# Aperture in Landscape Photography?



## CraniumDesigns

Hey Folks,

So I'm really get into landscape photography. I'm not exactly sure what aperture to use. While f/22 gets everything in focus and creates the deepest DOF, I have heard that f/8-f/11 is the "sweet spot" for sharpness. I want to be able to make large prints someday. How do you balance a wide DOF but still get a sharp print?

I just got the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and I'm excited to test it out.

Thanks!


----------



## Sw1tchFX

Depending on what you're shooting, f/8 might get everything in focus, if you have foreground or background elements, you might need f/22.. it depends.


----------



## dcclark

I would generally not go as far as f/22 unless you really need it. If you're going for serious sharpness, you'll want to avoid very small apertures, where diffraction can mess with your sharpness.

I'd stay in the range f/8 to f/16 generally. But that's just a general range, as always, there will be special cases.


----------



## craig

Do not be afraid to experiment. Your camera lens combo has the answer. Not us. Search the forums. Somewhere there is a link that calculates/tests the sweet spot of most lenses. My kit lens was near 8 or 11. I refuse to accept that.

Love & Bass


----------



## Garbz

f/22 is not only out of the sweet spot. It's well into diffraction range. Anything above f/16 takes a serious and notable sharpness hit even when printing 8x5s.


----------



## CraniumDesigns

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?


----------



## abraxas

CraniumDesigns said:


> ...
> so why would u ever wanna shoot in f/22 or higher?



I shoot landscapes almost exclusively. F22 is with few exceptions the maximum aperture I use- I prefer f32 when I can get it.  With low iso and the longer exposure times I feel it shows light as it changes.  The depth of field full and the colors richer. The effect is sweeping to me.  Nothing like a good 1-2 minute twilight exposure to set my head straight.

As said though, it's about what you want. Experiment.


----------



## CraniumDesigns

i understand why you'd want f/22 or smaller for a long exposure, but i'd rather use an ND filter to cut down on the light coming in, and keep a bigger aperture to retain more sharpness in the image.


----------



## abraxas

You asked. I answered.


----------



## CraniumDesigns

true, i'm just trying point out that it's probably better to go with f/16 in your case, as most people on this site, as well as other sites, have been telling me the light tends to scatter more on the smallest aperture of ur lens, and that u get sharper images at one stop wider.


----------



## Torus34

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.


----------



## CraniumDesigns

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.


----------



## abraxas

CraniumDesigns said:


> true, i'm just trying point out that it's probably better to go with f/16 in your case, as most people on this site, as well as other sites, have been telling me the light tends to scatter more on the smallest aperture of ur lens, and that u get sharper images at one stop wider.



Thanks for the advice!

I'll type the rest of this real slow so "u" can read it.

You've received some fine answers from some fine photographers with a range of technical knowledge and practical experience.  You asked why a photographer would use an aperture smaller than f22?- I then answered why I use smaller apertures.

Still with me? Ok, let's take this a step further.  I don't recall asking for advice, or how to, what to buy, or what "most" use. I gave you my answer.

Also, when I read your question, I answered it.

Summary;
You asked, I answered.

I have some questions.  How do you know what's better for me in my case? Is this something you just read?  Are you assuming you know my tastes better than me?  You know what I like and the result I want? You know where I shoot and what I expect out of my work and where I'm trying to go and what I want to express? Are you high?

Do what you like. If you want to do what most do, do what most do. Not only settings, but go to the same places where most go and shoot the same pictures that most shoot at the same time most recommend and shoot from the same spot that most shoot from.  Then you can have most of the same shots that most have. Then you can wonder why some people do things differently, but please, for the sake of these mathematical renegades, don't ask them why, because you're wasting their time.  Your time is probably better spent asking most people what most people do rather than experimenting and seeing if you have something different going for you.

Maybe you should get high.


----------



## dcclark

Torus34 said:


> 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.



Heh, you have an excellent point, and I agree wholeheartedly.

I avoid f/32 (for example) unless I really have to use it, because I _can_ see the quality degradation, at normal sizes, in my own photos. I have deliberately gone out and experimented with the same photo, on a tripod, at a range of apertures from f/8 to f/32 -- the difference is visible. Of course, a good strong composition will overshadow that, but it's still annoying to me.

But, I'm definitely going to use the "smell the photo" argument at other times. Nice job.


----------



## CraniumDesigns

@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


----------



## abraxas

CraniumDesigns said:


> @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

CraniumDesigns said:


> 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

epp_b said:


> 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.



CraniumDesigns said:


> 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.



Torus34 said:


> 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

abraxas said:


> *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

Renie said:


> 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


----------

