Diffraction
Dec 13, 2023 18:47:37 #
jlg1000 wrote:
Diffraction happens at the edge of any discontinui... (show quote)
SO glad I just shoot pictures....
Dec 13, 2023 18:49:41 #
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Are you completely happy with your images?
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-790650-1.html
If you are happy, nothing else matters.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-790650-1.html
If you are happy, nothing else matters.
I am very happy, I shoot raw, so some contrast etc is needed as there is no in-camera treatment including sharpening. I don't sharpen for years now that I do raw and realize that it looks good.
Some people love to do a lot of pp and that is fine, if that is what they want to do. Others like to take a different path. Some do raw and some JPEGs. Again that is fine.
As to diffraction I am aware of it and generally avoid the smallest apertures. But if needed will use them.
Bottom line is that I have no rigid rules for taking photo. With digital I can experiment at no cost and see what I like.
So everyone go out and have lots of fun taking your photos and pp as much or little as you want. PS, then post in the gallery.
Dec 13, 2023 18:52:14 #
Architect1776 wrote:
I am very happy, I shoot raw, so some contrast etc... (show quote)
One of the most sensible posts to this thread.
Dec 13, 2023 18:55:16 #
jlg1000 wrote:
So to get the same aperture on a lens with less focal length, you need a smaller D to achieve the same /F number.
So lenses with shorter focal leghts tend to have more diffraction effects.
So lenses with shorter focal leghts tend to have more diffraction effects.
Yes, f stops are ratios, not absolute measurements. Therefore, f/16 represents a smaller aperture on a 50mm lens than f/16 does on a 500mm lens. That means a greater diffraction effect on the image with the 50mm lens.
Dec 13, 2023 18:57:16 #
Architect1776 wrote:
I am very happy, I shoot raw, so some contrast etc... (show quote)
I won't argue with any of that. If you are happy with the results nothing else matters.
How do you process your raw files?
Dec 13, 2023 19:01:37 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
The last time I didn't look at the pixel-level details of all my images was never.
Because it's what you like to do.
Dec 13, 2023 19:23:29 #
Architect1776 wrote:
I don't sharpen for years now that I do raw and realize that it looks good.
?
Dec 13, 2023 20:18:15 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Not at all. I hope it didn't seem that way. Diffraction can be an issue, as Paul says. It depends.
Dec 13, 2023 20:22:12 #
Blenheim Orange wrote:
I won't argue with any of that. If you are happy with the results nothing else matters.
How do you process your raw files?
How do you process your raw files?
With the PSE program.
Tweak shadow and highlight, add a bit of contrast as raw lacks contrast. Perhaps adjust exposure, but seldom.
Finally a slight clarity as raw lacks that.
I set sharpen to 0 and a touch of noise reduction if needed in plain skies, but generally none or very little.
All by eye and looking at the photo as a whole and never pixel peeping.
Then save as a max JPEG.
All very quick, as adjustments are only as needed to reproduce how I saw it.
No fake skies or other odd things like that.
Dec 13, 2023 20:25:10 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
DToole wrote:
The clearest inset (focal point) seems to be obvious at F8. Would it make a difference to the entire photo? Probably not.
It could make a hell of a difference in a heavily cropped image.
Dec 13, 2023 20:28:15 #
mwsilvers wrote:
It could make a hell of a difference in a heavily cropped image.
According to the cropping person's requirements, desires, and/or restrictions.
Maybe others not so much.
Dec 13, 2023 20:29:48 #
Longshadow wrote:
Because it's what you like to do.
Yes, he likes to intelligently analyze photos and to generously share his knowledge and experience with the rest of us.
Dec 13, 2023 20:33:32 #
Blenheim Orange wrote:
There is a discussion about diffraction on another thread. I did a test....
So I looked at your test and did a test.
Rather than do the whole array I got lazy and just did 4 examples. I took the insets for f/4, f/8, f/16, and f/22 and converted the image to a numeric array. I then took a slice going through the scratch on the brass and plotted the various samples.
You can see a lump in the middle representing the bright scratch. They occur in different spots because I just took screenshots to get the different samples and didn't get the locations all the same but at least that way they don't overlap so you can make out differences. I suspect you did something similar to locate the insets so I would not expect the locations to be down to the nearest pixel. The f/4, 8, and 16 scratches look pretty much the same width but the f/22 scratch appears wider. That indicates to me that there are noticeable differences in the diffraction but they don't present much difference until you get to f/22 or more. Pretty consistent with my other study mentioned above.
There is more than one of us who like to dig further into a problem than is warranted.
Dec 13, 2023 20:44:46 #
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Yes, he likes to intelligently analyze photos and to generously share his knowledge and experience with the rest of us.
Many people do.
And they believe their way is the correct way.
They can't understand why people don't worry about what they worry about,
or do it their way.
Dec 13, 2023 20:48:32 #
Longshadow wrote:
Many people do.
And they believe their way is the correct way.
They can't understand why people don't worry about what they worry about,
or do it their way.
And they believe their way is the correct way.
They can't understand why people don't worry about what they worry about,
or do it their way.
I don't believe my way is the ONLY correct way.
And I don't worry about these things. I just like to exercise my CDO (which is similar to OCD, but the letters are in alphabetical order AS THEY SHOULD BE)!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.