# First picture ever taken at f32..



## DaPOPO (Mar 22, 2020)

I took this picture at f32 at approximately 1823 hours. The pole and street pole banner is approximately 1/16th of a mile east of the city hall.

I am actually pretty happy with how in focus both the street banner and the building are.

I used my Nikon D7100 with a my nikon 50mm 1.8d set at iso 200, 1/15, f32 on a tripod.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 22, 2020)

When you need depth of field,  f/32 gives it to you.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 22, 2020)

Nikon 50/1.8 D?  F/*32*? ....


----------



## Designer (Mar 22, 2020)

480sparky said:


> Nikon 50/1.8 D?  F/*32*? ....


Maybe he meant to write f/22.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 22, 2020)

Designer said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon 50/1.8 D?  F/*32*? ....
> ...



EXIF says f/32.  I'm stumped as to how that's possible.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 22, 2020)

480sparky said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



My 50/1.8 only goes to F-22 but the exif information does say f/32...so...perhaps he was using a telconnverter or an old 55 micro? I dunno' and I really don't care too much.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 22, 2020)

Derrel said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Designer said:
> ...



Mine too.  Maybe it's a set of custom aperture blades.

Or it's a lens used by Spinal Tap.


----------



## K9Kirk (Mar 23, 2020)

Nice shot. I don't know anything about a Nikon D7100 and it's limitations but my Canon D80 goes up to f/32 so apparently it depends on the camera as to whether it will go above F/22 or not. It's understandable why you used 1/15th and on a tripod when there's fairly good light. Good job.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 23, 2020)

K9Kirk said:


> ..... so apparently it depends on the camera as to whether it will go above F/22 or not.........



That's a new one.  A lens goes to f/22 on one body, and f/32 on another.

Anyone want to buy a bridge I've got for sale in Brooklyn?


----------



## Designer (Mar 23, 2020)

K9Kirk said:


> .. apparently it depends on the camera as to whether it will go above F/22 or not.


The readout that you see on your camera is getting that aperture number from the lens that you have mounted.


----------



## K9Kirk (Mar 23, 2020)

Designer said:


> K9Kirk said:
> 
> 
> > .. apparently it depends on the camera as to whether it will go above F/22 or not.
> ...



I was wondering about that so 


480sparky said:


> K9Kirk said:
> 
> 
> > ..... so apparently it depends on the camera as to whether it will go above F/22 or not.........
> ...



If a lens wants to "identify" as an f/32 that's it's business, lol! Hey, I totally misunderstood, never mind.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 23, 2020)

K9Kirk said:


> .......If a lens wants to "identify" as an f/32 that's it's business, lol! Hey, I totally misunderstood, never mind.



Then my 200-500 should identify as an f/0.4.


----------



## K9Kirk (Mar 23, 2020)

480sparky said:


> K9Kirk said:
> 
> 
> > .......If a lens wants to "identify" as an f/32 that's it's business, lol! Hey, I totally misunderstood, never mind.
> ...



Now wouldn't that be dandy!


----------



## Lonnie1212 (Mar 23, 2020)

This is an impressive picture!  I like to see people do great things with DX cameras.  Yesterday I took pictures with a Nikon D3200 with a 50 mm 1.8 lens.  Keep up the good work.  I hope to see more.  

Thank you, 

Lonnie


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Mar 23, 2020)

So no word from the op on how he was able to get to f/32 with that lens?


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 23, 2020)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> So no word from the op on how he was able to get to f/32 with that lens?



Two guesses:
1. Using a TC where the TC reports the aperture change, but not the focal length change.
2. EXIF editing software and we're being trolled.


----------



## DaPOPO (Mar 24, 2020)

Hey guys! So I read all of the responses and I went and pulled out my camera... It goes up to f.32 just as I posted... 

I had no idea that the f-stop could be limited by the lens, as I posted I have never taken a picture at f.32 before, or quite frankly past f.22. I just did it as I stated.

So... Did I really take the picture at f.32 as I set the aperture on the camera to, or did the lens only stop down to f.22 and that is what I took?


----------



## DaPOPO (Mar 24, 2020)

480sparky said:


> K9Kirk said:
> 
> 
> > ..... so apparently it depends on the camera as to whether it will go above F/22 or not.........
> ...



I made a group reply to the thread. Maybe you can help. Thanks.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 24, 2020)

DaPOPO said:


> Hey guys! So I read all of the responses and I went and pulled out my camera... It goes up to f.32 just as I posted...
> 
> I had no idea that the f-stop could be limited by the lens, as I posted I have never taken a picture at f.32 before, or quite frankly past f.22. I just did it as I stated.
> 
> So... Did I really take the picture at f.32 as I set the aperture on the camera to, or did the lens only stop down to f.22 and that is what I took?



The lens is listed by Nikon as having a minimum aperture of f/22.  That's the smallest setting on the lens is f/22.  I can't think of any way you can dial it down to F/22 and there's a magic setting that makes it f/32.  If the camera recorded f/32, then there's something wrong.


----------



## Designer (Mar 24, 2020)

DaPOPO said:


> Hey guys! So I read all of the responses and I went and pulled out my camera... It goes up to f.32 just as I posted...
> 
> I had no idea that the f-stop could be limited by the lens, as I posted I have never taken a picture at f.32 before, or quite frankly past f.22. I just did it as I stated.
> 
> So... Did I really take the picture at f.32 as I set the aperture on the camera to, or did the lens only stop down to f.22 and that is what I took?


It's a puzzle for sure.  To be technically accurate, the aperture is the part that is limiting the aperture, and since they are (AFAIK) always inside the lens, there could be (in theory) an aperture in the camera body completely apart from the lens, but I've never heard of anything like that.  

When you set your camera to that aperture, where are you reading the number?  Is this number in the top display or in the viewfinder?  

Just a wild guess here, but maybe your camera readout is faulty.  Somebody with camera repair experience might be able to figure it out.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 24, 2020)

Designer said:


> DaPOPO said:
> 
> 
> > Hey guys! So I read all of the responses and I went and pulled out my camera... It goes up to f.32 just as I posted...
> ...



The EXIF says it's f/32.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 24, 2020)

File this one under....? Mystery!


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 24, 2020)




----------



## Sharpshooterr (Mar 24, 2020)

DP, that pic came out pretty good! Maybe it's fudging a bit but lets make you a member of the f64 club!!!
Don't forget it might be easier to use Focus Stacking. You could use more normal settings and faster speeds and still shoot at iso 100.
SS


----------



## DaPOPO (Mar 25, 2020)

Designer said:


> DaPOPO said:
> 
> 
> > Hey guys! So I read all of the responses and I went and pulled out my camera... It goes up to f.32 just as I posted...
> ...



You can see the f.32 both in the view finder and on top of the camera.


----------



## DaPOPO (Mar 25, 2020)

Ok, well then we will all live our lives with a mystery for the ages... Thanks guys..


----------



## dennybeall (Mar 25, 2020)

Anybody can get software to make exif data say anything you want.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 31, 2020)

dennybeall said:


> Anybody can get software to make exif data say anything you want.


Why would anybody lie about their aperture setting? That's an odd thing to insinuate.


----------



## crf8 (Mar 31, 2020)

From another forum:
slowhands
Veteran Member • Posts: 5,470
ALL can be altered
Jul 1, 2012
A digital image file is just a collection of bits/bytes with a container (filename).

The internal structure is meaningful only to programs who abide by and agree to some defined structure. Other programs may interpret the content differently, may allow manipulation of the content totally without regard to the conventions/structures used by other programs.

A "Binary Editor" can manipulate any contents of any file - though the operator generally needs intimate knowledge / documentation of the target file's defined structure to make intended changes as opposed to just mucking up the bits.

There are also programs which specifically are designed to understand and support manipulation of EXIF data, including date information.

Back in the FILM days, image content could be manipulated in the darkroom..not much different today.

disclaimer - I am not a lawyer nor a vetted expert witness on the topic, however, I do stand behind my points above, and have been convincing in court.


FB.me/CRFinTN  Facebook 
www.flickr.com/crf8/


----------

