Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Confused ? f value ?

  • 04-03-2008 2:09pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭


    Now im confused ... I thought that the lower the f value
    the sharper the image ?

    now i find out that its actually softer ?

    OK i know the lower the F value (1.8 for eg.) the faster the shutter speed
    can be, but i thought it also made it sharper, hence the image quality being very sharp on the Tamron 17-55 at f2.8.

    So if I wanna shoot landscapes in wide mode, is it better to use a higher f value with a slower shutter speed (using a tripod to avoid blur) to get sharper images ?
    or is there an ideal "in between"


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 184 ✭✭ShakeyBlakey


    jackdaw wrote: »
    Now im confused ... I thought that the lower the f value
    the sharper the image ?

    now i find out that its actually softer ?

    OK i know the lower the F value (1.8 for eg.) the faster the shutter speed
    can be, but i thought it also made it sharper, hence the image quality being very sharp on the Tamron 17-55 at f2.8.

    So if I wanna shoot landscapes in wide mode, is it better to use a higher f value with a slower shutter speed (using a tripod to avoid blur) to get sharper images ?
    or is there an ideal "in between"


    Landscapes .......f22, tripod, its the only way mate, and lowest iso,
    Cheers
    Mark


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭SOL


    Actually f22 is not the best idea unless you want to catch something that is very close as well as a far object, if you check out the lense reviews you can see that as you go past f8-11 on a wide angle lense you start approaching diffraction limits and the sharpness will decrease.

    So to answer your question, usually at wide open you are pushing the limits of the glass engineering but if you stop down from wide open so from f2.8 down to maybe f8 you may notice a good increase in sharpness however beyond you will not. The actually mid point for this depends on the focal length of the lens but for all intenets and purposes either f8 or f11 or in between should be your best bet :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 168 ✭✭leohoju


    Landscapes .......f22, tripod, its the only way mate, and lowest iso,
    Cheers
    Mark

    F/22 might be a little too much though as most lenses have their "sweet-spot" between f/8 and f/16 if you're after the sharpest and clearest pictures possible.

    <edit> Beaten to it by SOL! :D</edit>


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭jackdaw


    OK
    to summarise

    Wide apertures (f1.8,f2) very fast shutter speeds - image not so sharp

    'narrower' apertures (f8-11) slower shutter speeds (still fast enough id imagine- in good light) but sharper images


    f22 -32 image may be blurry due to long exposure times ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭SOL


    One word, DIFFRACTION


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 349 ✭✭amcinroy


    No no no, there's a bit of confusion here.

    Ignore shutter speed completely. This has no effect on image sharpness at all (at least at an optical level). This blur seen when handholding longer exposures is nothing to do with aperture or the lens and is actually to do with your physical movement during the exposure. To evaluate the sharpness effects of aperture you really need to do some tests on a tripod.

    Now, all lenses have a sweet spot for sharpness (of the focal plane!) which can be anywhere between f2.8 and f11 depending on the lens. You also have to take into account the depth of field which will affect the rate of sharpness rolloff at points in front of (or behind) the focal plane.

    At smaller apertures, diffraction can become a limiting factor to image sharpness but then again if you need huge depth of field then there is no alternative to using small apertures. It's a seesaw of tradeoffs.

    Now consider the example of taking a distant landscape. There is no point using f22 in this case because there is no foreground and you should therefore be working at you lens sweet spot (f8 is usually a good general place to be). But in the example of a deep landscape shot where you are low to the ground with huge foreground then f22 (and on a tripod) is a better bet.

    Andy


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,563 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    jackdaw wrote: »
    Now im confused ... I thought that the lower the f value
    the sharper the image ?
    The lower the f value the shallower the depth of field - i.e. a softer focus on objects that are not the main focus of the shot. The subject of the shot will appear sharper - but only in comparison to anything at a different depth within the frame. The higher the f value the more in focus everything in the frame will appear.

    At least thats my understanding!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,228 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Dades wrote: »
    The lower the f value the shallower the depth of field - i.e. a softer focus on objects that are not the main focus of the shot. The subject of the shot will appear sharper - but only in comparison to anything at a different depth within the frame. The higher the f value the more in focus everything in the frame will appear.

    At least thats my understanding!
    I think thats what the OP was refering to, depth of field and focus,
    not the sweet spot.

    OP, check out depth of field on google


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 349 ✭✭amcinroy


    Dades wrote: »
    The higher the f value the more in focus everything in the frame will appear.

    This depends on what distance everything in the frame is from you. If everything is reasonably far away then this is incorrect. There's no point in having a huge depth of field for a landscape that is essentially at infinity. In this case, using a mid aperture will actually give a sharper image.

    Andy


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    Also diffraction occurs at really high f values (high is a confusing term and should really say smaller aperture).

    f/8-11 is normally the sharpest and by f/16 you the image starts dropping in quality (although more of the image will generally be in focus) and f22 gives you the sharpness as f3.5 but with the benefit that practically everything is in focus.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 349 ✭✭amcinroy


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    by f/16 you the image starts dropping in quality (although more of the image will generally be in focus)

    Remember, the only thing that is actually in focus is the focal plane.

    The rest of the image is out of focus, although by different degrees. Depending on the size of the enlargement made, this may or may not be perceptible. Depth of field is an optical illusion and should not be confused with the term "in focus".

    Andy


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,563 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    amcinroy wrote: »
    This depends on what distance everything in the frame is from you. If everything is reasonably far away then this is incorrect. There's no point in having a huge depth of field for a landscape that is essentially at infinity. In this case, using a mid aperture will actually give a sharper image.
    Undoubtedly good advice.
    I gave the simple version I understood as I figured that's what the OP was looking for!
    *Hey there's editing going on* ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    amcinroy wrote: »
    Remember, the only thing that is actually in focus is the focal plane.

    The rest of the image is out of focus, although by different degrees. Depending on the size of the enlargement made, this may or may not be perceptible. Depth of field is an optical illusion and should not be confused with the term "in focus".

    Andy

    Rightio and that's why people pay massive amounts of money for the TS lens right? For the hobbyist though I don't think the differences are that substantial.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,174 ✭✭✭mathias


    I didnt help that much on the other thread by getting my fractions back to front , but I will say the best thing Ive read on this particular topic was in the old favourite ,

    Understanding Exposure , by Brian Peterson ,

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Exposure-Photographs-Digital-Camera/dp/0817463003/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204652988&sr=8-1

    And the section on " Story telling apertures" , it has an exercise you can do so that you can get to grips with the topic by trying it out with your camera.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭jackdaw


    OK guys that really helps thanks !!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭jackdaw


    Scott Kelby says you should use the highest F value ??

    surely f 36 is too high ??

    f 22 should be sufficient yeah ?

    if i shoot a blue sky for example on f36 i can see dust specks :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,209 ✭✭✭nilhg


    jackdaw wrote: »
    Scott Kelby says you should use the highest F value ??

    (


    In what context?

    Once you get into high f values with most DSLRs diffraction can have an effect so you need a good reason to use them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,272 ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    I think if you ask many landscape photographers, they will use around f/16 for images since that is probably best for a large area in focus combined with the lens/camera sweeter area.

    I'm just back from holidays, mostly taking landscapes, and most were shot around f/16, and I'm very happy with the DOF and clarity. Images on my FlickR if anyone wants to check the images and their settings.


Advertisement