[Amoon]

Now I have a better understanding on this matter!
Thank you guys! I really appreciate your help

[Pioneer]

I really have to chuckle over this rule. To me f22 is just like wide open. Neither will give you the ultimate sharpness, but if it gets you the photograph you need, no one needs to know. There are so many variables in what constitutes a great photograph that I have no intention of being limited to the techniques and settings available to me. It is the photograph that dictates, not some fellow on the internet.

Maybe we should start a post that allows only photographs that were created at f22. Of course I am pretty sure I have a couple of 35mm Pentax lenses with apertures that go to f32 and perhaps above that. I know I have some that start at f5.6 wide open so that makes life pretty limited if I stop at f16.

We can call it the F22 Club, just like the F64 Club that Ansel Adams belonged to.

[mikeSF]

they probably also told you never to use less than 1/125th sec shutter when shooting handheld, etc...
There is no "rule" on aperture use besides use what is necessary to get the depth of field you desire. Diffraction is not the end of the world in an image. Out of focus subject elements(due to insufficient DOF), however, can really kill an otherwise nice shot.

[Pioneer]

Good exercise. Set your ISO to 1600, set the mode dial to AV, set the aperture to f22, and go take pictures that way for a week.

Upload them and see what you think. Don't do a thing but sharpen two of the best of them and set them for printing at 300 ppi on 12x18 paper with 1/2 inch borders. Go to Walmart, or wherever, and have them print two of your best ones for the week at 12x18. This will cost a total of $25 for both prints. Take them home, tape or tack them to your wall, and see if you can tell that they are diffraction limited.

Don't worry about how good the photograph is. You aren't trying to sell them. Only you, your spouse and kids, maybe a few friends will ever see them.

Next month, open your aperture wide open, whatever that is. Maybe f2, f2.4, f2.8...whatever. Set your ISO to 100 or 200 and go out for a week and take pictures that way. Do the same as you did before, Upload, pick two of the best, sharpen, size for print at 300ppi on 12x18 paper and have Walmart print them. Take the first two down and put up your next two.

Finally, at the start of the third month, set your aperture at f5.6, leave your ISO where it is, and go make photographs for a week. Repeat the process with Walmart and replace your wide open prints with those taken at a point which is likely at or very close to your lenses sweet spot. Now, look at those until the end of the 3rd month.

At this point you will have had fun shooting your camera and learning how your lens behaves at various apertures. You are about $70 poorer and have used about three weeks of your time focusing on a project. But best of all, you should be able to tell yourself which YOU prefer. Wide open, closed tight, or somewhere in the middle.

This process can be used for lots of things. Working with hyperfocal distances, composition techniques, and so on. By doing this you are teaching yourself and becoming more aware of what your own likes and dislikes are. You are beginning to understand YOUR style, not Kirk Tuck's style. And that is far more valuable for you than anything Kirk will ever tell you.

[zapp]

Hello guys. I was reading the book called Minimalist Lighting - Professional Techinques for Studio Photography by Kirk Tuck, and I've found that it's not recommended to go beyond f/16 on an APS-C body because of diffraction effects. I didn't know that. I've also done a search on Google and found a confirmation of this here: Diffraction and Optimum Aperture - Format size and diffraction limitations on sharpness
In the examples, f/16 is the sharpest and confirms what Mr. Tuck says in the book:

Once you’ve got
your composition figured out, the next step is to figure out
how much depth of field you’ll need to achieve sharp focus
where you want it and soft focus where you want it. A product
shot of a computer system for a catalog might demand
sharpness from the front of the keyboard to the back of the
casing, which may require an aperture of f/11 or f/16.
(Note, however, that too small of an aperture on a small-format
camera may actually cause your images to become less sharp
because of the effects of diffraction.
This is why the use of f/16 or smaller is not recommended for
APS-sized digital cameras.)

So, if I were to do a product photoshoot or any other kind of shoot situation, should I stick to f/16 as my aperture limit?

I'd like to know your experiences on this matter please. Thank you very much in advance!!!

Refraction kicks in then pixel pitch in microns is equal to apeture number. How much it kicks in and what benefit you may get from large f-stop numbers in DOF is upon you to judge. There used to be an f/64 club in film days when f/64 was already heavily hit by diffraction. How fr you can stop down is one question, how to judge a lens with a maximum f-stop close to the pixel pitch is something else. The 5.6/560 mm should perform best wide open to avoid any diffraction issues.
Think about physics but keep playing.

[WPRESTO]

And a curious thing. In theory, diffraction effects should be dictated by the diameter of the opening through which light passes, the smaller the opening, the greater the diffraction effect. But, some lenses seem to do better controlling or compensating for diffraction that other lenses of equivalent FL. I was reminded of this by a recent test of the new Irix 15mm FF lens which had far less diffraction-caused image degradation at f22 that an equivalent FL Nikon lens, in fact, the Irix image at f22 was almost indistinguishable (excepting DOF) from images with the same lens at F8~11. I cannot call to mind additional examples, but in reading numerous reviews there have been other lenses that seem to have little or no diffraction effect at f16-22.

And I do remember the "f64 Club," but I never owned a lens with an aperture smaller that f32. Apertures of f45 and f64 were mostly the realm of view-camera optics, especially those known as "process lenses," for example the Goerz Artar and Dagor.

[K David]

This is why the use of f/16 or smaller is not recommended for APS-sized digital cameras.)

On high-MP APS-C cameras, that can be f/11. Also, aperture is measure of size as a factor of a ratio to focal length, so longer FL lenses have less diffraction at f/16 than shorter because the aperture size at f/16 is larger. (And no, longer FL lenses do not necessarily have the same diffraction due to the longer FL. Diffraction begins at the aperture so a longer FL lens [such as some zooms] with the aperture closer to the back of the lens than a typical telephoto will experience less diffraction than an equivalent FL prime lens.) Added to the complexity of that rule, which is a good rule but not written in stone by God, is the focal length, distance of the aperture to the focal plane (especially in relationship to FL), as well as the aperture at which the lens is optimized (for most lenses, this is three-ish stops away from fully open.) I've used up to f/32 on my K-3 without the photo being ruined by diffraction.

TL;DR: Stay under f/16 for most cases and you'll be fine.

[clackers]

I've read a few of Kirk Tuck's books and I read his blog, lots to learn from a long experienced commercial photographer. Lately, he's been writing about the benefits of 1" sensor cameras like the Sony RX10 series and the Panasonic FZ1000 for commercial use. One of the benefits of small sensors is great depth of field. Combine that with a well lit product setup and low ISO and it's a good working solution. Conversely, its not possible to match the isolating shallow DoF available with a larger sensor.

That said, if you need f22 with a K3II, use it. There are many more important variables to a good image than concern about the diffraction difference between f16 and f22.

Certainly wouldn't go f16 on a 1" sensor without expecting diffraction effects!

[normhead]

Certainly wouldn't go f16 on a 1" sensor without expecting diffraction effects!

But think what your DOF would be. You'd have your nose focus at the front and the moon in focus in the back ground. For the equivalent DoF is about ƒ8 on a 1 inch sensor, should be about the same as ƒ 16 on FF, and ƒ8 will not be a diffraction problem. You just have to keep things equal.

[WPRESTO]

You'd have your nose focus at the front and the moon in focus in the back ground.

Now there's a thought for a challenging composition.

Certainly wouldn't go f16 on a 1" sensor without expecting diffraction effects!

Panasonic FZ1000 lenses range from 2.8 to 4.0 and Sony RX10 series are 2.8, so no worries about f16. Leaf shutters too, lots of choice with sync speeds.

[MikeD]

I've often posted that ƒ16 is the limit for functional APS-c images as opposed to ƒ22 on a full frame. (Knowledge from years of testing, taking the same image at multiple exposures and selecting the one I liked best.) However those two are the same DoF so you aren't losing anything. You can use f-22 for ƒ16 on your FA 50 when calculating DoF on the on lens DoF scale.

There used to be that rule "ƒ8 and be there". On APS_c that should be "ƒ5.6 and be there." Which works out really well for APS-c shooters, because diffraction starts to affect images at ƒ8 on both APS-c and 36x24, meaning, you'll get slightly better sharpness using an APS-c camera at ƒ5.6 then using a 36x24 sensor at ƒ8, although the superior resolving power of the larger pixels will even that out. (We're discussing the same number of mega-pixels on both cameras.)

So for APS_c my rule is "ƒ5.6 whenever possible" and single step up from there until I have what I want, keeping in mind, every stop after ƒ5.6 gets a little bit softer, and often, so does every step to a wider aperture as well as well.

But let's not go so far as to say ƒ22 images are completely without merit. ( I hate these freakin know it alls. I completely fail to understand why some freak can sit in has living room watching the ball game, have a random thought, and then post it on the internet as if it has some kind of meaning. That's what it seems to me, many of them do.) ) On some occasions, ƒ-22 produces the best image, even though maybe not razor sharp. Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. ( or to be more polite, images do not need to be razor sharp, to be good images. The sharpness needed by an image is dependant on a number of variable circumstances.)
Norm













Out of 20,000 keepers on my hard drive, about 40 are shot at ƒ22, and every one of those was selected over images that were shot at theoretically "better" apertures.

Pause for thought here, if I hadn't taken the time to shoot at ƒ22, I would have missed out on what in the end, was the best image.

I simply don't take images just at ƒ22. My expanded sequence is 2.8 or 4 (not all my lenses open to 2.8) , 5.6 , 11, 16 or 22. My usual sequence is 2.8 or 4, 5.6 , 8 or 11. I have no doubt I'd have more ƒ22 keepers if I used my expanded sequence more. Honestly, if you think ƒ22 might work, give it a go... these book writing dudes don't know everything.

Note:.. all these images look good large, and pixel peeping , don't even try and do the "well they look good at web size" thing.

Thanks for posting, it's an interesting topic.

Norm
I share your feelings completely and agree with every point you made. Thank you for one of (if not the best) posts I have ever read on PF. I am curious about your sequences why you skip F8 in your expanded sequence and how you determine which you use.

Mike

---------- Post added 09-16-2016 at 12:52 AM ----------

I've often posted that ƒ16 is the limit for functional APS-c images as opposed to ƒ22 on a full frame. (Knowledge from years of testing, taking the same image at multiple exposures and selecting the one I liked best.) However those two are the same DoF so you aren't losing anything. You can use f-22 for ƒ16 on your FA 50 when calculating DoF on the on lens DoF scale.

There used to be that rule "ƒ8 and be there". On APS_c that should be "ƒ5.6 and be there." Which works out really well for APS-c shooters, because diffraction starts to affect images at ƒ8 on both APS-c and 36x24, meaning, you'll get slightly better sharpness using an APS-c camera at ƒ5.6 then using a 36x24 sensor at ƒ8, although the superior resolving power of the larger pixels will even that out. (We're discussing the same number of mega-pixels on both cameras.)

So for APS_c my rule is "ƒ5.6 whenever possible" and single step up from there until I have what I want, keeping in mind, every stop after ƒ5.6 gets a little bit softer, and often, so does every step to a wider aperture as well as well.

But let's not go so far as to say ƒ22 images are completely without merit. ( I hate these freakin know it alls. I completely fail to understand why some freak can sit in has living room watching the ball game, have a random thought, and then post it on the internet as if it has some kind of meaning. That's what it seems to me, many of them do.) ) On some occasions, ƒ-22 produces the best image, even though maybe not razor sharp. Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. ( or to be more polite, images do not need to be razor sharp, to be good images. The sharpness needed by an image is dependant on a number of variable circumstances.)











Out of 20,000 keepers on my hard drive, about 40 are shot at ƒ22, and every one of those was selected over images that were shot at theoretically "better" apertures.

Pause for thought here, if I hadn't taken the time to shoot at ƒ22, I would have missed out on what in the end, was the best image.

I simply don't take images just at ƒ22. My expanded sequence is 2.8 or 4 (not all my lenses open to 2.8) , 5.6 , 11, 16 or 22. My usual sequence is 2.8 or 4, 5.6 , 8 or 11. I have no doubt I'd have more ƒ22 keepers if I used my expanded sequence more. Honestly, if you think ƒ22 might work, give it a go... these book writing dudes don't know everything.

Note:.. all these images look good large, and pixel peeping , don't even try and do the "well they look good at web size" thing.

Thanks for posting, it's an interesting topic.

Norm
another question - your feelings on diffraction at f32 for macro work. Do you feel diffraction is a result of small aperture
and distance where being very close to the subject minimizes or eliminates diffraction.

[clackers]

Panasonic FZ1000 lenses range from 2.8 to 4.0 and Sony RX10 series are 2.8, so no worries about f16. Leaf shutters too, lots of choice with sync speeds.

I'm not sure you understand the issue, here, Brooke.

It's not the wide end that's the problem for diffraction- it's the opposite.

For those worried by diffraction, for a 1" sensor, f8 is the limit while f11, f16, etc are a problem.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

I'm not sure you understand the issue, here, Brooke.

It's not the wide end that's the problem for diffraction- it's the opposite.

For those worried by diffraction, for a 1" sensor, f8 is the limit while f11, f16, etc are a problem.

Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

I do but mea culpa, I was still really wrong, completely misread the lens specs on those cameras. And it never occurred to me that anyone could or would stop down one of those that far.

But this thread got me to rooting around in the archives so here are f16, f22 and f32 from a K5IIs and Tamron 28-75. All I was trying to do was make the background go black on a bright sunny day with a camera in one hand and a flash in the other. Diffraction worries were not on my radar, just stopped down as far as it would go. Zooming way in on these, I'd have no technical concerns about a large print.

[BigMackCam]

^^^ Thanks for posting these. That's all the evidence anyone needs to prove that diffraction needn't stop us from using smaller apertures (in the same way that we can accept a bit of softness wide open in return for the shallowest DOF).