I see quite a few photogs posting in the macro forum, and elsewhere, macro images shot at or around f32. I know that Mike Moats shoots at this aperture quite often (I have his book, Tiny Landscapes). However, I find that when I go beyond f16 (D2Xs with Nikkor 105) the images start turning to mush due to diffraction and I end up resorting to using Helicon at larger apertures when I want that added DOF.
Obviously these great looking images I'm seeing on these forums are small and low rez and I'm wondering for those of you who are shooting macro at these tiny apertures at what point (print size, for example) does the image degrade due to diffraction as compared to those shot at, say, f8-11?
It would be great to be able to get away with shooting at f32 rather than having to use Helicon for certain situations but I just don't find my results acceptable. Is it just me?
Ultimately, it is going to have to be your decision as what is acceptable.
Here is my take. Lack of DOF is a far greater sin that sharpness loss at f32. If I need f32, I'll shoot at it but I also know that I won't be printing it at 16x24.
My main issue with shooting at f32, which comes primarily from shooting Velvia 50, is that the shutter speeds begin to approach a couple of days. Serious, once you get down to 1:1, you start by tossing out one full stop of light. You won't be shooting in full daylight, so subtract another 3 or so stops. And macro subjects also seem to be hiding in the shadows so toss out another stop or two. Add another 2 stops for f32. So without even setting up your tripod, you've from 1/125 second at f16 to 1 second at f32, with ISO 100 (I think I counted that correctly). 1 second is a pretty scary shutter speed it there is any chance that the subject may move.
Helicon focus is a solution, but only if there is no chance the subject will move between shots. If the subject will move, you are better off at f32.
Hey Mark, I shoot the majority of my images in the f-32 range as you know. Here is a blog post I did on diffraction. http://tinylanscapes.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/diffraction-in-macro/
Diffraction will cause some softness but unmask sharpening will fix it. The larger megapixel camera will cause a bit more softness but just add more sharpening. I've had every camera on the market in my workshos and they all get good images with this method.
I have images in the 24X36 size all shot at f-32 that show people in my workshops that they can shoot f-32, sharpen to the proper amount, and print large size with no problems.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on April 4, 2010 at 10:34 PM
The one thing I probably should have added is if you are going to shoot at f32, use the best lenses you can afford. You can't get around diffraction losses, which are inevitable, but compounding those with lens that doesn't start out sharp really does make f32 a bad idea.
There were a couple of guys in my photo club who were masters of macro and they often shot at f/22. Those were film days, so maybe things are different now. I attributed their great photography more to photographic skill than to aperture. I may be wrong though.
Discussion
4 repliesObviously these great looking images I'm seeing on these forums are small and low rez and I'm wondering for those of you who are shooting macro at these tiny apertures at what point (print size, for example) does the image degrade due to diffraction as compared to those shot at, say, f8-11?
It would be great to be able to get away with shooting at f32 rather than having to use Helicon for certain situations but I just don't find my results acceptable. Is it just me?
Here is my take. Lack of DOF is a far greater sin that sharpness loss at f32. If I need f32, I'll shoot at it but I also know that I won't be printing it at 16x24.
My main issue with shooting at f32, which comes primarily from shooting Velvia 50, is that the shutter speeds begin to approach a couple of days. Serious, once you get down to 1:1, you start by tossing out one full stop of light. You won't be shooting in full daylight, so subtract another 3 or so stops. And macro subjects also seem to be hiding in the shadows so toss out another stop or two. Add another 2 stops for f32. So without even setting up your tripod, you've from 1/125 second at f16 to 1 second at f32, with ISO 100 (I think I counted that correctly). 1 second is a pretty scary shutter speed it there is any chance that the subject may move.
Helicon focus is a solution, but only if there is no chance the subject will move between shots. If the subject will move, you are better off at f32.
Diffraction will cause some softness but unmask sharpening will fix it. The larger megapixel camera will cause a bit more softness but just add more sharpening. I've had every camera on the market in my workshos and they all get good images with this method.
I have images in the 24X36 size all shot at f-32 that show people in my workshops that they can shoot f-32, sharpen to the proper amount, and print large size with no problems.
Pete D.