Aperture in Landscape Photography?

[abraxas]

@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

Cramium,

You asked, I answered.

 

[epp_b]

Depth of field has more to do with focus distance than aperture. When photographing landscapes, you'll usually be using longer focus distances, which means larger depths of fields.

Most of the time, choosing the optimal aperture for a given lens is all you need to do.

 

[KmH]

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.

Some of the sweetest landscape images ever made aren't sharply focused.

Don't get stuck in a specific paradigm. Keep it fluid and consider all reasonable possibilities for your images.

 

[Steph]

When photographing landscapes, you'll usually be using longer focus distances, which means larger depths of fields.

Not always true!! If you want to add interest in the foreground of a landscape shot with a boulder, tree, flower or any other object fairly close to the camera, you will need to stop down to get the required DOF.

To the OP, you have to compromise between ultimate sharpness and DOF in landscape photography. To me, a lack of DOF is much more obvious to the viewer than a loss of sharpness caused by diffraction at f/22 (even on large prints). Therefore, if the shot requires the use of a small aperture to achieve the desired DOF, I will go down as low as f/22 (or even f/32 with medium format) and won't even think about the detrimental effect of diffraction.

 

[CraniumDesigns]

Thanks Steph. Your answer really helped. It's true that a good a lack of the proper DOF would be much more noticable than having nice sharpness. I think I will go for the sharpest shot, when it wont badly affect DOF, and i dont need less light for slowing something down.

 

[EhJsNe]

The small aperture allows for more complex landscapes to be equally in (...well more of out...) of focus.

I like using small apertures for outdoor sports, the smallest I can use with still keeping a 1/500 second shutter speed. That way, if I dont have time to focus on the shot, I can trust its a decent shot, something the person in the shot can appreciate. Doesnt have to make me happy.

 

[Garbz]

All in all it is important to remember that this is all artistic choice too. No one said landscapes NEED to have infinite depth of field. That said the majority of landscapes I've seen seem to adhere to the largest usable aperture to maximise DOF.

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?

Because diffraction affects different sized sensors differently. On a film body, or a full frame camera (which used to have f/22 usually as a default small aperture) diffraction causes far less of a loss in sharpness and you get perfectly usable photos. Looking at large format cameras the apertures go well into f/64 range since diffraction affects their sharpness differently.

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.

Yep but when you at standard length can see a notable difference in sharpness on an 8x5 between f/11 and f/22 then it's not a case of technical masturbation anymore. The more a person enjoys a picture the more they will look at it, and scrutinise it, and then notice the other flaws.

Composition is very important, but once you nail that and have their attention it's important that the other aspects of the picture match the quality of the composition. I have heard someone say before "It's a nice picture but not very sharp" to an 18x12 image at an exhibition at the Power House from a couple of meters away. (That said while it was noticeably less sharp than the artists other work the composition was horrible IMO so it probably didn't mean much )

 

[CraniumDesigns]

"technical masterbation" hehehe. (<--i'm mentally 5 years old)

 

[j-digg]

Cramium,

You asked, I answered.

Lol... sorry but lol....

 

[Renie]

So defensive... He was just trying to get the conversation going and you get so defensive and sarcastic. Very rude. Maybe you should learn some Forums etiquette. Oh, and if he needs to get high, you need to get therapy. Good luck on being so bitter!

 

[CraniumDesigns]

So defensive... He was just trying to get the conversation going and you get so defensive and sarcastic. Very rude. Maybe you should learn some Forums etiquette. Oh, and if he needs to get high, you need to get therapy. Good luck on being so bitter!

not sure who you're talking to. this thread is like 4 years old. i forgot all about this. i take great landscape shots now, so i figured it out. 500px / Steven Davis / Photos