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



## ottor (Oct 5, 2010)

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 (Oct 5, 2010)

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


----------



## supraman215 (Oct 5, 2010)

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 (Oct 5, 2010)

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 (Oct 5, 2010)

During studio shoot


----------



## reznap (Oct 5, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> 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 (Oct 5, 2010)

ottor said:


> 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 (Oct 5, 2010)

When using a tripod!


----------



## Derrel (Oct 6, 2010)

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 (Oct 6, 2010)

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 (Oct 6, 2010)

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 (Oct 6, 2010)

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 (Oct 6, 2010)

pgriz said:


> 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 (Oct 6, 2010)

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


----------



## akeigher (Oct 6, 2010)

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.


----------



## supraman215 (Oct 6, 2010)

akeigher said:


> 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.



This is true for most landscape because usually you're shooting with a wide angle, and your focus distance is usually relatively (further than 5') far away. The combo of those 2 gives you tremendous DOF so f/8 would likely be more than enough to keep everything in focus.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 6, 2010)

I specifically choose f/22 when shooting macros with my Sigma 180mm f/3.5 EX DG IF HSM APO Macro (there's a mouthful!) that goes to f/32 because after testing the lens found that f/22 gives me the sharpest focus and still gets me lots of DOF.  It's that len's sweet spot for sharpness, so that's what I tend to use.

I will also use it to slow shutter times, though I prefer to use ND filters for that, allowing me to better retain aperture control for creative purposes.

Other DOF issues will get the small aperture treatment as well, but if I want to go with everything in focus, like sharp foreground elements and sharp mountains in the background (as an example) I prefer to choose the sharpest aperture for the lens I'm using, and then use hyperfocal techniques to get everything in focus.

Some useful links on Hyperfocus:

Hyperfocal Distance

Hyperfocal Distance Chart - DOFMaster

Example of hyperfocus, with both closeup flower, middle region trees, and faraway clouds all in focus:


----------



## supraman215 (Oct 6, 2010)

I've never shot macro, what's a lot of DOF at 180mm, 3/4"? lol


----------



## Buckster (Oct 6, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> I've never shot macro, what's a lot of DOF at 180mm, 3/4"? lol


lol. Often much less, depending. lol


----------



## LittleItaly (Oct 6, 2010)

Read this! Its really easy to understand and explains what you need to know about using a low aperture and a high aperture! 


What the Heck is an Aperture? Part One. | Pioneer Woman Photography | Ree Drummond


----------



## ottor (Oct 6, 2010)

LittleItaly said:


> Read this! Its really easy to understand and explains what you need to know about using a low aperture and a high aperture!
> 
> 
> What the Heck is an Aperture? Part One. | Pioneer Woman Photography | Ree Drummond


 
Rather amazing that you'd direct me to this webpage ...... I'm a huge fan of her recipes !!

(Yes, this Army X-Special Forces NCO reads a womans blog about her life as a ranchers wife... :blushing: )... but if you cook, you'll love this site... I knew she was a photographer also, but have never read her stuff about that..

Thanks !!


----------



## pgriz (Oct 6, 2010)

The article on diffraction that got me thinking and testing is this one: Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

Granted, the loss of detail isn't huge, and is probably masked by focusing issues, but IF you have the scene critically focused, there is an apparent reduction of resolution as you go to the higher f/stops.  

I think that each of us should learn to test our equipment in a structured way so that we can determine if we're really getting the most out of it.  Often times it is "user error" that is causing the less-than-stellar results.  I had a club member show all the signs of "lens envy", bemoaning the poor results her kit lens gave her.  I put her camera on a tripod, set it to an f/stop of 8, focused using a magnifier, and was able to show her that she can get very sharp photos with her equipment.  Problem was, she was missing the focus, had handshake, and relied too much on her "automatic" features.  Of course, those errors would still persist if she upgraded to a top-of-the-line lens.  After our little demo, she went and got herself a tripod, and now she's getting pretty good shots.  But I digress....


----------



## LittleItaly (Oct 6, 2010)

ottor said:


> LittleItaly said:
> 
> 
> > Read this! Its really easy to understand and explains what you need to know about using a low aperture and a high aperture!
> ...


 


Yes! The Photography portion of her website is as equally amazing as her Cooking Portion! I just ordered her cookbook! I love her!


----------



## Overread (Oct 6, 2010)

Diffraction softening and hyperfocal focusing have already been mentioned so I'm left mostly to highlight both of those components again. Diffraction generally starts to take effect after around f8, but typically remains minor up till around f13/16 on a 1.6 crop camera body and around f16/22 on a fullframe camera body. With most considering f13 the 1.6 ideal min and f22 the fullframe ideal min.

The actual point will depend upon: camera body - lens and the standards of the photographer in question. In addition as has been said (example the skyline shots) sometimes you need to have a smaller aperture to get the shutter speed you want. 

You can get a rather extreme example of diffraction softening if you look at the shots in this set here: MPE 65mm test shot series - a set on Flickr
remembering of course that the actual apertures are much smaller than those stated as the magnifiaction increases. 

Hyperfocal focusing is a great tool/skill to learn to use because it lets you use a sharper aperture for landscape type work rather than using a smaller, softer aperture.


----------



## Taylor510ce (Oct 6, 2010)

ottor said:


> LittleItaly said:
> 
> 
> > Read this! Its really easy to understand and explains what you need to know about using a low aperture and a high aperture!
> ...


 dont feel bad, I have a subscription to Cooking Light which is pretty much geared towards women. Oh well, gotta watch my girlish figure I guess, my arteries thank me.:lmao:


----------



## Fedaykin (Oct 6, 2010)

For Macro work where focus stacking is not an option.


----------



## Sbuxo (Oct 6, 2010)

When your meter tells you to.:lmao: 
Well not in every case.
Mine tells me apertures so..


----------



## KmH (Oct 6, 2010)

akeigher said:


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


Those are actually called - Diffraction spikes, and they will be produced by any light source/specular highlight in an image.


----------

