This guy obviously NOT Afraid of Diffraction- D800 @ f13-22

Started May 14, 2012 | Discussions thread
Forum ProPosts: 27,838
Re: Odd though
In reply to marike6, May 14, 2012

marike6 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

many of those pictures don't need f/11 or smaller. Fact is, the D800 will produce very slightly sharper pictures at those f-numbers than camera with fewer megapixels, but if you are working at very deep DOF's it has less advantage over others than at shallow DOF. Speaking for my own tastes only, I'm not a great fan of the deep DOF look.

It's not really a deep DOF "look" when you're talking about lanscape images.

It is exactly a deep DOF look. There is no rule saying you have to shoot landscapes with deep DOF.

How do you think Group f64 (Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, et al) got their name?

by using f/64 on full plate cameras, which is equivalent to about f/10 on a full frame camera. Not such a big DOF at all, though more than I like for taste.

Such images require a lot of DOF to get sharp front to back focus. That's just the way it is.

Do your calculations. f/5.6 on 24mm gives you DOF from 2m to infinity - how many landscapes really need more DOF than that, even if you want it sharp from foreground to infinity, which I rarely do.

Landscape images, particularly compositions that have something in the foreground like rocks, plant-life, etc. require small apertures.

If you really want to take images like that, with something in the foreground, and everything in sharp focus. I don't like that, personally, I like a bit of differential focus in an image.

It's the same thing with macro photography. At very close distances, f8 is not going to cut it if you want the whole subject in focus. It's about trade-offs, about what sharp enough and in focus enough.

Macro photography is a different ball game to landscapes. There you rarely get enough DOF and often need techniques like focus stacking if you want things really sharp.

Really, I don't know what you are trying to say here. If you like really deep DOF then that is up to you. It always comes at the cost of diffraction blurring, there is no way round that. It's just I see plenty of shots where the photographer has used a much smaller aperture than was needed to get the whole shot sharp, and has thus compromised sharpness unnecessarily. I also don't know why people who use very small apertures all the time need high res cameras, but again that is just me. their privilege to buy what they want, whether or not they get the most from it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow