but it’s a genuine issue for high megapixel sensors. Has anyone looked at Topaz Sharpen AI or even the tools in lightroom to see how well they address diffraction issues? Thinking that might be an easier fix for the software than missed focus or vibration.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

wireloose wrote:

Any thoughts on sharpening algorithms vs diffraction? Depth of field benefits of f22 are clear, but it’s a genuine issue for high megapixel sensors. Has anyone looked at Topaz Sharpen AI or even the tools in lightroom to see how well they address diffraction issues? Thinking that might be an easier fix for the software than missed focus or vibration.

As suggested above, again, test your specific digital equipment and all your assumptions.

Do you really get any more details in the background past a certain point of smaller apertures, such as an assumed f/22? Or, do you really just get a softer image? Let your images and your eyes looking at a 1:1 pixel-level details be the judge, not internet rumors and film-based best practices from the 70s.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

imagemeister wrote:

Well, it DOES make a difference ......a small difference. Does it MATTER for YOU ?? Maybe, maybe not. It is controllable. I would say for most of us here on UHH, it DOES matter.
If I am paying big bucks for a lens, I like to think I am getting my money's worth ....
.

👍👍 Exactly.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

For me, diffraction is line that I try not to cross for the higher the magnification of my sessions, the more that the "effective aperture" impacts the sharpness of my images. The reason that this occurs is based upon the laws of physics (not just a good idea, but the law); in short, as the aperture gets smaller and smaller, light waves spread out and interfere with one another increasingly more. I equate this to the nozzle on the garden hose where when closed down the water sprays rather than flowing in a stream when opened. This causes small details of your photographs to blur as the scattered rays of light strike the photosites on the sensor.

Diffraction is far less noticeable in many types of photography and, at times, some amount of softness is artistically desirable but not when I want the tip of a hair of a spider to be razor sharp.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

TriX wrote:

Sorry, but you are mistaken. I suggest taking a look at the Cambridge in Color calculator here: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

And for a more theoretical discussion including definitions of the Airy disc, see the section under diffraction limited imaging in Wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction

Both your statements are true. The lens has no knowledge of the sensor size thus diffraction is dependent on the f number but not sensor size.

The amount of acceptable diffraction will depend on the sensor size and the degree of enlargement (enlargement magnification).

For a 8x10in camera f32, f64, f90 would not be so uncommon apertures to use.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

camerapapi wrote:

"It is the Physics of light...but in the real world, makes no practical difference, except for endless, useless discussions."

I couldn't agree more. When I need f16, I seldom shoot at f22, even with my Olympus cameras I do not hesitate using small apertures. Never an issue as far as I know.

Diffraction is the least of my concerns.
Most could care less in real world use and real world viewing.
Only pixel peepers and those who look at 24x36 with their nose touching it worry.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

TriX wrote:

Here’s the practical difference from a real lens t... (show quote)

On Micro 4/3, I find f/5.6 to be my preferred boundary and f/6.3 is where I weigh the cost of diffraction. All my f/2.8 lenses are best from f/3.2 to f/6.3.