The beauty of middle ground. f/usefull

I've been reading a lot lately, which for me translates to learning.

I've been around photography for a while. I bought my first camera, an AE 1 program when I was 10.

I've shot sports, portraits, landscapes, cars, dogs, family, weddings, boy scouts, etc...the works.

I'm not a pro. I'm a hobbyist - but I'm a hobbyist who enjoys learning and getting better.

I've been reading about F/stops lately and I realized something about my photos - I have not been using F/stops, and the DOF they provide, as well as I could be. I looked though many of my photos and found myself mostly using extremes. I shoot at 2.8 or 11. I often shoot AV mode but I've been thinking of DOF as black and white, lots in focus, or lots out. I haven't been using DOF to control the way a viewer might look at my photo. I've never really thought about the difference between 2.8 and 4 on a head shot. I've never thought about controlling the DOF so carefully so that eyelashes are in focus but nose tips aren't, or maybe it would work better to have the whole face in focus, but the neck line out...

So I'm crossing over and hope you might start thinking this way too. We pay big money for 2.8 or even faster, but don't let that stop you from shooting at good old 5.6. And dont forget about 6.3!

Subtle differences in DOF, the difference between 2.8 and 3.5 on a close up, don't really turn out to be subtle and could be the difference between just a shot and something worth focusing on

ShutteringFocus wrote in post #8961063
I've been reading a lot lately, which for me translates to learning.

I've been around photography for a while. I bought my first camera, an AE 1 program when I was 10.

I've shot sports, portraits, landscapes, cars, dogs, family, weddings, boy scouts, etc...the works.

I'm not a pro. I'm a hobbyist - but I'm a hobbyist who enjoys learning and getting better.

I've been reading about F/stops lately and I realized something about my photos - I have not been using F/stops, and the DOF they provide, as well as I could be. I looked though many of my photos and found myself mostly using extremes. I shoot at 2.8 or 11. I often shoot AV mode but I've been thinking of DOF as black and white, lots in focus, or lots out. I haven't been using DOF to control the way a viewer might look at my photo. I've never really thought about the difference between 2.8 and 4 on a head shot. I've never thought about controlling the DOF so carefully so that eyelashes are in focus but nose tips aren't, or maybe it would work better to have the whole face in focus, but the neck line out...

So I'm crossing over and hope you might start thinking this way too. We pay big money for 2.8 or even faster, but don't let that stop you from shooting at good old 5.6. And dont forget about 6.3!

Subtle differences in DOF, the difference between 2.8 and 3.5 on a close up, don't really turn out to be subtle and could be the difference between just a shot and something worth focusing on

Good thoughts!

In my opinion, the aperture is the most important creative control in terms of the effect it has on the look of the photo. Get that setting wrong, and the picture will be aesthetically unlike what you intend and therefore unusable.

Use a large aperture (small number) if you want the background to be fuzzy, and a small aperture (large number) if you want it to be sharp. That's a good starting point for beginners. There is, of course, a continuum between those extremes, and as one gains experience, the gradations between those extremes will become meaningful.

Photographers (including me) blather on and on about lens faults with wide apertures and diffraction with small apertures, and he fabled "sweet spot". And it's all just rubbish, because neither of those effects will ruin a picture except in technically demanding situations, which is outside the domain of most creative photography. But the presence or lack of depth of field will absolutely control the look of the photo.

The good news is that the programming in the camera is actually reasonably good at finding a middle ground, even in P. But given that the effect that setting has on the creative result, it should be a decision made by the photographer, or at least the photographer should be aware of the decision on aperture made by the camera.

Of course, the problem is that using a small aperture when we want the background to be sharp might create other problems, like too slow a shutter speed. But one thing leads to another. Start with what you want the photo to look like.

Rick "who has been party to a number of ultimately inconsequential discussions on a lens's sweet spot" Denney