Aperture in Landscape Photography?

[CraniumDesigns]

Hey Folks,

So I'm really get into landscape photography. I'm not exactly sure what aperture to use. While f/22 gets everything in focus and creates the deepest DOF, I have heard that f/8-f/11 is the "sweet spot" for sharpness. I want to be able to make large prints someday. How do you balance a wide DOF but still get a sharp print?

I just got the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and I'm excited to test it out.

Thanks!

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Depending on what you're shooting, f/8 might get everything in focus, if you have foreground or background elements, you might need f/22.. it depends.

 

[dcclark]

I would generally not go as far as f/22 unless you really need it. If you're going for serious sharpness, you'll want to avoid very small apertures, where diffraction can mess with your sharpness.

I'd stay in the range f/8 to f/16 generally. But that's just a general range, as always, there will be special cases.

 

[craig]

Do not be afraid to experiment. Your camera lens combo has the answer. Not us. Search the forums. Somewhere there is a link that calculates/tests the sweet spot of most lenses. My kit lens was near ƒ8 or 11. I refuse to accept that.

Love & Bass

 

[Garbz]

f/22 is not only out of the sweet spot. It's well into diffraction range. Anything above f/16 takes a serious and notable sharpness hit even when printing 8x5s.

 

[CraniumDesigns]

cool. i'll try to stay in f/8 - f/16 range then. so why would u ever wanna shoot in f/22 or higher?

 

[abraxas]

...
so why would u ever wanna shoot in f/22 or higher?

I shoot landscapes almost exclusively. F22 is with few exceptions the maximum aperture I use- I prefer f32 when I can get it. With low iso and the longer exposure times I feel it shows light as it changes. The depth of field full and the colors richer. The effect is sweeping to me. Nothing like a good 1-2 minute twilight exposure to set my head straight.

As said though, it's about what you want. Experiment.

 

[CraniumDesigns]

i understand why you'd want f/22 or smaller for a long exposure, but i'd rather use an ND filter to cut down on the light coming in, and keep a bigger aperture to retain more sharpness in the image.

 

[abraxas]

You asked. I answered.

 

[CraniumDesigns]

true, i'm just trying point out that it's probably better to go with f/16 in your case, as most people on this site, as well as other sites, have been telling me the light tends to scatter more on the smallest aperture of ur lens, and that u get sharper images at one stop wider.

 

[Torus34]

Are you expecting viewers to look at your pictures from a normal viewing distance -- or to smell them? Sharpness seems to matter mainly to gear and tech wonks. The 'non-serious-photographer' viewer, when looking at a picture, only notices significant blurriness.

Far, far more important is composition.

 

[CraniumDesigns]

true, composition is more important, but i also would love the sharpest shot i can get as well. though nature is a bit more forgiving than mad-made objects, i might want to me a 24x36" print at some point, so i want all the detail i can get.

 

[abraxas]

true, i'm just trying point out that it's probably better to go with f/16 in your case, as most people on this site, as well as other sites, have been telling me the light tends to scatter more on the smallest aperture of ur lens, and that u get sharper images at one stop wider.

Thanks for the advice!

I'll type the rest of this real slow so "u" can read it.

You've received some fine answers from some fine photographers with a range of technical knowledge and practical experience. You asked why a photographer would use an aperture smaller than f22?- I then answered why I use smaller apertures.

Still with me? Ok, let's take this a step further. I don't recall asking for advice, or how to, what to buy, or what "most" use. I gave you my answer.

Also, when I read your question, I answered it.

Summary;
You asked, I answered.

I have some questions. How do you know what's better for me in my case? Is this something you just read? Are you assuming you know my tastes better than me? You know what I like and the result I want? You know where I shoot and what I expect out of my work and where I'm trying to go and what I want to express? Are you high?

Do what you like. If you want to do what most do, do what most do. Not only settings, but go to the same places where most go and shoot the same pictures that most shoot at the same time most recommend and shoot from the same spot that most shoot from. Then you can have most of the same shots that most have. Then you can wonder why some people do things differently, but please, for the sake of these mathematical renegades, don't ask them why, because you're wasting their time. Your time is probably better spent asking most people what most people do rather than experimenting and seeing if you have something different going for you.

Maybe you should get high.

 

[dcclark]

Are you expecting viewers to look at your pictures from a normal viewing distance -- or to smell them? Sharpness seems to matter mainly to gear and tech wonks. The 'non-serious-photographer' viewer, when looking at a picture, only notices significant blurriness.

Far, far more important is composition.

Heh, you have an excellent point, and I agree wholeheartedly.

I avoid f/32 (for example) unless I really have to use it, because I can see the quality degradation, at normal sizes, in my own photos. I have deliberately gone out and experimented with the same photo, on a tripod, at a range of apertures from f/8 to f/32 -- the difference is visible. Of course, a good strong composition will overshadow that, but it's still annoying to me.

But, I'm definitely going to use the "smell the photo" argument at other times. Nice job.

 

[CraniumDesigns]

@abraxus: dude, chill. i was just explaining why i didn't get it. i'm a newbie and im asking questions. obviously you have much more experience than me. i was just getting clarification on things to see all the angles. don't be so cranky. i still love you