Scared above F10

[adblink]

Ok well not SCARED about going above F10, I just have no idea when I should be going higher then that. I'm comfortable and know how the camera will preform below that, but from everything I've read thus far, the "Sweet spot" for many lenses fall in that f8 - f10 range, and going higher then that can cause some kind of distortion.

The higher you go, the DOF continues to increase does it not? Does it level off at some point where there is no reason to go any higher or theres side effects of doing so?

thanks for any tips :)

[clickcanon40]

such a confusing post.... could you please re-state what you mean. Feels like jumping into the middle of a conversation...

[tim]

People talk about something that happens with narrow apertures, can't remember what it's called but i've never seen it, even at F32 (100mm F2.8 macro is my only lens that does this).

I think you should stop worrying. Use whatever aperture you want, so long as the photo looks good doesn't make any difference. I've used F12/F16 in the studio, but outside i'm mostly wide open or close to it, unless I need DOF for group shots.

[adblink]

didnt think it was very confusing but I'll try again.

I dont know WHEN I need to go above the F10/F11 area. So if your saying you've never seen any distortion, I could safely say shoot at F22 with my 100mm macro, gain some DOF and not see any side effects from the small aperature.

Another question, with macro shots, is there a big difference between say F10 and F22 for DOF?

[blackcap]

There is meant to be some softness at narrow apertures, but I regularly go to f/16 on landscape shots without any noticeable problems.

Seeing you have a camera already, why don't you just try it yourself? Take the same shot at varying apertures and see if you notice any problems.

[adblink]

lol funny thing is, with this "new" shift their trying out at work, I really have no time to play around with my new damn camera, and its eating me alive. I picked it up sunday, and won't be able to start going outside and playing with it till this weekend, hence why I want to talk about it first :)

[Pugwash]

Your original post was not confusing - I found it perfectly clear.

Like you I have been using f/5.6 to f/11 as these are the tested and recorded 'sweet spots' for the lenses I use.

Using higher f numbers, say f/22 and above, will give you the opportunity to exploit the greater depth of field in compositions where that is the effect you want - such as landscapes. However, I believe it is accepted that diffraction starts to set in when you get to these higher f numbers. This is where light, after being squeezed through the very small shutter aperture then spreads outwards instead of remaining in perfect focus.

Here is a link that will explain it better than I can :- http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

In addition I recently started to use higher f numbers and was suddenly confronted with what appeared to be a dirty sensor even though there had never been any evidence of this at the lower numbers. I read through the Copper Hill Images website and discovered that a way to test for dirt on the camera sensor is to stop down to f/22 or more and then take a shot of something like a clean, white sheet of paper. Sure enough my sensor is dirty and now I have done some manual cleaning it is much better but not yet completely clear.

http://www.copperhillimages.com/index.php?pr=Tutorials

So, not only will you have to consider diffraction but you may also find that your sensor is not as clean as you though it was and you may have to venture into manual cleaning. For your sake I hope this isn't the case.

Just more challenges that nature and technology throw at us.

[tim]

Just use narrow apertures when you know you need super depth of field. Since I take photos of people that rarely happens, F8 is enough even for big group pics.

[Bluemist]

Pugwash- they are great links thanks for posting...and abdlink- I didnt think your post was confusing and it's a good issue to raise.

[JCH77Yanks]

According to the Cambridgeincolour.com article on diffraction, the size of the airy disk becomes larger than the circle of confusion at around f/16 on a 1.6x sensor. You should be able to shoot at f/13 or f/14 before it becomes diffraction limited. I shoot alot of landscapes and cityscapes and hover anywhere between f/8 and f/14.

[Deckham]

I shoot at f/16 regularly. Shots are perfectly clear. Don't be afraid, just use whatever you need. If the lens wasn't capable of providing a decent image at tighter apertures, it wouldn't be available.

[pgulati]

I used to shoot with 30D (same sensor as yours). I could get perfectly good shots till about f/11. I have few shots taken at f/16, which were totaly useless. In one of the above posts, there's a link, which shows you the calculation of safe aperture values for each size of sensor. Bigger the sensor (plus megapixels also play role in determining that), higher you can go on F values. I think the safe limit (before light defraction start to kick in), for my 30D was around f/11, as per my own experience.

Happy shooting.

[Deckham]

I used to shoot with 30D (same sensor as yours). I could get perfectly good shots till about f/11. I have few shots taken at f/16, which were totaly useless. In one of the above posts, there's a link, which shows you the calculation of safe aperture values for each size of sensor. Bigger the sensor (plus megapixels also play role in determining that), higher you can go on F values. I think the safe limit (before light defraction start to kick in), for my 30D was around f/11, as per my own experience.

Happy shooting.

The OP is stating that he is 'scared to go above f/10'

You are saying - I have few shots taken at f/16, which were totally useless.

I suggest that the shots may have been useless at any aperture, and it was coincidence. These are at f/16 - not award winners, just showing.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/Deckham/F16/20080615-IMG_4903.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/Deckham/F16/BeyondtheReeds.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/Deckham/F16/SilenceLane.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/Deckham/F16/Tombs-1.jpg

[JeffreyG]

The effects of diffraction softening are subtle in the range of f/11 to f/22 on 1.6X cameras. When you need the DOF that f/22 delivers, then use it. I guarantee having a tiny bit of diffraction softening is better than having an OOF foreground.

To put it in context, the whole thing is moot if you are not using a good tripod. Handholding will soften an image more than diffraction ever will even if you are a good 2 to 3 X over the handholding 'rule of thumb' for shutter speed.

[neilwood32]

Given the minor softening that diffraction will cause on small aperture settings, it is far better than having it OOF. Out of focus will cause far more blur than diffraction ever will. You will also probably sort most of it out by your sharpening process

On a side note, Diffraction is one of the things that pixel peepers notice but that very few other people will.

[neumanns]

And....It does not, for all practical pourposes translate in print.

[DrPablo]

According to the Cambridgeincolour.com article on diffraction, the size of the airy disk becomes larger than the circle of confusion at around f/16 on a 1.6x sensor. You should be able to shoot at f/13 or f/14 before it becomes diffraction limited.Lenses that are near perfect are diffraction limited at their widest aperture. For a small sensor like APS-C, you're almost always going to be diffraction limited by the time you reach ~ f/8 or f/11 unless you're using a terrible lens in which you have to stop down even further to limit aberrations.

You can see here that both the 50 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.2L hit their peak resolution at ~ f/8 and then drop beyond that. The 50 f/1.2L benefits a lot less from stopping down because it's better-corrected to begin with.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/index.htm

The 35 f/1.4L is diffraction-limited between f/4 and f/8.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/35mm/index.htm

The issue is that you want to stop down only as far as is required for depth of field. If you're shooting a landscape with an immense DOF, but you're focusing the lens at infinity and your most important detail is 40 feet away, then there is zero reason to stop down for DOF at all.

And....It does not, for all practical pourposes translate in print.
That couldn't be further from the truth. That's exactly why this matters. If you look at MTF charts and see the steep drop in spatial resolution with increasing f/stop, then you'll notice that you could cut your print resolution by as much as 50% by a small change in aperture (esp in the higher range of f/stops). That would mean either doubling your viewing distance or halving your enlargement size to maintain the same apparent resolution in print.

Note from the lens tests above that the BEST you can hope for from elite Canon lenses is ~ 80 lp/mm. And that's when shooting on Tech Pan, which is a film with about 5 times the resolution per unit area than the Canon 5D and 3 times the resolution per unit area of any digital SLR ever made. Capturing 50-60 lp/mm is much more likely, which means only a 5-6 fold enlargement from capture size, i.e. 15x24mm before the print resolution drops below that of the human eye (from a 1 foot viewing distance). So if you drop your resolution by an additional 30-50% by using narrow apertures, you would need to view a 5x7 print from 2-3 feet away for it not to appear to lack critical fine detail.

This is subject-dependent to some degree. Wide angle pictures are FAR more sensitive to resolution loss, because the reproduction ratio is so small -- i.e. you have a mountain as opposed to a person's face taking up x amount of space of the sensor. Which is why when you're talking about landscape photography, you really need to be sensitive to this issue.

Furthermore, the classic teaching about viewing distance (and Ansel Adams held this view himself) is that the "magic" viewing distance for a photograph is the enlargment factor times the focal length. This makes the relationship between viewer and print identical to the original relationship between the sensor and the scene, and it gives it a striking 3D effect. So if you use a 20mm lens, and enlarge the picture to 5x7 (a 7x enlargement), the "magic" viewing distance is only 140mm (about 5.5 inches). In other words, wide angle shots NEED to be viewed closely to have the intended effect, which means you really need to respect fine detail resolution and avoid losses through needlessly narrow aperture, needless UV filters, camera vibration, etc.

[Stocky]

Diffraction will effect different lenses differently because it is related to absolute size of the aperture, and not to its ratio to the focal length as we normally measure it. You should be able to get away with a smaller aperture value on a longer focal length lens. I admit I don't know too much about lens design, but you measure aperture as though it were located at the front element, and since this is not typically the case (not on any of my lenses) its actually not that easy either. I think the best bet would be to just figure out the smallest acceptable aperture of each model lens and work from there.

[gjl711]

The best way to answer your question is to see the effect yourself. Set up a book a few feet away, set your camera on a tripod and take a few test pics at several apertures maybe starting with f/5.6 and do some pixel peeping. I’m guessing that between 5.6 and say f/11 maybe even f/16 you’re not going to notice any difference.

[neumanns]

[quote=DrPablo;6285695]


That couldn't be further from the truth. That's exactly why this matters. If you look at MTF charts and see the steep drop in spatial resolution with increasing f/stop, then you'll notice that you could cut your print resolution by as much as 50% by a small change in aperture (esp in the higher range of f/stops). That would mean either doubling your viewing distance or halving your enlargement size to maintain the same apparent resolution in print.

Note from the lens tests above that the BEST you can hope for from elite Canon lenses is ~ 80 lp/mm. And that's when shooting on Tech Pan, which is a film with about 5 times the resolution per unit area than the Canon 5D and 3 times the resolution per unit area of any digital SLR ever made. Capturing 50-60 lp/mm is much more likely, which means only a 5-6 fold enlargement from capture size, i.e. 15x24mm before the print resolution drops below that of the human eye (from a 1 foot viewing distance). So if you drop your resolution by an additional 30-50% by using narrow apertures, you would need to view a 5x7 print from 2-3 feet away for it not to appear to lack critical fine detail.

This is subject-dependent to some degree. Wide angle pictures are FAR more sensitive to resolution loss, because the reproduction ratio is so small -- i.e. you have a mountain as opposed to a person's face taking up x amount of space of the sensor. Which is why when you're talking about landscape photography, you really need to be sensitive to this issue.

[quote]

Taking my 40d sensor...That would be true on a 4x6 print if I am printing at 648ppi and for that matter if the eye could reslove 648ppi.

Even on a 8 x 12 print The ppi is over most printing ppi density standards.

Now I realize there is practical application and mathmatical application...I went practical.

Now I take my own view's with a grain of salt, I could be mistaken but that is how I've come to understand it.

When I'm in the field I'm not calculating LP/mm Pair...i'm trying to figure how to get the flower's in the forground and the mountian in the background in 'reasonable' focus....I know there are cost's to use f/16 etc, but in my view the cost is worth the benifit.

[Twitch1977]

I dont know WHEN I need to go above the F10/F11 area. So if your saying you've never seen any distortion, I could safely say shoot at F22 with my 100mm macro, gain some DOF and not see any side effects from the small aperature.

I wouldn't give a second thought about shooting a landscape at F22, but when it comes to the 100mm macro, I *never* go about about f14, diffraction will become extremely evident in macro shots. I learned this the hard way. If I'm shooting at ~2:1 with tubes I wouldn't go any higher than f10.

Kurt

[adblink]

I wouldn't give a second thought about shooting a landscape at F22, but when it comes to the 100mm macro, I *never* go about about f14, diffraction will become extremely evident in macro shots. I learned this the hard way. If I'm shooting at ~2:1 with tubes I wouldn't go any higher than f10.

Kurt


that was the main reasoning behind my post, wanting to get better with my 100mm macro. I'm going to try and take some test shots now before heading off to work and will post up the results

[gjl711]

..I'm going to try and take some test shots now before heading off to work and will post up the results Test shots of something with clear definition like test is a great way to learn the limits of the setup.

[DrPablo]

Taking my 40d sensor...That would be true on a 4x6 print if I am printing at 648ppi and for that matter if the eye could reslove 648ppi.
A line pair requires at the minimum 2 pixels (to resolve two "details" from one another).

But the problem if you think about pixels (-> ppi in images -> dpi in prints) is that pixels do not correspond to detail resolution. They set a ceiling on it, but it doesn't matter if your optical system resolves beneath that limit.

If you're shooting a low contrast scene at f/32, and you transmit only 30 lp/mm to the sensor, it really doesn't matter whether it's an 8 or a 20 megapixel camera. The extra pixels resolve the same blurry edge to the same airy disks -- it's just distributed over more pixels but with no additional detail.

The main importance of megapixel resolution is that it changes the way people choose their output size. So you may choose to print larger because of more megapixels (and therefore a higher potential dpi in print), but you're going to confront the lens' limitations

When I'm in the field I'm not calculating LP/mm Pair...i'm trying to figure how to get the flower's in the forground and the mountian in the background in 'reasonable' focus....I know there are cost's to use f/16 etc, but in my view the cost is worth the benifit.Absolutely. This is a multivariable system. You pick an aperture that's deep enough for critical focus, but you don't overdo it. There's no point in shooting at f/8 if your subject will be out of focus -- you accept a certain amount of diffraction in order to get it sharp. It's a balance. But if you only need f/16 and you choose to shoot at f/32 instead, you ARE potentially sacrificing image quality in a large print.

[pgulati]

The OP is stating that he is 'scared to go above f/10'

You are saying - I have few shots taken at f/16, which were totally useless.

I suggest that the shots may have been useless at any aperture, and it was coincidence. These are at f/16 - not award winners, just showing.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/Deckham/F16/20080615-IMG_4903.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/Deckham/F16/BeyondtheReeds.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/Deckham/F16/SilenceLane.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/Deckham/F16/Tombs-1.jpg

Nice shots @f/16 indeed. You got me thinking when you said - 'shots may have been useless at any aperture, and it was coincidence'. I need to dig those pics and check the exif again. But, I have few shots taken at f/9 very sharp, and some at f/14 ISO 100, 1/100 which shows some softness. I was using 24-105 f/4L. Could it be lens then? I need to check, if I have any other pics taken with other lens (17-40 / 70-200) at f/16 to compare.

But my experience with f/16 using my equipments, has not been very good.

BTW, what Camera (want to know sensor size) you were using for the pics posted?

[Deckham]

Nice shots @f/16 indeed. You got me thinking when you said - 'shots may have been useless at any aperture, and it was coincidence'. I need to dig those pics and check the exif again. But, I have few shots taken at f/9 very sharp, and some at f/14 ISO 100, 1/100 which shows some softness. I was using 24-105 f/4L. Could it be lens then? I need to check, if I have any other pics taken with other lens (17-40 / 70-200) at f/16 to compare.

But my experience with f/16 using my equipments, has not been very good.

BTW, what Camera (want to know sensor size) you were using for the pics posted?

Exif should be intact (right-click/properties)
Post your exif?

[_aravena]

People talk about something that happens with narrow apertures,

Shows the truth! The truth of dust!!!! I've shot above F10 a few times pending light really and subject. I know where the best setting lies for my lenses, unfortunately I sold the one that did real well above F10. My 10-20 was sweet.

Here's a shot at F22 because no ND filter and I wanted at least a second exposure.
http://www.lastshotphotography.com/img/v1/p743415768-4.jpg

F11
http://www.lastshotphotography.com/img/v3/p982834466-4.jpg

[DrPablo]

Incidentally, I've shot up to f/90 on my 8x10 camera. I can shoot up to f/128 on my 500mm lens, f/90 when I convert it to a 300mm lens, f/64 on my 90mm lens, and f/45 on my 210 mm lens.

These are extremely diffracted apertures. On the other hand, the DOF is needed for large format, and because my 8x10 pictures aren't enlarged (they're just contact prints) the diffraction affects details far below the eye's resolving limit at any viewing distance.

[René Damkot]

Diffraction will effect different lenses differently because it is related to absolute size of the aperture

Nope.

Long discussion about diffraction here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=561587).

[airfrogusmc]

The effects of diffraction softening are subtle in the range of f/11 to f/22 on 1.6X cameras. When you need the DOF that f/22 delivers, then use it. I guarantee having a tiny bit of diffraction softening is better than having an OOF foreground.

To put it in context, the whole thing is moot if you are not using a good tripod. Handholding will soften an image more than diffraction ever will even if you are a good 2 to 3 X over the handholding 'rule of thumb' for shutter speed.

What Jeffrey said. In fact Adams shot allot of his landscapes stopped all the way down to f/64 (large format). If you need the DoF stop down.

[Deckham]

What Jeffrey said. In fact Adams shot allot of his landscapes stopped all the way down to f/64 (large format). If you need the DoF stop down.

This is the kind of area where technical photographers and photographic artists meet. Know what I mean?

[DrPablo]

What Jeffrey said. In fact Adams shot allot of his landscapes stopped all the way down to f/64 (large format). If you need the DoF stop down.Except that the CoC for his 8x10 cameras is much different than APS-C cameras, so f/64 is not a big deal on 8x10 -- in other words, yeah if you need the DOF you need the DOF, but you also need to know where the technical boundaries of your format should modify your decision process.

[airfrogusmc]

I shoot at f/22 when I need everything to be sharp and get extremely sharp images. Would I get sharper image at f/8 yeah but everything for 3 ft to infinity (if I need it to be) wouldn't be in focus so if you need a large DoF(small aperture) don't fear f/11-f/32.

[lukeap69]

You have to try it to experience yourself.

Using my Tamron 17-50 one day (on 40D), I noticed that my shots up to f/16 were sharp. At f/22, I noticed loss of sharpness. On other forum, they advised how to deal with hyperfocal distance and its relationship with focal length. I did took their advice and learned what f-stop would give me acceptable sharpness at every focal length.

Again, this is based on my own experience.

[Walczak Photo]

Ok well not SCARED about going above F10, I just have no idea when I should be going higher then that. I'm comfortable and know how the camera will preform below that, but from everything I've read thus far, the "Sweet spot" for many lenses fall in that f8 - f10 range, and going higher then that can cause some kind of distortion.

The higher you go, the DOF continues to increase does it not? Does it level off at some point where there is no reason to go any higher or theres side effects of doing so?

thanks for any tips :)


I haven't read all of the responses here so if this is redundant in any way, please forgive me. Also, these are strictly my own opinions here and should be taken as such.

I know there's at least a few folks here on POTN who will only shoot at the sweet spot of their lenses and will only shoot at ISO 100 because they want the sharpest tack sharp images they can possibly get. In many cases, sharpness is their only concern...or at the very least takes priority over composition and any other aspects of photography. It's kind of funny really...lots of newbies start out trying to get as much DOF as they possibly can so that everything is "sharp" and as such always end up shooting everything at f/22 and then some how that focus shifts to getting the maximum sharpness instead and they end up shooting everything at f/8. In my opinion, folks like that are really wasting a great deal of creative potential and are usually concentrating on the wrong thing.

The way I see it is that your aperture should be dictated by your shooting situation and the results your trying to achieve. Obviously some folks are only trying to achieve "sharp" pictures, but personally I try to achieve "beautiful" pictures and if that means using f/16 or f/6, that's what I do. While yes, there is a certain degree of sharpness to any lens in "the sweet spot", the truth today is that with most newer lenses, that difference is often quite marginal at best and often can only be measured with sophisticated equipment/software (such as DxO anylizer). Read the photography mag reviews...even cheap lenses today do an excellent job with sharpness at all aperatures compared to even the expensive lenses of yor. Most zooms today are sharper and provide better image quality than a lot of primes did in years past.

I would also add that with software today and the sharpening options that folks have available, I really do believe there is such as thing as "sharp enough". Not to high jack your thread here, but to give you a specific example, here's a shot I took a couple of weeks ago and had printed as an 8x10 just last night...


http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/562/dsc01043ans5.jpg


When I took this image, I wasn't thinking about what aperture the camera was set at so I could get "maximum sharpness". More over this shot wasn't taken with an L lens or even a DSLR...it was taken with a Sony H1 EVF...from a canoe...with my wife and 3 dogs on board! LOL!!! The -only- things that were really going thru my head were "keep the camera straight...don't scare the bird...don't drop the camera in the water!!!" LOL!!! I didn't use this camera because it has the sharpest lens or had the highest resolution...my 40D and my new Tamron f/2.8 certainly surpass the Sony in a heartbeat! I used this camera because if fit in our canoe's dry box....and...I guess if I'm going to drop any camera in the lake, I'd rather loose the Sony rather than either of my Canons! LOL!!!

Seriously....I really wasn't thinking in terms of sharpness speficially and I certainly wasn't thinking about the aperture or anything as a primary issue. In my case here, I'm sure I just had the lens wide open to try and get as much shutter speed as I could, but the point is that to me, photography isn't about "the mechanics of the camera" or trying to get the absolute sharpest images possible, it's simply about taking nice pictures that (hopefully) other people will enjoy as well. Those other things certainly are important, but they should never take exclusive priority over ideas such as composition. With my dinky little Sony I was able to capture a nice shot of a Blue Heron that I was later able to sharpen up a tich in Photoshop...and the 8x10 print is just as lovely as you see here.

-If- you are only shooting images to be blown up to large poster size or bigger (have you honestly shot any billboards lately?), then yes that slight difference may mean something but if you are like most folks and your only doing small size prints or even 8x10s, it's not a big hoo-ha at all. In fact I would dare to say that if you only do 4x6 prints, you can't see any difference at all (even with a loupe)...it's that insignificant now a days with most lenses. I do most of my prints as 8x10's and in most cases with most of my lenses (and until recently I've used only cheap lenses) you can't really see much if any difference between an image shot at f/8 and f/16 and often not even at f/22. In fact, often on a computer you have to "pixel peep" to see any difference at all.

Ultimately you can choose to limit yourself by being paranoid and anally retentive about a virtually irrelivant issue or you can explore your creative potential and just shoot pictures. Personally, I'm a photographer...I'd rather shoot pictures :D.

Peace,
Jim

[adblink]

just wanted to say thanks jim fo your in depth reply :)