Landscape photography - expert advice needed!?

[monophoto]

An aperture of 13 - 16 may be preferable to an aperture of f22 based on diffraction considerations. The aperture setting governs the size of the opening in the iris of the lens, and as that opening becomes smaller, an optical aberration called diffraction increases. Basically, diffraction occurs as light passes the edges of the iris opening. As the opening becomes smaller, the portion of light affected by diffraction becomes a larger fraction of the total light entering the lens, with the result that diffraction can become more obvious.

The challenge in landscape photography is that you normally want the entire image field to be sharp and in focus. Depth-of-field (the portion of the scene that is in sharp focus) increases as the iris becomes smaller. So using a smaller iris opening (larger aperture number) to increase depth-of-field also increases diffraction. With most lenses (and this is a very broad generalization), maximum sharpness is had at an aperture setting that is one or two stops away from 'wide open'. That means that, in the 35mm format, the optimum compromise between minimizing diffraction and increasing depth-of-field is somewhere in the f5.6-f16 range, depending of course on the design of the lens.

Now, if you choose the optimum aperture, you may not get maximum depth-of-field. But if you focus at a point that is about 1/3 of the way 'into' the scene (ie, about 1/3 of the way between the closest object you want to render reasonably sharp and the most remote object that you want to be sharp), the depth of field will generally include the important elements of the picture you wish to capture.

I might add that this is all very good, but if you are handholding the camera, you can't possibly realize the maximum sharpness possible. Therefore, an essential ingredient in taking advantage of this approach to landscape photography is to have the camera on a tripod for maximum sharpness.

 

[Seamless_1]

It depends on the lens you're using and the format of the camera, but you will be better off in the smaller formats (35 mm, most digital cameras) using a larger f stop and working the Depth of Focus (or depth of field if you prefer) because of an optical phenomenon called diffraction. It softens the image.

Ken Rockwell has a reasonably good explanation on the effects of diffraction along with illustrative photos at this link:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/diffraction.htm

You'll know more than you ever wanted to know!

Vance

 

[Calculus]

I've read somewhere that taking landscape pics using an aperture like f/13-f/16 and focusing a third of the way into the frame is better (Keeps the foreground sharp) than using f/22 and having infinity focus.
Reason?
Thanks!
Thanks for the responses so far; I have managed to dig out the mag where I read above info, it's "Digital SLR Photography, Nov 2008", from the U.K.
www.digitalslrphoto.com

 

[Edwin]

My technique is to always have the camera tripod mounted when shooting landscapes. This allows you to easily keep the horizon horizontal and also to not have to worry about the shutter speed. My equipment choice is a 35mm film camera with either a 16mm or 21mm or 24mm lens with a polarizer on the 21mm and 24mm. Since the 16mm is a full-frame fisheye you can't use external filters.

Although I usually use an ISO 100 film, I'll occasionally go with ISO 400 thanks to the improvements in grain structure in the faster film. For the best results a lower ISO is preferable.

I long ago memorized parts of a Depth of Field Table for those lenses so I know that if I use the 16mm at f16 and focus it at 2' everything from 11" to infinity will be in focus. With the 21mm its f16 focused to 6' with everything from 2' 2" to infinity in focus and with the 24mm at f16 and focused to 6' everything from 2' 5" to infinity is in focus.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drifter45h/3006737314/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drifter45h/3006738428/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drifter45h/2886494406/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drifter45h/2672140567/

Since someone has referenced dofmaster.com I suggest using it to develop your own Depth of Field Table based on your sensor size and the focal lengths you use most often. Of course, you could also purchase the ExpoAperture2 from ExpoImaging (http://www.expoimaging.net). This a DOF calculator which you can carry with you to compute DOF in the field.

 

[gatewaycityca]

I can't think of any reason why that would be true. If you use a smaller aperture, then you will have a much longer depth of field, which means that everything will be in focus - foreground and background.

Yes, it's true that if a subject in the foreground is too close to the camera, then you won't be able to focus on it and the background at the same time. So in that case, like you said it would be a good compromise to focus on something roughly a third of the way. But if you use a smaller aperture, you will have a longer depth of field.

For landscape photos, I prefer using the smallest aperture I can, to keep the background sharp. If need be, I can just use a slow shutter speed or even a long exposure with a tripod. With landscape photos, slow shutter speeds are of no consequence, since your subject isn't moving. And after all, I've read that Ansel Adams often used an aperture down as far as f/32 on his large format cameras, with a long exposure, to get his photos as sharp as possible.