Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

My images here are focus bracketed and stacked, take with a macro lens and they are extreme closeups. When I get a bright calm day I will do a landscape test with a shorter lens.

On this thread I ran though all of the apertures:

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-794383-1.html

Boris77

Illogical.
Boris

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

How so?

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Many of you know Bryan Peterson is an advocate of f22. He is routinely criticized for it. I take his advice.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Bryan Peterson:

It's like this...if you went to a publisher to write a short story, you might deliver a four-page manuscript. Compare this to f/4. On the other hand, if you want to get more in-depth and detailed, you might need to write a 22-page manuscript. This would be like f/22. Relating apertures to writing a story, clearly you can say a whole lot more about characters and cover more ground. In the same way, an aperture of f/22 allows you to get a lot more details into the picture.

On the other hand, if all you want to do is focus on Joe Blow, the taxi driver sitting at the bar, you might only need four pages or f/4 with its shallow depth of field. Neither option is necessarily more correct than the other. There are times when you want to focus on a single character and there are times when your goal is to put the character within the confines of his environment.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Blenheim wrote: "There definitely is a difference. Whether or not that difference matters to the photographer or to the viewer is another thing."

Diffraction is there, we all know that but as has been mentioned, is it important or not for the photographer? Like the other gentleman in this thread I also added sharpening to the f32 image and it did very well for my eyes. Diffraction is there but nothing in the details that could not be improved with added sharpness. Derek Forss is an Olympus Ambassador from England, I believe I mentioned him in the original post about diffraction and he shoots with his M43 camera at f16 often. I have not been able to see any degradation of his images when he shot at that aperture.

In these examples we are looking at crops enlarged to 100% and we do not do that often or we will end with a mural, that will not be viewed at closed range anyway. I am usually at f8 with my Olympus cameras, where it is been said diffractions starts and I am perfectly happy with my images.
I agree with Bryan Peterson, if you have to use f22 just go ahead and do it.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

It's not just a matter of how important diffraction is to the photographer, it's a matter of which is more important - getting as much DOF as he needs versus diffraction, which can be improved with sharpening. Not enough DOF isn't fixable.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Sharpening cannot recreate lost details. That may or may not be important, depending upon the photographer's goals and the conditions.

SonyA580 Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer

f/32 with "Unsharp Mask added in PS

(Download)

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

What a terrible (and inaccurate ) metaphor. It’s so much simpler than this.

IF and only if your composition requires a large DOF, a larger aperture will result in a shallower DOF and outside that range of acceptable sharpness, the image will become more and more soft (or blurred or … pick your adjective), but the entire image will also be sharper because of the lower diffraction and vice-versa with a smaller aperture. The net-net is you’re balancing the sharpness of a large DOF against the softness caused by diffraction - just like every compromise we make in photography.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Yes, the metaphor was terrible and inaccurate. Another poster said "Bryan Peterson is an advocate of f22" (which is not exactly true, either) so I searched for "Bryan Peterson f/22" to see what he had to say, letting readers be the judge of the value of his opinion. I didn't find it valuable, to say the least.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Thanks. As you can see, the details on the edge of the can are still smeared. First image f/8, second image f/32 with unsharp mask applied.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

... said the man who required a crop of a crop to make his point.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

But a crop of a crop is still just a crop. A different crop, to be sure, but still cropping doesn't affect the resolution.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I'm not trying to make a point.