OK, so .... when would you use f/22 ?

[ottor]

So .... perhaps for the long exposure .... under what other conditions would you use such a small setting? I've actually never used such an extreme number, but think I'll play around a little..

Are there any negatives to this? - sharpness, etc?

r

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

When you want all or most of the frame in focus??? Like for a group photo of maybe a landscape of sorts?

 

[supraman215]

Extreme depth of field. very very bright situations. You don't really want to have it that high if you can help it, forcing all the light through that tiny hole can cause it to change a little I think you can have issues with sharpness. It's digital, try it out

 

[Robin Usagani]

When you shoot with flash in the middle of the day and you are trying to make it look like you are shooting at night

 

[MohaimenK]

During studio shoot

 

[reznap]

When you shoot with flash in the middle of the day and you are trying to make it look like you are shooting at night

Yeah, guys shoot 4 flashes at once at a couple or something, kills the ambient daylight.

 

[JG_Coleman]

So .... perhaps for the long exposure .... under what other conditions would you use such a small setting? I've actually never used such an extreme number, but think I'll play around a little..

Are there any negatives to this? - sharpness, etc?

r

I use f/22 often for maximum depth-of-field in landscapes. Such a small aperture renders everything in focus. A small aperture allows you to keep everything sharp in a shot with considerable depth. For example, foreground objects, which may be only a few feet away, can be kept crisp without losing any sharpness all the way to distant background details. For landscapes, the simplest way to think of it is that f/22 renders everything pretty sharp, not just the focus point.

There are definitely downsides to using such a small aperture, though. For one, even though everything in the shot will be relatively sharp... larger apertures generally resolve detail better than smaller apertures. For example, f/8 through f/11 will usually render details more sharply than f/22. The difference isn't enormous, but it is perceivable at 1:1 when you compare the same photo taken at different apertures.

So, using tiny apertures is something of a compromise, and should generally be used with this consideration. On one hand, when using a mid-range aperture like f/8 or f/11, the objects at the focus point will be slightly sharper than the same objects at the focus point using f/22. On the other hand, most every object in the frame will be rather sharp with f/22, whereas objects shot at f/8 or f/11 will show a noticeable loss of sharpness the further they are from the focus point.

It's not a bad idea, even when shooting landscapes, to try to use a larger aperture if possible... like f/14, f/16, f/18. These apertures still suffer from some loss of overall resolving power, but not as much as f/22.

 

[Jcampbelll]

When using a tripod!

 

[Derrel]

f/22 is great for scenics and landscapes whenever there's a bright, clear sky--be it white,gray,or blue; f/22 helps to show all the dirt and crud on your sensor's AA filter, and makes lovely, small, hard-edged black spots on even-toned areas, almost as if some waiter stood over the image and gave it a grind of fresh, black pepper from a pepper mill. You definitely ought to try it sometime! Mmmmmm....delicious....that f/22 goodness!

 

[LittleMike]

This is when I use f/22:

In this image I obviously wanted to have the foreground in focus, but I also wanted to show the detail in the background to give a sense of how far away and below it was. With a shallow depth of field, the blur would have made it harder to tell the distance.

And in MY opinion, having a scenic shot with clouds in it, and having them out of focus, is USUALLY not desirable.

 

[benlonghair]

Macro photography. It's amazing on a longer lens (like my 300) how shallow the DoF is when you're close to the MFD.

This was taken at f/22 and the DoF is still too shallow.


dragonflyDSC_0109 by ben_long_hair, on Flickr

 

[pgriz]

Well, you don't get a free lunch. When you crank up the f/stop to f/16 or more, then diffraction effects start to appear. I've tested all my lenses on my APS-C (Canon) body, and detail starts to disappear when you go past f/16 (and I am using "L" lenses, so the lens quality is not really an issue). So yes, you do get increasing DOF, but you also get diffraction effects. I haven't yet run the same set of tests at macro distances and apertures, so can't say if the same effects hold.

 

[ottor]

Well, you don't get a free lunch. When you crank up the f/stop to f/16 or more, then diffraction effects start to appear. I've tested all my lenses on my APS-C (Canon) body, and detail starts to disappear when you go past f/16 (and I am using "L" lenses, so the lens quality is not really an issue). So yes, you do get increasing DOF, but you also get diffraction effects. I haven't yet run the same set of tests at macro distances and apertures, so can't say if the same effects hold.

Appreciate the responses....... Now I'm gonna go look up "diffraction" ..

I asked my wife if she knew what Diffraction is, and she said that Dr. Oz just covered that condition in a show last week....

 

[Phranquey]

When I'm stormchasing during the day... f/22 @ lowest ISO w/ND8 gives me the maximum shutter time.

 

[akeigher]

I used it in this shot to give me the sunburst.

In MOST cases it really isnt needed for DOF in landscape shots. Most of the time f/8 - f/16 will give you more than enough DOF and will be far sharper because its optically better for the lens.