aperture > f20


Status
Not open for further replies.

baggiolee

New Member
Dec 7, 2006
1,748
0
0
www.facebook.com
#1
1) i need shallower DOF to capture an object without blurring any part of it...is +/- f8 really enough? i have not seen anyone using > f20 yet...and is it abnormal to use?

2) is using a flash a good practice to shoot at smaller aperture (even in outdoor)? my pictures are blurred without flash at f7 outdoor (using nikon VR lens).
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,516
30
48
Pasir Ris
#2
1) Read this article: Understanding Depth of Field and follow the links given.
2) Please describe your setup and the condition (time, light etc.) or post an example image with EXIF intact. Everything else is just wild guessing based on a very vague description.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#3
1. Read on hyperfocal distance.
2. Read up on diffraction. That's why I wouldn't go higher than f/16.
 

Dream Merchant

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 11, 2007
9,659
6
38
#4
Hard to advise without critical details and specific samples with EXIF details.

The reason why people ask for EXIF a lot of times is because authors too often miss out critical details, whereas it's all contained in the EXIF.

Having said that, as for achieving DEEP (NOT shallow) DOF, using smaller apertures is one approach (with the necessary increase in ISO or amount of light or much longer shutter speeds, as appropriate).

When a smaller aperture is used effectively with hyperfocal practice, it may sometimes help, or not. All depends on specific situations/subject/set-up etc etc etc

Where critical quality and DOF control is required without worrying about diffraction degradation setting in, or when stopping down to the maximum is still not enough, one of the preferred approaches is to make use of the Scheimpflug principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheimpflug_principle) via tilt/shift lenses or a large format camera. Applying the Scheimpflug principle in real life is actually easier than reading the wiki entry, but mastering it with critical control can be quite challenging.

There is another technique that can be used. Does anyone know what it might be?

As regards your second question, we must find out WHY your photos was blur. Adding a flash blindly may or may not help, but we won't be helping you much because whatever is said would be pure speculative hamtam bola tikam tikam in the dark.
 

Last edited:

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#5
1) i need shallower DOF to capture an object without blurring any part of it...is +/- f8 really enough? i have not seen anyone using > f20 yet...and is it abnormal to use?

2) is using a flash a good practice to shoot at smaller aperture (even in outdoor)? my pictures are blurred without flash at f7 outdoor (using nikon VR lens).
i used f/22 a lot, usually to extend exposure. these days, usually don't go beyond f/16.

you will get diffraction, but that is something that you compromise on.

sometimes, i use f/22 for maximum depth of field. this is in particular when i want to use uwa (10-20 @ 10mm), and go very low. to retain maximum relative sharpness from front to back, have to stop down and go for focus at hyperfocal point.
 

Jun 11, 2009
741
0
0
31
Singapore
#7
1) i need shallower DOF to capture an object without blurring any part of it...is +/- f8 really enough? i have not seen anyone using > f20 yet...and is it abnormal to use?

2) is using a flash a good practice to shoot at smaller aperture (even in outdoor)? my pictures are blurred without flash at f7 outdoor (using nikon VR lens).
1. Its not abnormal to use f22 or even larger if you lens permits. Photos might be less sharp, but at normal viewing it shouldn't cause any issue in IQ. Pixel peeping might be another story. I have seen books where photographers used f/32 or even smaller.
Erm, pardon me for asking, your statement a bit contradicting. You want shallower dof and yet you want to use f8 or even f/20? Normally f/2.8-f/5.6 or so should be able to give you a clear object w/o any blur part and yet have some background blur. Of course it is focal length dependent and subject dependent. f/20 and up is more for like say you have a flower in front of a mountain and you want to capture a photo where the flower is sharp and fill a decent part of the frame and yet you can see the landscape and mountain in the background.

2. Something is not right. In bright outdoor, you should be able to shoot even f/22 using handheld and not suffer from hand shake blur. It shouldn't be a problem even w/o vr unless you are using a super long tele. Indoor is another thing though.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#8
1. Its not abnormal to use f22 or even larger if you lens permits. Photos might be less sharp, but at normal viewing it shouldn't cause any issue in IQ. Pixel peeping might be another story. I have seen books where photographers used f/32 or even smaller.
er, usually that is for medium format.

f/32 for dslr is really going to give you kickass diffraction visible even at small sizes. believe me, i've tried. ;p
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#9
1. Its not abnormal to use f22 or even larger if you lens permits. Photos might be less sharp, but at normal viewing it shouldn't cause any issue in IQ. Pixel peeping might be another story. I have seen books where photographers used f/32 or even smaller.
....................
the smallest aperture on most lenses usable on DSLR is only f22. but using f22 on DSLR will have diffraction.

I hardly use bigger than f11 on my Mamiya RB, usually f32, and usually use f45 on my large format camera. but that is on film.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#10
the smallest aperture on most lenses usable on DSLR is only f22. but using f22 on DSLR will have diffraction.

I hardly use bigger than f11 on my Mamiya RB, usually f32, and usually use f45 on my large format camera. but that is on film.
my tamron 70-300 got f/45..

but the softness is power! :bsmilie:
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#12
Yes I know that is mostly for mf.

Yes, it will be softer, BUT not completely unusable right? A no meaning test shot at f/32 using a kit lens. Maybe you guys don't find it ok, but to me it is usable.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44010045@N08/4040682831/
of course not unusable, it's just that the performance has dropped exponentially to the point that most people would not deem it as acceptable image quality. ;)
 

#13
I think you all have made it pretty clear why not to use f number more than f16.. so the question is how do I gain very deep DOF without using so small aperture?

The solution is to do focus stack. This technique involves taking multiple shots at diff focus points, then digitally combining the shots together in PS. Can google to read more. I've been doing focus stack for macro, and it's the easiest way to achieve edge to edge sharpness without compromising on loss in detail.
 

satch

Senior Member
May 1, 2004
2,114
0
0
Living out of the suitcase...
#14
arggh... i used F22 earlier today on my Ef 85 f1.8 to "darken" the white background... i realised that sharpness deteriorated quite badly after F16... next time i shall stick to f16 or f18 max.
 

baggiolee

New Member
Dec 7, 2006
1,748
0
0
www.facebook.com
#15
I think you all have made it pretty clear why not to use f number more than f16.. so the question is how do I gain very deep DOF without using so small aperture?

The solution is to do focus stack. This technique involves taking multiple shots at diff focus points, then digitally combining the shots together in PS. Can google to read more. I've been doing focus stack for macro, and it's the easiest way to achieve edge to edge sharpness without compromising on loss in detail.
lol tats cool!! and tats what i need...i need more DOF, think i should skip 35/50mm 1.4/1.8 lens as well, since i need deeper DOF most of the time.
 

LBL2009

New Member
Jul 9, 2009
478
0
0
Seletar Estate, Singapore
#16
Sorry to hijack this threat.

Some of you use smaller f number for long exposure as I read the posts. May I know in what situation and for what effect when you go for > f16 and long exposure?
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#17
Sorry to hijack this threat.

Some of you use smaller f number for long exposure as I read the posts. May I know in what situation and for what effect when you go for > f16 and long exposure?
you can get the effects of

"or lu lu" or "pei liao liao" photos if you did not make the correct exposure

a lot hand shake if you did not use tripod

a lot of subject motion blur if this is what you looking for
 

Last edited:

chalib

Senior Member
Oct 4, 2007
2,072
0
0
#18
Sorry to hijack this threat.

Some of you use smaller f number for long exposure as I read the posts. May I know in what situation and for what effect when you go for > f16 and long exposure?
To capture silky water flow in daylight
To capture moving clouds in daylight
To make ppl dissapeared at busy street in daylight :bsmilie:

Btw you need ND for help
 

Aug 1, 2009
250
0
0
www.flickr.com
#20
if you have something ND 10 or stronger, usually u can shoot at f/8. if you only have low ND filters then u have to go f/16 or smaller. don't forget your polarizer is worth 2 stops.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom