[biz-engineer]

For landscape photographs, and according to calculations based on human visual acuity, depth of field and aperture diffraction, it is not possible to exceed print size 20" x 30" with truly 300 ppi of resolution without increasing the depth of field by means of the scheimpflug principle [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheimpflug_principle], also known as "camera movements". Stitching multiple frames from a small sensor wouldn't work because the lens aperture has to be stopped down to increase the depth of field when using a longer focal length on the smaller camera. The only way to beat diffraction beyond ~30 - 40Mpixels, if to use a tilt lens or a camera system that allows camera movements, which is neither the case of the 645z, GFX50, X1D and even Phase One, unless using something like Cambo Actus to tilt lens axis relative to sensor plane of focus.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 04-22-2020 at 03:52 AM.

For landscape photographs, and according to calculations based on human visual acuity, depth of field and aperture diffraction, it is not possible to exceed print size 20" x 30" with truly 300 ppi of resolution without increasing the depth of field by means of the scheimpflug principle [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheimpflug_principle], also known as "camera movements". Stitching multiple frames from a small sensor wouldn't work because the lens aperture has to be stopped down to increase the depth of field when using a longer focal length on the smaller camera. The only way to beat diffraction beyond ~30 - 40Mpixels, if to use a tilt lens or a camera system that allows camera movements, which is neither the case of the 645z, GFX50, X1D and even Phase One, unless using something like Cambo Actus to tilt lens axis relative to sensor plane of focus.

Where is the fun? Ok, there are some people who make a living with their camera. Most of us do it for fun. But these kind of posts take the fun out of taking a picture. I do not want to be confronted by scientific bla bla. If I take a picture and I am satisfied with it, well that is the main objective, not if it complies with any scientific principle. I almost feel guilty taking a landscape and be satisfied with it. I sometimes get the feeling that since we use DSLR it has to be perfect in every way, we have become pixel peepers, everybody has something to say about CA or any other hardly visible abberation with reviewers running in front of us. I never read these kind of things when we were taking pictures with a film camera. Yes there were reviews about a new camera and there were hardly any criticisms about the working of the camera, all brands were kind of perfect (except camera's made in Russia (Zenit)) . Sometimes there were reviews about films and Fuji colourfilm prints complied with the green colour of the box. That was a harsh criticism at that time, or that some films were to grainy. But nowadays almost everybody is "testing" and find the same results as most reviewers. When I buy a new camera or lens I just try them out, or start fiddling with my newly acquired possession. But that is having some fun with something new and enjoying what you have got.

[swanlefitte]

For landscape photographs, and according to calculations based on human visual acuity, depth of field and aperture diffraction, it is not possible to exceed print size 20" x 30" with truly 300 ppi of resolution without increasing the depth of field

There may be something to that but
Landscape needs more definition. There is a huge range of dof.
A brick wall. A poppy field. Most landscapes can't have everything in focus. Where is your limits? Getting to hyperfocal with field of view of 47 degrees (50mm) on 35mm film with f2.8 means a landscape with nothing closer than 30 meters. I don't see how diffraction enters in with this senario or the brick wall.

[Sandy Hancock]

Why can't pictures just be beautiful?
Over-analysis is the death of art.

[MJKoski]

Resolution over 36MP is plain dud idea for Bayer sensor FF camera. There are no real detail gains to be had when stopping down lenses for typical landscape apertures of f/8 and smaller.

[baro-nite]

Scheimpflug doesn't increase depth of field, it tilts the plane of sharpest focus (while reshaping the zone of good-enough-focus to shallower on the close end, deeper on the far end).

Massive prints don't need "true" 300dpi resolution. Does any size print?

Landscape photographs don't need sharpness throughout. Some years ago I got into focus stacking for extreme macro. I also tried it on ordinary landscapes a few times. I discovered that, for me, it just looks wrong (artificial) on such images; rather than conveying a sense of greater depth, it does the opposite. Similarly, when I first got into camera/lens movements I thought it was all about maximizing focus. Eventually I discovered (again, for me) that perspective control is the more important benefit.

[MJKoski]

Landscape scenes with certain strong eye-catching objects do not always need maximum sharpness all over. But on the other hand, scenes which have strong leading lines from near to far out distance, do benefit greatly from properly done focus stacking and allow looking at the print at very close distances (where pixel shift helps a great deal).

I would say that failed focus stacks, where for example objects near camera are sharp but objects at 10 meter distance are blurred and infinity is sharp, are the worst case scenarios. Or focus stacks where there are spots of blur at unexpected places. It requires extreme care to make it work.

---

Last edited by MJKoski; 04-22-2020 at 06:23 AM. Reason: Failure to do stacking properly

[BigMackCam]

Diffraction is my enemy

With respect, it's not diffraction that's your enemy, but rather your expectations You've come up against an optical limitation that most people won't encounter, or won't care about if they do.

Matti mentioned focus stacking, and that's certainly an option if the use case allows. Otherwise, just focus at a distance where the most important elements in your scene are in perfect or reasonable focus.

No-one viewing your photo will care that some elements of your 20"x30" photo are out-resolved by the 300ppi print resolution. Seriously, I'd try to avoid thinking about print resolution and more about how your printed image looks when viewed as a whole, at a realistic distance. That's what really matters

[baro-nite]

I would say that failed focus stacks, where for example objects near camera are sharp but objects at 10 meter distance are blurred and infinity is sharp, are the worst case scenarios. Or focus stacks where there are spots of blur at unexpected places. It requires extreme care to make it work.

True, but I'm not talking about failed stacks. Here's a focus stack (7 exposures) I did 6 years ago. Leaving aside the question of whether or not the composition is any good, looking at the image as a whole I find the lack of differentiation in sharpness from front to back to detract from the image rather than add to it. It makes it look flat, and, to me, unnatural.

[photoptimist]

This really has so many possible solutions beyond scheimpflug, it's a non-problem.

1) The only tilt you need is on the tripod. Tilt the camera up a little and the foreground that you can't get in focus without diffraction goes away!

2) Then there are the multi-image approaches with with focus-stacking or panoramic tiling or both to collect enough near-far data.

3) Post processing can undo the diffraction albeit with some loss of DR.

4) Embrace the blur: use an out-of-focus foreground to frame the sharp landscape background.

[MJKoski]

Baro-nite's example above is interesting. I do not find it distracting, maybe perhaps the light is the culprit here. It might look different with golden hour light...or not. Dunno if sun ever shines in that location.

[texandrews]

Where is the fun? Ok, there are some people who make a living with their camera. Most of us do it for fun. But these kind of posts take the fun out of taking a picture.

Sez you. I do both, use my camera "for fun" and also for part of my living. Anyway, I would think that you would have noticed the OP's name, "biz-engineer", read his post, and concluded that he IS having fun in his way. It's a big world. With tolerance and some grace we can all fit.

[texandrews]

Why can't pictures just be beautiful?

Why can't it be beautiful and technical? Or technically beautiful? Or beautifully technical?

Over-analysis is the death of art.

Nope. For proof, get thee to an excellent art historical library, and cruise the stacks just on, say, the Northern Renaissance. Did all of those books, all of that analysis---which is ongoing as we speak, newly minted PhD's and MA's coming off the assembly line right now!----kill the art? I don't think so. The art is separate and independent from the analysis, and is in the making, also, even when you think it isn't.

[texandrews]

Scheimpflug doesn't increase depth of field, it tilts the plane of sharpest focus (while reshaping the zone of good-enough-focus to shallower on the close end, deeper on the far end).

Massive prints don't need "true" 300dpi resolution. Does any size print?

Landscape photographs don't need sharpness throughout. Some years ago I got into focus stacking for extreme macro. I also tried it on ordinary landscapes a few times. I discovered that, for me, it just looks wrong (artificial) on such images; rather than conveying a sense of greater depth, it does the opposite. Similarly, when I first got into camera/lens movements I thought it was all about maximizing focus. Eventually I discovered (again, for me) that perspective control is the more important benefit.

Clever guy.

[MJKoski]

Overanalysis is art itself.