Yes it is affected by diffraction, but you need to take a look at Kev's work before making such a blanket statement. The talent and expertise of the photographer can outweigh the limitations of the equipment with a given process or technique.
There is no way around diffraction. I've seen his work, and I'm not critizising it. But you can use all the technique you want, your shot at f/11 will be sharper than the one at f/22 (assuming you're using a decent lens), particularly if you're using a DX body.
I'm not arguing that. What I am stipulating to is your assertion that his work is not sharp. Yes, given a proper loupe or microscope, or a sufficiently enlarged image, a subject shot at F/11 and F/22 will look different, both by way of DoF and because of diffraction. Physics satisfied.
What you fail to understand is the simple difference between instantaneous and blindingly fast. The objective here is "good enough".
I don't fail to understand anything. In fact, I mentioned the "good enough" aspect a few posts up. Read my posts before stating that I'm failing to understand something that is quite obvious.
I have read your posts. "sharp enough" normally would translate. The implication in the context of what you originally wrote (see above) was not that.
BTW, your comment was already embedded in the thread, so, Yes I have read it several times and given thought to it. I have also read the running debates you and Kevin have had over acuity and other topics, so I expected this would be yet another one in the making.
If someone pays me for the print or asks for a copy, why should I care about how it was executed - the inquirer certainly does not. They like it, and that's all that matters.
Your goals are obviously different...
I have been studying his technique and I have been able to reproduce the sharpness he gets at F/16 - F/22 knowing full well that CoC is larger than optimal.
Well, why shouldn't you be able to reproduce the sharpness he gets?
I've seen quite a few people on DPR that can't take a top of the line lens a get a decent image with it to save their life. 99% of all issues start behind the camera.
Since you are hung up on numbers, Kev used a 105mm Micro Nikkor, and so did I.
Your're quite aggressive, given you haven't even understood my main point. Which was: At these apertures, differences between lenses are becoming smaller and smaller. I was not saying Kev's work isn't sharp. What I did say is that it wasn't as sharp as it could be, with which you evidently agree. I've never stated that it was not sharp enough.
Here the clarification is much better than the original (see above). I do agree with the premise that imaging done that way is not as sharp as it could be. However, the fact that it is not, does not lessen the viability of the image and may in fact be a positive as to the intended goal of the photographer.
The other point I was trying to make in the early part of this thread was there are techniques that compensate for physics to the end game that it's good enough for the human eye.
My wife complains about HD movies as being too sharp, and animation done that way is - to her - unwatchable. Her complaint is not the only time I've heard it. There are a fair number of people that do not want, or like, razor sharp pictures. To them it takes away from the viewing experience.
IMO, there is a time and place for pushing the limit on resolution and much of what we image as photographers does not have to cut your finger when you look at it. This is not one of those times...
And actually, the fact that you're calling me a measurebator without even having seen my work bothers me tremendously. Not to mention that you're getting personal about it. Stop it.
You assume I did not see your work. I have seen what was has been made available. Some of it's very nice, but overall I don't find it compelling. I'm am sure it means a lot to you and that's fine. I'm not going to throw stones at it, as there are people who don't care for what I take pictures of either. But then photography is a very subjective pursuit, where one person's treasure and meaning are lost on another due to circumstances, interests and personal goals.
As to the "measurebater" comment. No, I did not call you a measurebater. If I thought you were, I would have said so. I said you were hung up on the numbers. Measurebaters treat gear and test results like a religion. There is a difference, and neither was a part of this side discussion. Now you are putting words in my mouth.
I Think we've beaten this horse enough - especially since we are far off topic from the OP.
