From: Carl Weese (cweese@earthlink.net)
Date: 12/31/02-02:53:43 PM Z
Shannon,
Most large format lenses are optimised for f/22. Lens performance
deteriorates due to diffraction at very small apertures. In practice,
especially if you are making contact prints, you won't notice the loss, but
on close examination you'll find that there's more definition at f/22 than
f/64, provided the subject is within depth of field at 22.---Carl
--
web site with picture galleries
and workshop information at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cweese/
----------
>From: Shannon Stoney <shannonstoney@earthlink.net>
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: technique vs imagery; depth of field question; "tipped in"?
>Date: Tue, Dec 31, 2002, 5:18 PM
>
> Speaking of technique, I have a technical question: today I was
> photographing the broad side of a barn (literally) with an open doorway
> (nobody was taking a leak in there at the time). I thought that since most
> of the important stuff was between ten and fifteen feet away, that it would
> be ok to use an aperture of less than my usual f64. It seemed like I read
> somewhere that lenses work better at bigger apertures? That maybe there's
> an "ideal" aperture for a lens, so that if you have a shallow depth of field
> and no particular reason to want to make a long exposure, you might as well
> open up the shutter to say f16. But I can't remember where I read that or
> what the reason for it was. Did I dream that?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST