Landscape photo using F22?

laissezfaire · 11-20-2008, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by slomojoe

A 14mm focusing 6 feet away on a K20D has a dof of 1.16 ft-infinity at f22, 1.5 ft-inf at f16, and 1.94 ft-inf at f11. Unless you really need to capture something in that interval 1.2-1.9 feet away from the lens, the dof really makes no difference, and your subject's sharpness is going to be much greater at f 11.

Things are different with a less extreme wide angle. With a 24mm in the same conditions, you'd have dofs of 2.5-infinity and 3-inf at f22 and f16, but limited to 3.5-20.6ft at f11.

Here's a handy calculator: Online Depth of Field Calculator

this is a very good reference.

creampuff · 11-20-2008, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by raider

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

If F11 and F16 is good enuf for landscape shots, I wonder why is Bryan Peterson religiously mentioned to use F22 in almost all his books? Kinda misleading to new photogpher like myself. I think i will stick to F8 and F11 for my DA14 shots.

That's because Peterson's book was first written during era of film cameras. With smaller sensor sizes of DSLRs today, the minimum aperture of lenses that can be used before noticeable diffraction is about 1 to 1.5 stops less than that of film. So if f/22 was acceptable for film, it is about f/11 or f/16 for APS-C. I think Bob Atkins wrote some article on this awhile back, or a simple Google search will provide you an explanation.

Wheatfield · 11-20-2008, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by raider

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

If F11 and F16 is good enuf for landscape shots, I wonder why is Bryan Peterson religiously mentioned to use F22 in almost all his books? Kinda misleading to new photogpher like myself. I think i will stick to F8 and F11 for my DA14 shots.

Consider that just because he is a prolific writer, what he writes isn't always correct.

raider · 11-21-2008, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

That's because Peterson's book was first written during era of film cameras. With smaller sensor sizes of DSLRs today, the minimum aperture of lenses that can be used before noticeable diffraction is about 1 to 1.5 stops less than that of film. So if f/22 was acceptable for film, it is about f/11 or f/16 for APS-C. I think Bob Atkins wrote some article on this awhile back, or a simple Google search will provide you an explanation.

okay. that's a good technical explanation. Thanks creampuff.

raider · 11-21-2008, 12:13 AM

I bought the latest "revised edition" of the book. If it is meant to be a revised edition, i would think Bryan should at least explain things a little rather than tell all the readers to use F22 all the way. But then again, I observed that he is using his Nikon D1X camera for a lot of the shots. Surely D1X cannot be that old right?

HGMonaro · 11-21-2008, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

I saw it after I typed it and thought Oh what the hell!

typing is not my strong point

lol! easy one to do... just thought it an amusing typo.

**Lowell Goudge** · 11-21-2008, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

That's because Peterson's book was first written during era of film cameras. With smaller sensor sizes of DSLRs today, the minimum aperture of lenses that can be used before noticeable diffraction is about 1 to 1.5 stops less than that of film. So if f/22 was acceptable for film, it is about f/11 or f/16 for APS-C. I think Bob Atkins wrote some article on this awhile back, or a simple Google search will provide you an explanation.

I think it also is a function of what lens!

As I posted earlier, the influence of difraction is a function of apature diameter. not F stop. F stop is the ratio of lens opening diameter to focal length. therefore F 22 on a 14mm lens is a whole lot smaller hole than F22 on a 50mm lens.

I am not so sure the ASP-c sensor format really adds anything other than forcing shorter focal length lenses for the same field of view, the impact of that is back to the fact that F22 on a 14mm lens is a smaller hole, hence defraction more important.

vizjerei · 11-21-2008, 08:01 AM

well you can do this tho, using your lens's sweet f# spot, take several photos with different focus length and combine them with PP, so everything you want are in focus and sharp

I have never used f22 unless with my macro lens, I tried F32 with my the DFA100 and turn back to F22, Big difference in sharpness.

reeftool · 11-21-2008, 09:48 AM

I had to take a quick look through of Petersons book after reading the posts and he lists f22 as one of his examples a couple of times but also mentioned 16-f32 as his "storytelling" apertures. His main point is that the smallest lens opening provides the greatest depth of field. I am sure he would be the first to tell you that if your lens/camera setup takes a better picture at f16 then at f22 then use what works. His examples in that section use several different lenses and different apertures. There are differences in the capabilitys of different cameras and lenses and he also mentions that in various places in the book with a section on differences of depth of field between SLR's and point and shoots(pg.46 in my book).

emalvick · 11-21-2008, 01:43 PM

I've recently read his book (on my way to a vacation in New England) and found a lot of his discussion useful..

Of course, when I read many thing I keep in mind that these are often suggestions like the f22 and not hard and fast rules. Just as someone mentioned that you end up 1.5 stops better due to the sensor size, the depth of field will also be similarly adjusted for the smaller sensor size (i.e. f16 has more DOF on the k10d than on a film camera).

That being said, I have tried a shot or two on occasion out at f22 and f32. My specific reasoning was to get as much depth of field as possible. The results were decent. They may not have been as good as an f11 or f16 shot, but once processed with some sharpening and printed the shots were quite acceptable.

Besides that, I've been finding that in making prints, it is proving to me that pixel peeping shows way more flaws than actually come out when printed including the fact that the differences between those smaller apertures (>f16) are not as great in printed form as they can appear on screen.

As for the Peterson book and the revised version. I generally find that revisions rarely edit the original content much but rather add limited items. I think the most valuable aspects of a book like that are the concepts rather than the hard and fast numbers. There are way too many cameras (especially now) with a range of performance features that for those numbers to match and work, it would be too complicated.... i.e. while the f22 may not work great for our Pentax cameras, they may work fantastically for Nikon's full frame cameras. For a point and shoot, things are probably even worse.

laissezfaire · 11-21-2008, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by reeftool

I had to take a quick look through of Petersons book after reading the posts and he lists f22 as one of his examples a couple of times but also mentioned 16-f32 as his "storytelling" apertures.

I have to agree... Peterson does not necessarily say landscapes=f22. The "storytelling" apertures are used when front, middle and back need to be seen. At least this is what I recall.

Peter is quick to point out that f8 and f11 are the "who cares" or all purpose apertures and uses everything from portraits to landscapes as examples.

SpecialK · 11-21-2008, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Fom Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure, I observed that he always recommend to stop the lens down to F22 so as to increase the depth of field.

Actually, he doesn't "always". He pointed out the use of small apertures in one chapter. He has another chapter on shallow DOF. If you look at the photos throughout the book, you will see a whole range of apertures were used. But yes, small apertures increases DOF.

raider · 11-21-2008, 11:46 PM

Thanks for all the clarifications. Things are definitely much clearer now.

**Kerrowdown** · 11-22-2008, 11:49 AM

Hey Raider, that'll be cos your using f5.6 to f11 instead of f22.

weaponx525 · 11-22-2008, 02:07 PM

I have also been "struggling" with Peterson's book and his suggestions. After all the questions I have asked, and been answered by fellow forum members, my conclusion is that he has expert suggestions but need to be "tweaked" based on personal experience. I recently used f22 on almost all of my vacation pics, with the kit lens, and got some really excellent results but found that a lot of my pics ended up underexposed as a result. After further reading his suggestions, critical sharpness occurs at f8-f11, due to lens designs and physics. For my next outing I was most likely going to use these apertures exclusively for "storytelling" apertures and then balance the results.

Basically his suggestions are wonderful and a lot can be learned, but at the end of the day it is best to balance out his experiences with your own subjective experiences.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tamron 10-24mm could not focus with ISO100 F22 10mm under day light	vietnam74	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	04-08-2010 08:36 PM
Landscape photo query	dycz	Photographic Technique	18	09-18-2009 02:05 PM
landscape	planedriver	Post Your Photos!	0	03-12-2009 06:27 AM
Landscape photo with Bright Sky Exp Suggestions	mi2nc	Photo Critique	6	11-01-2008 02:16 PM
Pictures taken at f8 vs. f22 landscape shots	weaponx525	Photographic Technique	10	08-26-2008 03:02 AM

11-20-2008, 08:59 PM	#16
laissezfaire Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 188	Originally posted by slomojoe A 14mm focusing 6 feet away on a K20D has a dof of 1.16 ft-infinity at f22, 1.5 ft-inf at f16, and 1.94 ft-inf at f11. Unless you really need to capture something in that interval 1.2-1.9 feet away from the lens, the dof really makes no difference, and your subject's sharpness is going to be much greater at f 11. Things are different with a less extreme wide angle. With a 24mm in the same conditions, you'd have dofs of 2.5-infinity and 3-inf at f22 and f16, but limited to 3.5-20.6ft at f11. Here's a handy calculator: Online Depth of Field Calculator this is a very good reference.

11-20-2008, 09:37 PM	#17
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	Originally posted by raider Thanks everyone for the feedback. If F11 and F16 is good enuf for landscape shots, I wonder why is Bryan Peterson religiously mentioned to use F22 in almost all his books? Kinda misleading to new photogpher like myself. I think i will stick to F8 and F11 for my DA14 shots. That's because Peterson's book was first written during era of film cameras. With smaller sensor sizes of DSLRs today, the minimum aperture of lenses that can be used before noticeable diffraction is about 1 to 1.5 stops less than that of film. So if f/22 was acceptable for film, it is about f/11 or f/16 for APS-C. I think Bob Atkins wrote some article on this awhile back, or a simple Google search will provide you an explanation.

11-20-2008, 10:27 PM	#18
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by raider Thanks everyone for the feedback. If F11 and F16 is good enuf for landscape shots, I wonder why is Bryan Peterson religiously mentioned to use F22 in almost all his books? Kinda misleading to new photogpher like myself. I think i will stick to F8 and F11 for my DA14 shots. Consider that just because he is a prolific writer, what he writes isn't always correct.

11-21-2008, 12:08 AM	#19
raider Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,989 Original Poster	Originally posted by creampuff That's because Peterson's book was first written during era of film cameras. With smaller sensor sizes of DSLRs today, the minimum aperture of lenses that can be used before noticeable diffraction is about 1 to 1.5 stops less than that of film. So if f/22 was acceptable for film, it is about f/11 or f/16 for APS-C. I think Bob Atkins wrote some article on this awhile back, or a simple Google search will provide you an explanation. okay. that's a good technical explanation. Thanks creampuff.

11-21-2008, 12:13 AM	#20
raider Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,989 Original Poster	I bought the latest "revised edition" of the book. If it is meant to be a revised edition, i would think Bryan should at least explain things a little rather than tell all the readers to use F22 all the way. But then again, I observed that he is using his Nikon D1X camera for a lot of the shots. Surely D1X cannot be that old right?

11-21-2008, 05:15 AM	#21
HGMonaro Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Melb. Aust Posts: 840	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge I saw it after I typed it and thought Oh what the hell! typing is not my strong point lol! easy one to do... just thought it an amusing typo.

11-21-2008, 06:58 AM	#22
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by creampuff That's because Peterson's book was first written during era of film cameras. With smaller sensor sizes of DSLRs today, the minimum aperture of lenses that can be used before noticeable diffraction is about 1 to 1.5 stops less than that of film. So if f/22 was acceptable for film, it is about f/11 or f/16 for APS-C. I think Bob Atkins wrote some article on this awhile back, or a simple Google search will provide you an explanation. I think it also is a function of what lens! As I posted earlier, the influence of difraction is a function of apature diameter. not F stop. F stop is the ratio of lens opening diameter to focal length. therefore F 22 on a 14mm lens is a whole lot smaller hole than F22 on a 50mm lens. I am not so sure the ASP-c sensor format really adds anything other than forcing shorter focal length lenses for the same field of view, the impact of that is back to the fact that F22 on a 14mm lens is a smaller hole, hence defraction more important.

11-21-2008, 08:01 AM	#23
vizjerei Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,418	well you can do this tho, using your lens's sweet f# spot, take several photos with different focus length and combine them with PP, so everything you want are in focus and sharp I have never used f22 unless with my macro lens, I tried F32 with my the DFA100 and turn back to F22, Big difference in sharpness.

11-21-2008, 09:48 AM	#24
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,554	I had to take a quick look through of Petersons book after reading the posts and he lists f22 as one of his examples a couple of times but also mentioned 16-f32 as his "storytelling" apertures. His main point is that the smallest lens opening provides the greatest depth of field. I am sure he would be the first to tell you that if your lens/camera setup takes a better picture at f16 then at f22 then use what works. His examples in that section use several different lenses and different apertures. There are differences in the capabilitys of different cameras and lenses and he also mentions that in various places in the book with a section on differences of depth of field between SLR's and point and shoots(pg.46 in my book).

11-21-2008, 01:43 PM	#25
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642	I've recently read his book (on my way to a vacation in New England) and found a lot of his discussion useful.. Of course, when I read many thing I keep in mind that these are often suggestions like the f22 and not hard and fast rules. Just as someone mentioned that you end up 1.5 stops better due to the sensor size, the depth of field will also be similarly adjusted for the smaller sensor size (i.e. f16 has more DOF on the k10d than on a film camera). That being said, I have tried a shot or two on occasion out at f22 and f32. My specific reasoning was to get as much depth of field as possible. The results were decent. They may not have been as good as an f11 or f16 shot, but once processed with some sharpening and printed the shots were quite acceptable. Besides that, I've been finding that in making prints, it is proving to me that pixel peeping shows way more flaws than actually come out when printed including the fact that the differences between those smaller apertures (>f16) are not as great in printed form as they can appear on screen. As for the Peterson book and the revised version. I generally find that revisions rarely edit the original content much but rather add limited items. I think the most valuable aspects of a book like that are the concepts rather than the hard and fast numbers. There are way too many cameras (especially now) with a range of performance features that for those numbers to match and work, it would be too complicated.... i.e. while the f22 may not work great for our Pentax cameras, they may work fantastically for Nikon's full frame cameras. For a point and shoot, things are probably even worse.

11-21-2008, 08:06 PM	#26
laissezfaire Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 188	Originally posted by reeftool I had to take a quick look through of Petersons book after reading the posts and he lists f22 as one of his examples a couple of times but also mentioned 16-f32 as his "storytelling" apertures. I have to agree... Peterson does not necessarily say landscapes=f22. The "storytelling" apertures are used when front, middle and back need to be seen. At least this is what I recall. Peter is quick to point out that f8 and f11 are the "who cares" or all purpose apertures and uses everything from portraits to landscapes as examples.

11-21-2008, 11:06 PM	#27
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Quote: Fom Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure, I observed that he always recommend to stop the lens down to F22 so as to increase the depth of field. Actually, he doesn't "always". He pointed out the use of small apertures in one chapter. He has another chapter on shallow DOF. If you look at the photos throughout the book, you will see a whole range of apertures were used. But yes, small apertures increases DOF.

11-21-2008, 11:46 PM	#28
raider Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,989 Original Poster	Thanks for all the clarifications. Things are definitely much clearer now.

11-22-2008, 11:49 AM	#29
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,818	Hey Raider, that'll be cos your using f5.6 to f11 instead of f22.

11-22-2008, 02:07 PM	#30
weaponx525 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 138	I have also been "struggling" with Peterson's book and his suggestions. After all the questions I have asked, and been answered by fellow forum members, my conclusion is that he has expert suggestions but need to be "tweaked" based on personal experience. I recently used f22 on almost all of my vacation pics, with the kit lens, and got some really excellent results but found that a lot of my pics ended up underexposed as a result. After further reading his suggestions, critical sharpness occurs at f8-f11, due to lens designs and physics. For my next outing I was most likely going to use these apertures exclusively for "storytelling" apertures and then balance the results. Basically his suggestions are wonderful and a lot can be learned, but at the end of the day it is best to balance out his experiences with your own subjective experiences.