f22, there has been some discussion, i read about f22 can anyone who has some experience using , such a small aperture, give some help.? why f22? what will it give you? greater dof? sharpness? exposure? any help is welcome. thanks as always using d2x,d2hs
If you're in close on a subject, you're going to get an extremely shallow DOF. This is what f6.7 gets you {} If I'd wanted to get all his head and bill into focus, I would have stopped it down to f22, but this was also shot in lowlight, ISO400 and he moves quickly so sometimes you have to sacrifice something - if it's a moving target, sacrifice the DOF but DON'T sacrifice the speed otherwise you've lost the shot. F22 is excellent for tripod shots where you really want to grab the whole picture - ie non-moving targets. Anyone else want to add to the explanation?
You get maximum DOF, minimum sharpness of detail, reduced image contrast (from diffraction), and increased danger of camera or subject movement because the exposure time gets long. Plus you'll discover every speck of dust on your imager There are very few situations in which stopping down to f/22 or smaller can provide sufficient and added benefits to offset the inherent drawbacks.
bjorn, thanks what aperture do you recommend for landscape etc. i did some testing myself and f22 is just too slow thanks for all the help
Whichever aperture suits your DOF needs . I use any and all from f/1.2 to f/45 (the latter only with large-format view cameras, though). Maxmum sharpness with lenses on the D2X can be anywhere from f/1 to f/16, this depends on the lens. Beyond f/11-f/16, physics dictate that diffraction inevitably softens the image. Whether or not the softening is acceptable is up to the photographer to decide. Ask yourself rather the appropriate question: how much of the subject need to be in critically sharp focus. Act upon that assessment. If you think the shutter speed drops below the limit for hand-helding the camera, you could and should use a sturdy tripod.
What about in the context of macro lenses. I know many are made to go beyond f22. Does the same diffraction issue come into play with those or are they made differently to offset that effect?
Macro lenses diffract as well - it's a property of light going through small holes. Sometimes however the added depth of view is worth the loss of definition in macro shots.
what about shooting landscapes a golf course, the grand canyon, hoover dam? times square? trafalgar square? you get the idea!
All situational, Bjorn pretty much covered it all. How far away is your foreground? How far away is the background? What's the subject? How much are you trying to keep in focus? Do you have enough light to get away with handholding? Do you mind using a tripod? They're really only answers that the photographer can provide.
i think my examples are very clear foreground, background just depends on what you need or want subject lanscape, as much as possible everything obviously in focus light mostly daylight , of course at night or low light we understand the basics. my question was very specific and i think bjorn, gave me the answers, that we were looking for. f22, is useful only under very certain circumstances, not as a basic aperture setting. i did already understand that. i am referring to specific, info re you must use f22 when shooting, a landscape; as an example. thanks for everyones help, very informative who do we like for the womans british open?
Group f/64 (or f.64) Marc : The discussion on small aperture shots is not a new one. A group of prominent photographers in the nineteen-thirties set a trend through "Group f.64" (also referenced in some places as "Group f/64") with the idea that the crispest longest focal distance photographs carried a special place in photographic art. Photographers like the Westons, Swift, and Adams created a specific style of photography that echoes into today with great volume. Does small aperture photography require additional planning and care ? Without a doubt. Is it a worthwhile effort for a photographer to study ? Without a question. Do a search on Group f.64 and then study some of the referenced photographers and their work. It's not for everyone to practice each day, but it's a fascinating and evocative area for careful consideration nonetheless. Who knows ? We might get a revival of this style specially oriented to digital work. John P.
Re: Group f/64 (or f.64) hi john- the issue i have with digital and small apertures is dust. i used to shoot at f/16 and up with film when i wanted to maximize DOF, but i rarely venture beyond f/11 nowadays because i know i'll get dust spots. cloning them out is workable but definitely not fun. of course if you're good at cleaning your sensors and keeping them clean, it's not an issue. most people i know with digital slr's rarely clean them, myself included. ricky
Outside of macro work when you just absolutely need the DOF I can't think of any occasion when I've ever felt the need to shoot at f/22 or smaller. Regarding the f.64 Group, keep in mind they were shooting with large-format cameras that had considerably less DOF for a given FOV and also weren't as diffraction-limited. Fortunately as you move to smaller formats the DOF increases so you don't really need the smallest apertures (which become diffraction limited anyway). I've seen some calcuations show for APS-C that stoppding down past f/13 diffraction becomes an issue. Other formulas factor in pixel size and conclude that with the D2X it's more like f/8-f/11. I think as long as you use hyperfocal distance for focusing you can usually get plenty of DOF for landscapes without having to stop down past f/11-f/13 anyway though.
Re: Group f/64 (or f.64) Ricky : Actually, I was thinking a bit about other effects when I mentioned "specifically oriented to digital", but your comment on dust is also on the mark. I think there are likely several areas of concern before running along the path of the f.64 Group, not the least of which is that much of that photography was large format film, still outside of (most) digital camera capabilities. Actually, though, it's an interesting question to ponder on how adaptations could be made for, say, a D100. I'd have to think for some time about which lens in my kit would work well at high f/stops (smaller apertures) and maybe run some tests. Hmmmm... I might have to pick up another lens or two to make this work - at least, that's the excuse I can use ! All food for thought, I suppose. Now to find some free time. :lol: :roll: :lol: John P.
I haven't ventured further than f/16 with my D70 ever so far Well actually that is not true. I use f/22 only for test shots to locate dust before and after brushing the sensor
