f22 was the 35mm format "Landscape Aperture" back in the day. From Outdoor Photographer to the National Geographic, f22,was King of the Depths! Many a photographer made their livings using this aperture and no one complained about resolution.
Editorial photography was rarely printed bigger than A4 magazines, so absolute resolution was never an issue. Most apertures, formats and film speeds held up at that size.
Well, in part that was because everyone was limited by the film stock. In the optical pipeline the film itself was often the limiting item. For example, Velvia 50 in 135 was ~10MP usable (that's MTF50 at 50 lines/mm); the very best, something like 100 TMAX gets you maybe double that. Current digital imagers do much, much better - and the lens is still not the limiting item. So if the goal is to print large, say up to A0 with walk up to detail at nose length: f22 on full frame leaves you far behind. This kind of quality means tilt/shift lenses (camera movements), focus stacking. We can get there now with current small sensor (MFT through FF) cameras - and you're recording at f5.6 or f4. Many lenses are capable of still usably out-resolving the sensor even now. There was no point with 135 format film back in the day because the recording media itself was incapable.
@@RobertLeeAtYT I was responding specifically to the idea that f22 was fine for editorial photography. Magazines are limited by size and litho reproduction. Neither are likely to show up diffraction to an extent that limits the power of the shot. This will not be the case in a 16 x 20" print, clearly. Generally speaking, the more upmarket the publication, the more open they were to 35mm. Nat Geo and the Sunday Times colour supplement had no problem with the format, whereas the specialist hobby mag in your newsagent would invariably demand medium format transparencies for publication. Film-digital resolution is a vexed question, it's difficult to know an exact equivalence because of scanning limitations, among other factors. Nevertheless, it wasn't so long ago that professional work was shot on a 6mp camera, and few people complained of being limited by resolution.
@@borderlands6606 Yes, resolution is really the least of it these days. With a phone screen being the primary consumption media for most, it truly doesn't matter. I still shoot to print, mostly A4, some Super B, and A0 once a blue moon. So originating image detail still matters at output sizes above Super B. Frankly, I've found the technical measures of files coming out of even a MFT camera like the G9 is better than 6x7 across emulsions. Most scans were on a Nikon CS9000 with a few on a Flextight. As a hobbyist photographer, times couldn't be better.
What a great practical demonstration. We all know that diffraction increases at a low aperture, and so we look at our aperture ring and say "stay away from that end." But it's wonderful to see the divide between theory and practice, and know that what seems like a common sense approach to applying that theory is mostly unwarranted.
I'm sorry, my English is not good, so I can only use translation to give you comments. Thank you for the video. I'm new to film photography. I have the same bronica and lens as you, also nikon f3 and 50 1.8, and I was hesitating how much aperture to use for shooting when I saw your channel. And the fact that our equipment is so similar is really predestined. Thanks again for the video.
Interesting as usual. I especially liked your comparison of the printed result for f/22 vs f/32, demonstrating the loss of image sharpness because of diffraction. Thank you, Steve, for another very informative stroll through the woods. All the best, Jim
This is really interesting and it shows why you need to test your own equipment. I think too many of us read articles and highly technical tests which exaggerate the effects of diffraction. I also really like the low contrast look you got with the development!
I am so happy seeing this! So much talk and writing about diffraction. Not that important. One thing, the "depth of field" scale on a good lens is for 5x7 inch Print! Anything bigger say 8x12" 20x30cm, one should look at a larger f-stop, but keep stopped down. The scales were based on Barnack's calculations for Ur-Leica! I know! It is really funny! Some lenses now have no scales. Avoid these. Slow film is so beautiful. Bravo Steve! The 'experts' are going to find all manner of fault! They are the unwashed, non-educated riff raff that believe in myths and certain Lemonades! Nikkor lenses are as good or better than may myth lenses! I've used all. Bravo again.
I usually use go down two stops from the marking on the lenses, I think most medium format markings are for a decent 8x10” print. I also bias more towards infinity if there are distant elements, foregrounds can always tolerate a little softness 🙂
Hi, Steve. Thank you for the informative two videos. I decided to refrain from commenting on your first diffraction video on MF as I thought it was worth the wait for the 35mm one. Back when I shot much more film than now, both 35mm and 120, I never worried about diffraction. I always chose an aperture based on what the scene demanded or the effect I wanted. 35mm Velvia shown on a screen at huge enlargements had plenty of resolving power! It is only with the advent of digital photography that measurebating with one's lenses has really become a thing with people - because it is so easy to do these days I suppose. I was not at all surprised by the lack of diffraction with the Bronica and its lenses - the film size is so much larger than 35mm after all. I was mildly surprised though how relatively little effect that f22 had on 35mm film. In any event lack of sharpness due to lack of depth of field is always going to be more than any softness caused by diffraction, so for most people most of the time, diffraction is an irrelevance. What I find interesting is how the 135mm performed, and I wonder how much atmospheric conditions are likely to affect perceived sharpness with distance shots relative to anything else.
Thanks Richard, we do indeed live in an age of excessive measurement. It’s only other photographers who look at something blown up to 100% on screen, everyone else is happy if the picture just makes them smile.
I have never taken an image at f22 with a 35mm film camera or a full frame digital. I think I shall try it now. I really liked the 85mm shot (and I have the same auto lens). It had a really interesting look, almost like infrared.
I'm sure you know this very well but what most people tend to forget is that f/22 or whatever is actually focal length divided by a number. It's an equation pretty much. So f/22 is different on every single focal length. Also because light transmission changes with focal length, the further away a lens is from the projection plane the more the light loses its intensity. So f/8 on a 50mm is 6.25mm diameter, f/8 on a 24mm is 3mm, but 3mm diameter aperture on a 50mm is around f/16. Large format on the other hand has much wider apertures as a result of its much longer focal length to field of view ratio, or the image circle coverage. So shooting a 150mm on a 4x5" may result in some medium to wide shot around the 30mm equivalent. f/22 on a 150mm is barely 6.8mm, and diffraction is the way light rays scatter through an opening too narrow creating a softer image. That won't happen as much on larger formats such as 645, 67, 4x5" and so on.
I have been surprised how well some lenses handle diffraction whilst others suffer noticeably. This is regardless of the format too and is often quite surprising.
Love your stuff and most impressed in how light and airy the forest photographs you take are. Must work harder in the darkroom but maybe the problem is not getting ideal negatives in the first place. Thanks again Mark
Thanks Mark. I used to struggle until I started giving more generous exposure at the shooting stage. I’ve rarely had an image ruined with overexposure but even a small amount of under exposure makes darkroom printing very hard.
@@SteveONions Hi Steve thanks for that advice I’m always been a bit worried about over exposing things. I shall give everything an extra stop and hope to get better prints.
Cracking vlog Steve. I was starting to think that society has lost the ability to debate. Instead going down the easy path of spat and shouting down. The last two vlogs have brought debate back😁 Keep it going 😁 Cheers Diz
It is refreshing to see videos like this one. The slavishness to sharpness corner to corner in imagery seems to be ebbing and being replaced by the artistic benefits of embracing the character in these vintage lenses. The recent "The Batman" movie was filmed with de-tuned lenses to intentionally make the corners unsharp. BTW, that movie also used rehoused Helios 44-2 glass in some scenes for a similar effect. They also employed actual motion picture film as an interpositive step to give a special filmic look. I will now feel much more modern as I shoot my old 35mm cameras and vintage lenses including these minimum apertures. BTW, I really like 510 Pyro and I think your results show how good it can be.
Thanks Maggie. I also see a move away from unnecessarily sharp images and the race for more megapixels. I find 35mm film to have a very natural look for a lot of subjects and coupled with the right lenses the quality is more than adequate.
Mathematically speaking, on a 24MP full frame digital sensor diffraction starts to limit your image sharpness at around f/11, but in practice it's hard to notice it even at f/16 because so few lenses resolve well enough. I'm not sure how this would translate to 35mm film, but it seems consistent with your results. Great video Steve, thanks for sharing it.
I think you’re underestimating the real-world resolving capacity of many lenses. I shoot primarily the Panasonic G9. It’s natively 20MP but does have a 80MP high res mode. That high res mode is real resolution from the sensor shift compositing. At f5.6 all of my lenses resolves signifiantly, usefully more detail at 80MP than 20MP. This is picking out printed text from the test images. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the lenses are just a couple of stops away from being diffraction limited optics.
@@RobertLeeAtYT I think we're talking past each other. At f/5.6, the resolving power of my lenses definitely matters more than diffraction effects, so I would agree with what you're saying. And even at f/16, I only barely start to see them. Try that comparison you described at, say, f/22 though. On a sensor that sized, and at those resolutions, you will almost certainly see diffraction effects.
The diameter of the diaphragm is what determines how bad the diffraction is. F number doesn't tell us what the diameter is. It only show us the ratio between the focal length and the diameter. F22 is a bigger whole on long lenses than on wide ones. This is also the reason why the diffraction is better controlled on medium format cameras, it is because you tend to use longer focal lengths with them.
That’s true but there are big variations between lenses. I have large format optics that don’t stop down well and conversely 35mm wideangle ones that look just fine.
I noticed on my Cosina made Carl Zeiss lenses, the T* coating would lessen the effect of diffraction in high apertures. It also had higher light transmission t-stop compared to other lenses at the same aperture. I was never afraid to stop down the Zeiss lenses this way.
Hello Steve, great you did the testing to compare to LF. F/22 for 35mm is what F/64 is for large format Film. To say group F/64, founded by the mighty Ansel Adams himself, members like Imogen Cunningham, Edward Weston, Henry Swift, to name a view. I wish a great week. greetings
Cheers Steve - another informative vlog. I must admit, in 35mm, I do stay away from the apertures at both ends of the scale. My 'goto' aperture is f8 for damn near everything - my usual focal lengths being 28 to 50mm. I don't mind a bit of fall off in the distance so long as the focal point is spot on. Sometimes I do go a bit doolally and use f5.6 but that's because I live and shoot in and around the deepest, darkest Rhondda Valley. Best wishes
The better your glass, the better it will perform at the limits of aperture, both large and small. I've had lenses that got soft wide open (especially the f/2.8 Tessar on my Super Ikonta 532/16), and lenses that got soft stopped right down (the 135 f/4 I had with my Exa II, my first SLR) -- and lenses (like all the Sekor-C examples I have for my RB67, or the 50 mm f/2 Xenon on my Weltini, or the 10.5 cm f/4.5 Skopar on my Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera) that don't seem to care.
Lovely photography and a very useful demonstration of a very tricky subject. My favourite was at 9:43, gorgeous framing and tonality. The 85mm has done you proud even @ F22, considering that this is an F2 lens. One of the gems of the old Nikon line up, proper Nikon lenses. I have been meaning to test something quite similar with CMSII and my Leica 75mm Apo-Summicron. If there is one lens that could push the CMSII, the 75 it is. Thanks again Steve .
I'm really impressed about the focusing precision in your 35mm pictures. They are so crispy and detailed. My pictures are so poor in focusing and in micro contrast that I hate the 35mm. Usually I focus manually.
Great video, thanks. Have always been wondering whether the som depth of field at small apertures could outweigh the loss of sharpness due to diffraction. Your video shows clearly where the balance tips. 😀
Thanks Steve. Never thought of pushing my 2 Nikon lenese. Working on fall colors, with Kodak gold 200, 35mm, will have to check out . Great test images. KB
F22 is an aperture I prefer to avoid if I don’t require it, but if the situation calls for it (I’ve used it pretty heavily when taking video without ND), I won’t hesitate to use it. It’s a tad soft on my 24MP sensor, but tbh, it’s not a big deal.
Makes me want to take my g9 out in the woods, and play, thanks. PS: When you walked through the ferns, there was an interesting bouncing effect on the foreground, probably from the stabilization.
I can like this one even before watching it all the way through. But actually there is one huge disadvantage to f22 when you get to mirrorless - spots. If I even think I'm going to need f22 for something, I have to make sure that sensor is pristine, then immediately lock an also-pristine lens in place (sometimes that means carefully using a tech-vac to vacuum out the lens body too) and make no plans to swap lenses till I've got my shot. Thankfully the OEMs are finally allowing a closed shutter when swapping lenses, but it's not available on all models yet. This is, of course, rarely a problem with film, and an infrequent problem with DSLRs (though those do need cleaning at times), but it's far more of a worry than diffraction!
Steve, I shot BW film back in the 1970s until digital became prevalent. I am now going back to BW film again. I bought several nice primes and an old Nikon FE2. I am looking for resources such as books still in print that will help me. My digital skills are advanced, I teach digital photography in landscape, macro, and wildlife but I haven't shot film in over 30 years so I'd like to do some reading to help me re-calibrate. Do you have any book recommendations that you would offer?
Hi Philip. A lot of the film books out there are quite old now and of less relevance unless you are going to utilise a darkroom. I do like Bruce Barnbaums ‘Art of Photography’ as he’s a traditional shooter who also embraces new technologies. In the older book category you could have a look for a copy of Ansel Adams The Negative which is still surprisingly relevant and full of useful experience gained over many decades.
None of the late Nikons work John, you need an F100 or F5. The earlier autofocus models are fine although you usually only get centre weighted metering.
So much landscape photography relies on detail for its effect. I'm not very interested in forensic reproduction of a scene, or the ability to print 3ft or more. A good shot usually holds up whatever size it's printed at, which is why we can appreciate great work on a computer screen or even a phone! I sometimes shoot a Fuji X10 which is 12mp but only in full auto, it's 6 megapixels with manual settings. The 2/3 sensor camera has a maximum aperture of f11, which is something like f64 in full frame terms. As this is well into diffraction territory, images have to rely on interesting composition. The upside is huge depth of field, with a foreground that can be "sharpened" with flash. Some of my best landscape work - including medium and large format - has been shot on this camera which appears to be the least suitable for the task in hand.
Images should indeed work regardless of size. I like to review my contacts (digital or analogue) as small icons to see which ones jump out. To be honest I can usually see winners when the films are hanging up to dry, rarely does a tiny lack of sharpness spoil an image.
Your comment about lens shortcomings like barrel distortion being inconsequential to your own needs is something more people need to understand. I own a lens that a prominent voice has dubbed the worst lens Nikon has ever made, yet it serves me very well and it’s reputation amongst the bandwagon riders makes it a bargain.
f22 was the 35mm format "Landscape Aperture" back in the day. From Outdoor Photographer to the National Geographic, f22,was King of the Depths! Many a photographer made their livings using this aperture and no one complained about resolution.
Editorial photography was rarely printed bigger than A4 magazines, so absolute resolution was never an issue. Most apertures, formats and film speeds held up at that size.
Well, in part that was because everyone was limited by the film stock. In the optical pipeline the film itself was often the limiting item. For example, Velvia 50 in 135 was ~10MP usable (that's MTF50 at 50 lines/mm); the very best, something like 100 TMAX gets you maybe double that.
Current digital imagers do much, much better - and the lens is still not the limiting item. So if the goal is to print large, say up to A0 with walk up to detail at nose length: f22 on full frame leaves you far behind.
This kind of quality means tilt/shift lenses (camera movements), focus stacking. We can get there now with current small sensor (MFT through FF) cameras - and you're recording at f5.6 or f4. Many lenses are capable of still usably out-resolving the sensor even now.
There was no point with 135 format film back in the day because the recording media itself was incapable.
@@RobertLeeAtYT I was responding specifically to the idea that f22 was fine for editorial photography. Magazines are limited by size and litho reproduction. Neither are likely to show up diffraction to an extent that limits the power of the shot. This will not be the case in a 16 x 20" print, clearly. Generally speaking, the more upmarket the publication, the more open they were to 35mm. Nat Geo and the Sunday Times colour supplement had no problem with the format, whereas the specialist hobby mag in your newsagent would invariably demand medium format transparencies for publication.
Film-digital resolution is a vexed question, it's difficult to know an exact equivalence because of scanning limitations, among other factors. Nevertheless, it wasn't so long ago that professional work was shot on a 6mp camera, and few people complained of being limited by resolution.
@@borderlands6606 Yes, resolution is really the least of it these days. With a phone screen being the primary consumption media for most, it truly doesn't matter.
I still shoot to print, mostly A4, some Super B, and A0 once a blue moon. So originating image detail still matters at output sizes above Super B.
Frankly, I've found the technical measures of files coming out of even a MFT camera like the G9 is better than 6x7 across emulsions. Most scans were on a Nikon CS9000 with a few on a Flextight.
As a hobbyist photographer, times couldn't be better.
And let’s be honest, depth of field markings on lenses were only intended for modest enlargements but they sufficed for most people 👍
What a great practical demonstration. We all know that diffraction increases at a low aperture, and so we look at our aperture ring and say "stay away from that end." But it's wonderful to see the divide between theory and practice, and know that what seems like a common sense approach to applying that theory is mostly unwarranted.
A lot of people fret about the degradation of the image but the effects are often overstated.
I'm sorry, my English is not good, so I can only use translation to give you comments.
Thank you for the video. I'm new to film photography. I have the same bronica and lens as you, also nikon f3 and 50 1.8, and I was hesitating how much aperture to use for shooting when I saw your channel. And the fact that our equipment is so similar is really predestined. Thanks again for the video.
I’m glad you enjoy the videos and find them useful 🙂
That Nikkor 50 mm f 1.8 manual cuts above what a nifty fifty is expected to do.
The colour reproduction I found exceptional as well.
Interesting as usual. I especially liked your comparison of the printed result for f/22 vs f/32, demonstrating the loss of image sharpness because of diffraction. Thank you, Steve, for another very informative stroll through the woods. All the best, Jim
Thanks Jim, I’m glad you found it useful.
This is really interesting and it shows why you need to test your own equipment. I think too many of us read articles and highly technical tests which exaggerate the effects of diffraction. I also really like the low contrast look you got with the development!
I’ve previously been put off certain lenses by reading tests and reviews. Nothing beats using them in your favourite locations.
I am so happy seeing this! So much talk and writing about diffraction. Not that important. One thing, the "depth of field" scale on a good lens is for 5x7 inch Print! Anything bigger say 8x12" 20x30cm, one should look at a larger f-stop, but keep stopped down. The scales were based on Barnack's calculations for Ur-Leica! I know! It is really funny! Some lenses now have no scales. Avoid these. Slow film is so beautiful. Bravo Steve! The 'experts' are going to find all manner of fault! They are the unwashed, non-educated riff raff that believe in myths and certain Lemonades! Nikkor lenses are as good or better than may myth lenses! I've used all. Bravo again.
I usually use go down two stops from the marking on the lenses, I think most medium format markings are for a decent 8x10” print. I also bias more towards infinity if there are distant elements, foregrounds can always tolerate a little softness 🙂
Hi, Steve.
Thank you for the informative two videos.
I decided to refrain from commenting on your first diffraction video on MF as I thought it was worth the wait for the 35mm one. Back when I shot much more film than now, both 35mm and 120, I never worried about diffraction. I always chose an aperture based on what the scene demanded or the effect I wanted. 35mm Velvia shown on a screen at huge enlargements had plenty of resolving power! It is only with the advent of digital photography that measurebating with one's lenses has really become a thing with people - because it is so easy to do these days I suppose.
I was not at all surprised by the lack of diffraction with the Bronica and its lenses - the film size is so much larger than 35mm after all. I was mildly surprised though how relatively little effect that f22 had on 35mm film. In any event lack of sharpness due to lack of depth of field is always going to be more than any softness caused by diffraction, so for most people most of the time, diffraction is an irrelevance.
What I find interesting is how the 135mm performed, and I wonder how much atmospheric conditions are likely to affect perceived sharpness with distance shots relative to anything else.
Thanks Richard, we do indeed live in an age of excessive measurement. It’s only other photographers who look at something blown up to 100% on screen, everyone else is happy if the picture just makes them smile.
I have never taken an image at f22 with a 35mm film camera or a full frame digital. I think I shall try it now. I really liked the 85mm shot (and I have the same auto lens). It had a really interesting look, almost like infrared.
Thanks Dann, the 85mm is a lovely piece of equipment.
I'm sure you know this very well but what most people tend to forget is that f/22 or whatever is actually focal length divided by a number. It's an equation pretty much. So f/22 is different on every single focal length. Also because light transmission changes with focal length, the further away a lens is from the projection plane the more the light loses its intensity. So f/8 on a 50mm is 6.25mm diameter, f/8 on a 24mm is 3mm, but 3mm diameter aperture on a 50mm is around f/16.
Large format on the other hand has much wider apertures as a result of its much longer focal length to field of view ratio, or the image circle coverage. So shooting a 150mm on a 4x5" may result in some medium to wide shot around the 30mm equivalent. f/22 on a 150mm is barely 6.8mm, and diffraction is the way light rays scatter through an opening too narrow creating a softer image. That won't happen as much on larger formats such as 645, 67, 4x5" and so on.
I have been surprised how well some lenses handle diffraction whilst others suffer noticeably. This is regardless of the format too and is often quite surprising.
Very interesting video Steve. You can't beat testing in real conditions.
Thanks Robin 👍
Enjoyed it, Steve. I must get out and shoot. Thank you.
Thanks James, hope you get out soon.
Love your stuff and most impressed in how light and airy the forest photographs you take are. Must work harder in the darkroom but maybe the problem is not getting ideal negatives in the first place. Thanks again Mark
Thanks Mark. I used to struggle until I started giving more generous exposure at the shooting stage. I’ve rarely had an image ruined with overexposure but even a small amount of under exposure makes darkroom printing very hard.
@@SteveONions Hi Steve thanks for that advice I’m always been a bit worried about over exposing things.
I shall give everything an extra stop and hope to get better prints.
Nice topic. I always learning something
Glad to see part two of the diffraction experiment. The results are about what you might expect.
Cracking vlog Steve. I was starting to think that society has lost the ability to debate. Instead going down the easy path of spat and shouting down. The last two vlogs have brought debate back😁 Keep it going 😁
Cheers
Diz
Thanks Diz 🙂
It is refreshing to see videos like this one. The slavishness to sharpness corner to corner in imagery seems to be ebbing and being replaced by the artistic benefits of embracing the character in these vintage lenses. The recent "The Batman" movie was filmed with de-tuned lenses to intentionally make the corners unsharp. BTW, that movie also used rehoused Helios 44-2 glass in some scenes for a similar effect. They also employed actual motion picture film as an interpositive step to give a special filmic look. I will now feel much more modern as I shoot my old 35mm cameras and vintage lenses including these minimum apertures. BTW, I really like 510 Pyro and I think your results show how good it can be.
Thanks Maggie. I also see a move away from unnecessarily sharp images and the race for more megapixels. I find 35mm film to have a very natural look for a lot of subjects and coupled with the right lenses the quality is more than adequate.
Mathematically speaking, on a 24MP full frame digital sensor diffraction starts to limit your image sharpness at around f/11, but in practice it's hard to notice it even at f/16 because so few lenses resolve well enough. I'm not sure how this would translate to 35mm film, but it seems consistent with your results.
Great video Steve, thanks for sharing it.
Should be about the same because an Ilford delta 100 has a comparable resolution.
I think you’re underestimating the real-world resolving capacity of many lenses.
I shoot primarily the Panasonic G9. It’s natively 20MP but does have a 80MP high res mode. That high res mode is real resolution from the sensor shift compositing.
At f5.6 all of my lenses resolves signifiantly, usefully more detail at 80MP than 20MP. This is picking out printed text from the test images. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the lenses are just a couple of stops away from being diffraction limited optics.
@@RobertLeeAtYT I think we're talking past each other. At f/5.6, the resolving power of my lenses definitely matters more than diffraction effects, so I would agree with what you're saying. And even at f/16, I only barely start to see them.
Try that comparison you described at, say, f/22 though. On a sensor that sized, and at those resolutions, you will almost certainly see diffraction effects.
I agree Ben. Film also hides a multitude of sins, especially the faster stuff.
@@SteveONions "Film also hides a multitude of sins."
It's so true. I'm filing that away for later use. Thanks.
The diameter of the diaphragm is what determines how bad the diffraction is. F number doesn't tell us what the diameter is. It only show us the ratio between the focal length and the diameter. F22 is a bigger whole on long lenses than on wide ones. This is also the reason why the diffraction is better controlled on medium format cameras, it is because you tend to use longer focal lengths with them.
That’s true but there are big variations between lenses. I have large format optics that don’t stop down well and conversely 35mm wideangle ones that look just fine.
I noticed on my Cosina made Carl Zeiss lenses, the T* coating would lessen the effect of diffraction in high apertures. It also had higher light transmission t-stop compared to other lenses at the same aperture. I was never afraid to stop down the Zeiss lenses this way.
It varies from lens to lens and many are absolutely fine stopped right down - usually the more expensive ones 🙂
Hello Steve,
great you did the testing to compare to LF. F/22 for 35mm is what F/64 is for large format Film. To say group F/64, founded by the mighty Ansel Adams himself, members like Imogen Cunningham, Edward Weston, Henry Swift, to name a view. I wish a great week.
greetings
Thanks Marc 👍
Very well explained / demonstrated, thank you very much.
Thanks Jörg.
Cheers Steve - another informative vlog. I must admit, in 35mm, I do stay away from the apertures at both ends of the scale. My 'goto' aperture is f8 for damn near everything - my usual focal lengths being 28 to 50mm. I don't mind a bit of fall off in the distance so long as the focal point is spot on. Sometimes I do go a bit doolally and use f5.6 but that's because I live and shoot in and around the deepest, darkest Rhondda Valley. Best wishes
Thanks Ray. I don’t often go below f/16 on 35mm because I have more than enough DoF.
Same with me, When shooting 35mm, I usually don’t go over f/16 with most of my shots at f/8 and f/11 for landscape.
Nice video, Steve! I've always been afraid of f22! Thanks for the images. I'll try it out more often now.
Glad it helped Jacob.
Excellent video Steve!!!
Thanks Sammy.
The better your glass, the better it will perform at the limits of aperture, both large and small. I've had lenses that got soft wide open (especially the f/2.8 Tessar on my Super Ikonta 532/16), and lenses that got soft stopped right down (the 135 f/4 I had with my Exa II, my first SLR) -- and lenses (like all the Sekor-C examples I have for my RB67, or the 50 mm f/2 Xenon on my Weltini, or the 10.5 cm f/4.5 Skopar on my Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera) that don't seem to care.
My older lenses are soft wide open but look lovely stopped right down whereas a lot of modern lenses perform well (if clinically) across the range.
My favorite is the 135mm image!
Trees,trees,trees you can never go wrong with trees!!
Lovely photography and a very useful demonstration of a very tricky subject. My favourite was at 9:43, gorgeous framing and tonality. The 85mm has done you proud even @ F22, considering that this is an F2 lens. One of the gems of the old Nikon line up, proper Nikon lenses. I have been meaning to test something quite similar with CMSII and my Leica 75mm Apo-Summicron. If there is one lens that could push the CMSII, the 75 it is. Thanks again Steve .
Glad you liked it 🙂
I'm really impressed about the focusing precision in your 35mm pictures. They are so crispy and detailed. My pictures are so poor in focusing and in micro contrast that I hate the 35mm. Usually I focus manually.
I find 35mm quite a bit easier than 120 Flavio, plenty of depth of field and usually very sharp too.
Great video, thanks. Have always been wondering whether the som depth of field at small apertures could outweigh the loss of sharpness due to diffraction. Your video shows clearly where the balance tips. 😀
Glad you found it useful 👍
Thanks Steve. Never thought of pushing my 2 Nikon lenese. Working on fall colors, with Kodak gold 200, 35mm, will have to check out . Great test images. KB
Thanks Ken, I hope the shoot goes well.
@@SteveONions Thanks. Shot 4 rolls , now to develop. KB
F22 is an aperture I prefer to avoid if I don’t require it, but if the situation calls for it (I’ve used it pretty heavily when taking video without ND), I won’t hesitate to use it. It’s a tad soft on my 24MP sensor, but tbh, it’s not a big deal.
It’s less critical with film Christopher, the grain tends to mask it.
nice
Makes me want to take my g9 out in the woods, and play, thanks. PS: When you walked through the ferns, there was an interesting bouncing effect on the foreground, probably from the stabilization.
Thanks Steve. GoPro’s have amazing stabilisation but in low light they struggle and give some very strange effects.
I can like this one even before watching it all the way through. But actually there is one huge disadvantage to f22 when you get to mirrorless - spots. If I even think I'm going to need f22 for something, I have to make sure that sensor is pristine, then immediately lock an also-pristine lens in place (sometimes that means carefully using a tech-vac to vacuum out the lens body too) and make no plans to swap lenses till I've got my shot. Thankfully the OEMs are finally allowing a closed shutter when swapping lenses, but it's not available on all models yet. This is, of course, rarely a problem with film, and an infrequent problem with DSLRs (though those do need cleaning at times), but it's far more of a worry than diffraction!
Good point on mirrorless James, my M43 system shows up any dust mercilessly at small apertures.
I have also experienced this on digital full frame at these smaller apertures. They are will show dust in the image.
I have also experienced this on digital full frame at these smaller apertures. They are will often show dust in the image.
Steve, I shot BW film back in the 1970s until digital became prevalent. I am now going back to BW film again. I bought several nice primes and an old Nikon FE2. I am looking for resources such as books still in print that will help me. My digital skills are advanced, I teach digital photography in landscape, macro, and wildlife but I haven't shot film in over 30 years so I'd like to do some reading to help me re-calibrate. Do you have any book recommendations that you would offer?
Hi Philip. A lot of the film books out there are quite old now and of less relevance unless you are going to utilise a darkroom. I do like Bruce Barnbaums ‘Art of Photography’ as he’s a traditional shooter who also embraces new technologies.
In the older book category you could have a look for a copy of Ansel Adams The Negative which is still surprisingly relevant and full of useful experience gained over many decades.
The only way to know for sure how f/22 affects the image resolution is to take the exact same scene at both f/8 and f/22, and then compare them.
I’d rarely get enough depth of field for my subjects at f/8 Bruce, unless of course the subject was fairly flat.
Fun video. So your F85 won’t meter with a manual focus lens. I have an F75. Is that same case for it? Thus far I’ve only used autofocus lenses on it.
None of the late Nikons work John, you need an F100 or F5. The earlier autofocus models are fine although you usually only get centre weighted metering.
So much landscape photography relies on detail for its effect. I'm not very interested in forensic reproduction of a scene, or the ability to print 3ft or more. A good shot usually holds up whatever size it's printed at, which is why we can appreciate great work on a computer screen or even a phone! I sometimes shoot a Fuji X10 which is 12mp but only in full auto, it's 6 megapixels with manual settings. The 2/3 sensor camera has a maximum aperture of f11, which is something like f64 in full frame terms. As this is well into diffraction territory, images have to rely on interesting composition. The upside is huge depth of field, with a foreground that can be "sharpened" with flash. Some of my best landscape work - including medium and large format - has been shot on this camera which appears to be the least suitable for the task in hand.
Images should indeed work regardless of size. I like to review my contacts (digital or analogue) as small icons to see which ones jump out. To be honest I can usually see winners when the films are hanging up to dry, rarely does a tiny lack of sharpness spoil an image.
f22???! I get fearful of using f11 ...perhaps I need to re-appraise 😂
😀
Your comment about lens shortcomings like barrel distortion being inconsequential to your own needs is something more people need to understand. I own a lens that a prominent voice has dubbed the worst lens Nikon has ever made, yet it serves me very well and it’s reputation amongst the bandwagon riders makes it a bargain.
I’ve got some awful lenses Jeffrey and one of my favourites is the single element one fitted to my 35mm Holga 👍
I have just noticed that all your videos have a blue & yellow profile, is this a political statement ?
Just the colours I’ve been using for the past 5 years 🙂
@@SteveONions Great, my county colours in Éire ( Roscommon )
Most of the images look overexposed. No rich blacks. Of course in my humble opinion.
Personal choice of course, I wanted a very light result.