When To Use Minimum Apertures? And What Effect To Be Achieved ??

Hi All,

I just don't know if I ever shoot with minimum aperture, because I have unreality fear about diffraction blur.

Now I think that diffraction blur or minimum aperture might have some advantage for creative shoots, or some conditions need to use minimum aperture (rather shooting the sun / or no no).

Some photos samples will be great appreciated

Many thanks

Your guys are great as usual!

Just so we're clear, you mean when would people use f/22 on a 24-70 L, or similar, correct?

Personally, the only time I ever do that is with extension tubes because I have to.

Just so everyone is on the same page, here is a good tutorial on diffraction:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …eries/u-diffraction.shtml

So, what you want on this thread is shots done at high f-stops, minimum aperture, so that you can see when diffraction causes results to be compromised?

If you need the smaller aperture to get the desired depth of field, use it. You can always sharpen an image but you can't focus and out of focus area.

Thanks Sam & Mile.

You make me to understand more on my own question !

I just don't know any shoot need to be somewhat (with acceptable) blur, but large depth of field.

Generally, you probably won't have to worry about diffraction softness unless you're shooting extreme macro and need ludicrously small apertures, or you're stopping down to shoot deep-focus scenes where both close and distant subjects need to be in focus (landscapes come to mind).

It's often good to know the point where stopping down your lens will start causing you to lose sharpness to diffraction, and using that as a point to work from. For example, I know that for most of the macro lenses I've used, f/11 seems to be the magic number where sharpness and DOF meet.

One thing I have discovered is that diffraction softness is far easier to correct with post sharpening than a subject that is blurred due to missed focus. I find for this reason that there are some occasions when it is better to stop down and ensure that I don't miss the focus. This shouldn't be an issue unless you need to stop down beyond f/11 or f/16; macro photography or landscapes in bright light or with telephoto lenses are the only situations that come to my [mind where this could be an issue.

I don't have an ND filter (really should), so I stop down as much as I can for waterfalls...seems to work rather well

http://www.flickr.com …v/sets/72157625​849846424/

Thanks bokchoi & LowriderS10.

I usual shoot 100mm macro with f11 & f13; I will try on the minimum apertures & see what happen.

When I visit Niagara Falls in the future, I'll also give minimum apertures a go, too

x_tan wrote in post #12662321
Thanks bokchoi & LowriderS10.

I usual shoot 100mm macro with f11 & f13; I will try on the minimum apertures & see what happen.

When I visit Niagara Falls in the future, I'll also give minimum apertures a go, too

No problem! Good luck...

Another creative use for a stopped down aperture is to get the "star artifacts" from your light sources (streetlights, etc) in night shots.

Rad

Nice tip, Radtech1 !

I should try on some cityscape shoot.

if you have part of the scene out of focus, that is going to be a hell of a lot more blurry than whatever diffraction blur looks like. frankly, I have never seen it mess with any of my pictures.

x_tan wrote in post #12661886
Hi All,

Some photos samples will be great appreciated

Search Flickr groups for f22, f32, small aperture. There's tons of examples.

Just so everyone is on the same page, here is a good tutorial on diffraction:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...fra​ction.shtml

I might suggest that by using a MF camera, the images aren't closely comparable to what one would expect from a DSLR which has diffraction beginning to set-in at about f/10-12. Here are some that I took when I was testing a 180 macro on a DsMkIII.

starting with f/10