Landscape Photography - Tiny Apertures

[HJW]

Regarding landscape photography, I've seen many photographers use tiny apertures when shooting certain scenes. While the maximum depth of field can already be obtained at around f11 or f16 (varying), why do some go all the way to f22 (sometimes even with ND filters) - where there is noticeable diffraction affecting the sharpness and quality of their images?

 

[Buckster]

Are you saying that there is no more depth of field at f/22 than there is at f/11 or f/16?

 

[480sparky]

.......why do some go all the way to f22 (sometimes even with ND filters) - where there is noticeable diffraction affecting the sharpness and quality of their images?

To make an element in the image blur...... usually water.

 

[HJW]

Are you saying that there is no more depth of field at f/22 than there is at f/11 or f/16?

Well, I'm still a little hazy around depth of field, so I stand corrected when saying that. But won't you get 'acceptable sharpness' with about f/16 already? How does DoF come into play here?

On the topic of DoF, I'm afraid I still do not complete understand the term 'far limit of acceptable sharpness'. Apparently, if my subject distance is around 100ft, I can achieve infinite DoF with even an aperture of f/1. (According to the online DoF calculator, the focal length at 18mm). Does 'subject distance' mean focus distance in this case here? I've done quite a bit of reading on this - just need some clarification.

To make an element in the image blur...... usually water.

Isn't that achievable with ND filters without compromising on image quality?

I'm new to landscapes, just wanting to know more.

 

[molested_cow]

I don't like to push the aperture to either ends for landscape shots to avoid CA issues. If I want motion blur, I'll use a ND filter. The smallest I will go is about F14 on my AF-D 20mm.

 

[Dao]

I am not sure the answer since I am not a landscape photographer. However, the reason why they use a smaller aperture maybe because of the DoF as mentioned. But as you stated, when you use the DoF calc, it doesn't seem to increase the DoF when decrease the size of the aperture further. However, in certain condition, it is not the case. And maybe that is why those landscape photographer use a smaller aperture.


When we define DoF, we need to understand a term called Circle of Confusion (CoC) since it tells which area appear to be sharp and which area appera to be blur. And CoC is defined as the largest blur spot that still appear as a spot by human eye. But what affects the CoC? The recording medium, the magnification of the image in the final viewing medium (i.e. photo paper), the viewing distance.

So the information you saw in the DoF calculator were based on a pre-defined parameter. which is ....

- Fix recording medium: 35mm film size or cropped sensor size (based on the camera models)
- Final image is printed on a medium with size equal to 8"x10".
- Viewing distance is around 25cm. (a little less than a foot)
- No further magnification was done on the photo.


I do not think recording medium affect the CoC here (or DoF) because I do not think the photographer change his/her camera recording medium. What about if the photographer is planning to enlarge the photo or print the photo on a larger medium (assume the viewing distance does not increase much)
i.e. Print the photo on a poster size medium while viewing at about 2 to 3 feet away.


So the some area of the photo may appear to be out of focus when photo is enlarged. (because CoC changed => DoF changed)


Also, if the photographer use film instead of digital sensor, diffraction issue is not as bad when stop down to f/22 or smaller.

 

[Trever1t]

wide open aperture, stopped completely down on a wide angle lens focused to 2' will give you a DOF from lens to infinity...pretty much. Place your lens low on the horizon and some really interesting images can be obtained. Stolen from Understanding Exposure.

 

[Big Mike]

Regarding landscape photography, I've seen many photographers use tiny apertures when shooting certain scenes. While the maximum depth of field can already be obtained at around f11 or f16 (varying), why do some go all the way to f22 (sometimes even with ND filters) - where there is noticeable diffraction affecting the sharpness and quality of their images?

My guess would be that many photographers simply don't (fully) understand DOF and hyper-focal focusing.
They just know that a smaller aperture will give them a deeper DOF, so when they want a really deep DOF, they just use the smallest aperture available to them. Probably not realizing the degree to which image quality can suffer as small apertures.
I've been guilty of that myself.

Now I know better and I will figure out which aperture will give me the required DOF, rather than just defaulting to F22.

 

[analog.universe]

I see this a lot actually. Most times I even notice the diffraction first, and then see that it was shot at 22 or something silly. On a really long lens, sometimes you need to go there, but most landscape shots are wide, and most of the time ~f/11 is plenty.

If you really need the long shutter speeds, use an ND. I consider f/22 (and even f/16 on really wide lenses) a last ditch effort when I can't get the shot any other way...

 

[Big Mike]

Also, focus stacking/merging (seems to be) pretty easy to execute. So if you're going for the best image quality you can get and you need a really deep DOF, it's probably a better option to take three photos at say F8, focusing to different points in the scene and merging them.

 

[480sparky]

wide open aperture, stopped completely down.........

 

[Helen B]

When we define DoF, we need to understand a term called Circle of Confusion (CoC) since it tells which area appear to be sharp and which area appera to be blur. And CoC is defined as the largest blur spot that still appear as a spot by human eye.

Remember that in this case, 'CoC' is short for 'maximum acceptable circle of confusion', not simply 'circle of confusion'. The size of the circle of confusion is not defined.

Also, if the photographer use film instead of digital sensor, diffraction issue is not as bad when stop down to f/22 or smaller.

What makes you say that?

 

[spacefuzz]

As a landscape photographer I regularly use and abuse my lens above f/22. Yes it's a cheap Tamron 10-24 and yes bad CA and a loss of sharpness occurs, but if I need to go there to get the shot I want, then I'm going to sacrifice a bit of clarity. As someone mentioned it's usually related to water, but when you want streaking clouds that can be a factor too. Occasionally when shooting small wildflowers I need that much dof range as well.
Filters are great, and I have GNDs and NDs but sometimes they aren't enough! Longest exposure I've done was 15 minutes with 15 stops worth of filters at f/22.
Same thing with ISO. Lowest is best but I frequently go higher for stars or dusk seascape photography. It's all a trade off.

*dreams of nikon 14-24*

 

[Big Mike]

Also, if the photographer use film instead of digital sensor, diffraction issue is not as bad when stop down to f/22 or smaller.

What makes you say that?

Could it be that photosites on a sensor are more dependent on a good angle of approach than film is?

 

[Trever1t]

Thank's Sparky, I f'd up and meant widest lens....