Is f/22 the Sweet Spot for 4x5?

After my first few outings with the 4x5, I've noticed I'm routinely

setting the aperature at f/22 for outdoor scenic shots. Am I lulling

myself into a bad habit or is this typical? Maybe I should ask when

do you find it necessary to stop down to f/32 or f/45?

If you consider only stopping down enough to minimize lens aberrations and not far enough for diffraction to be a serious issue, f/22 is often close to the optimum aperture for many 4 x 5 lenses.

 

But except for a flat subject, there is also the issue of depth of field. It does you little good if the lens is at the ideal aperture for the exact plane of focus, but important parts of the scene are then out of focus.

 

There are various strategies for balancing these factors against one another. See the large format photography page for a discussion of how to do this.

 

www.largeformatphotography.info

Pretty much. If after I've optimised movements I still have 1/4 inch or more of focus travel between my "near" and "far" it's time to stop down to f32-45.

if you go to the schnieder website and go thrue thier stuff they say that f 11 is the lens sweet spot on most lenses.. there are other things to consider other than sharpness? its to complicated to even me to get close to understanding let alone explaining.. ive found that with a tripod even the way you hold your hand when shooting the shot can matter.. lens boards can be wobbly on old cammeras and light shutters can jump and on and on.. the only way to find such answeres is to have very good records and compare your negs posotives as prints can be in error.. my rodenstock likes f22 at 1/60.. even wind can ruin a shot, both on the plants in the shot and moving the camera.. longer exposures nessesary wish f22 could indicate lens movement cousing problems with faster speeds giving slight blure.. if youve ever shot a rifle a one inch group with sand bags and skilled trigger release is good.. a 4 inch group in the same scense with a camera would make a 2 inch tree be 6 inches wide... by no means i am saying your having problems but all this needs to be checked out for good results.. ive got a test location over lookng town where i can test lenses, film and cameras, and different ways to put pressure on the lens when fireing depending on the camera. put a dime on top of the lens and shoot at a different fast speeds. the dime should not move.. if it does youve got problems... hopefully im gettin in a space you dont have to worry about.. but all needs to be checked.. good luck dave.

I like Jim�s theory. It is simple, universal and applies to all focal lengths for 4x5 format, from 55mm to 480mm, and for focusing distances chosen anywhere between a close up and infinity.

Yes, f22 is both very typical for LF outdoor photography and is a near-optimum aperture for many LF lenses. Most but not all of my photographs are taken near f22. If you a scence in which you have very near and very distant objects that you want in focus, and which can't be placed into a single plane with movements, or for which you don't have time for setting up the movements, then you may need to stop down further.

 

The easiest way to decide on the best focus position and how far one should stop down is use the method mentioned by Jim and further described on the large format photography page, as mentioned by Leonard.

 

On two LF lenses I tested, good coverage was not obtained at f11, so I wouldn't call f11 the sweet spot for those lenses for LF -- f11 might be the sweet spot if the lenses were being used for medium format.

 

Two threads earlier this year had extensive discussions that are pertinant: "Beginner, Optimum Aperture" at http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004NpY and "Clarification on f11 sweet-spot" at http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Olk.

F/22 is probably the most commonly used. An increasing fraction of my photos are done at f/3.5 for minimum DOF, my 135mm is optimized for wide open...

Alex, I'm not sure what a "sweet spot" is with a lens. I think it would be valuable to set up a typical image for your work, like your church building, and make exposures at different f stops. I suggest starting wide open and one at each stop until fully stopped down. Make prints from each of these negatives in your normal size. Let your eyes answer your question.

 

I hsve been wondering about the same question. I like to photograph small spaces which portray a person....things like bulletin boards and sections of book shelves. As an experimental shot, I'll use my own bookshelf. I think about quarter life size would work. I'll enlarge the 4x5 negative to 8x10, which is a large print for me. I'll make negatives and prints at each f stop. It's important to go too far in both directions to see the middle more accurately. (Who knows, maybe one extreme will produce interesting results!) My guide for sharpness will be the book titles.

 

For me, this is a much more practical test than using a loupe. I don't really care what the loss is at 10x magnification since my prints rarely exceed 2x. I do care how my images look at my sizes. Using my bookshelf has other advantages. I can easily repeat the shot at a future time to compare other films, etc.

 

Using f22 simplifies things for many of us. (That's also a nice way of saying we are lazy!) By doing your own tests, you can make informed decisions. Don't forget to factor in W in your calculations, especially on the prairie. (Wind)

On what basis do you decide that F22 is the optimum aperture? If you understand that the optimum aperture varies depending on the subject matter of the photograph and how you want the photograph to look, and if after considering those factors F22 turns out to be the optimum aperture, then you're doing it right. If you're selecting F22 for any other reason (e.g. you read somewhere that F22 is the optimum aperture for large format lenses) then you're doing it wrong.

 

Aperture selection can be done the easy way or it can be done the right way, take your pick but you have to pick one or the other because the easy way isn't the right way and vice versa. Actually the right way is pretty easy once you understand what you're doing but you do have to expend some effort to gain that understanding. I think the site that Leonard mentioned is a good place to start.

Alex, if you look at www.largeformatphotography.info and check out the section on selecting the f/stop, Tuan looks at John Sexton's compilation of f/stops settings for the photos in one of his books. I believe 50%of them were at f/32 and another significant percentage were taken at f/45. That is not to say that everyone should follow the same path.

 

Most of my outdoor photographs are taken at f/32. I don't use f/22 very often. I am more likely to use f/45 than f/22. To answer the question of when it is necessary to stop down farther, I use a system similar to the one discussed by Tuan on the aforementioned page to set the aperture to achieve depth of field. This system takes the guesswork out of which f/stop to use. It turns out that I most often need the smaller f/stops to get the DOF I want. Not that this is the right way, it is just my way of doing things.

�Sweet spots�, optimum apertures, selection the easy way or the right way, the guesswork and f/stops - this forum is a childish discussion of kids who do not know how to focus a camera and how to control exposure.

Thanks to all for the input. It was Tuan's compilation of Sexton's

f/stop settings that prodded me to ask this question. So far, I've just been lucky that f/22 worked for the situations I've been in. I have been using the "focus plus one" technique as some of you mentioned, but my monorail is an older one without any graduated scales on it so I've been winging it a little. Looks like my next modification to the camera is to mark scales on the rail to properly determine the aperature.

"this forum is a childish discussion of kids who do not know how to focus a camera and how to control exposure."

 

Where did this come from? No point in being nasty, just go elsewhere.

"this forum is a childish discussion of kids who do not know how to focus a camera and how to control exposure."

 

i belong to quite a few forums mostly related to shooting. most forums seem t0 have generally two kinds of people, (sorry this is oversimplifed) those that have questions ,and want to learn, and those that enjoy helping others.. it seems that nasty people who join here have other motives and really arnt appreaciated by the former two.. ive only been slammed once in this forum and it was for my poor literary skills, but i consider this a good list to be on with a lot of very polite helpful people.. dave.

If you doubt the category I belong to, you could have just checked my record here. My advises are precise, to the point, and I give them only when I know the answer well.

 

I may add 2 more categories of people who participate in this forum: cat.3) those who provide confusing, out of context, irrelevant gossips rather than useful comments, and cat.4) those who can afford to be critical. Although I support the categories 1,2 and 4, and normally avoid meddling with cat. 3 (I did not take part in the now deleted quarrel regarding contemporary politics at this LF forum!), sometimes I do take a stand.

 

If somebody is counting statistics of another photographer�s f/stop settings, and thus tries to learn how to focus his/her camera -- that is a shear nonsense and I say it loudly.

 

If we accept that forum is for exchange of incorrect facts, imprecise and otherwise confusing opinions, so it is equally legitimate to criticize such opinions. Not being a politician I can afford honesty in the statements I make, instead of being �politically correct� and keeping a fake smile on my face for the sake, that otherwise I might loose votes, office or my job, or simply for being �nice�. If I am not very polite so be it. That�s the way I am. Take it easy and get used to it because I am going to be around.

Wieslaw,

 

Perhaps you misapprehended the point of reciting the f/stops used by John Sexton in one of his books. The question was whether routinely setting the f/stop at f/22 for outdoor shots was a bad habit. By showing that a successful, well known photographer (who shares a great deal of information on each photo in his books) predominantly uses f/stops greater than f/22 in those photos, I thought it would graphically demonstrate that always using f/22 might not be appropriate.

 

The method described in Tuan's article, that of focusing on the near and far items you want in focus, setting the f/stop based on the spread between the two, and moving the standard back 1/2 of the way between the near and far, is well accepted and used by many large format photographers, including John Sexton (which is where I learned that method). As far as I am concerned, Mr. Sexton's technical mastery of the view camera is beyond question. I use this method quite often, and it works.

 

As you know, tilts and swings are often not enough to ensure the sharpness of all the items that you want to be sharp in your photo. Therefore, manipulating depth of field comes into play. You may accomplish this differently. If so, please share your superior method instead of belittling other participants.

I think that meaningful discussion of focusing any camera should start from tabulated relationship between the aperture opening and depth of focus inherent in a particular focal length. Then you need to specify how do you want to render your subject. Not everybody shoots stretches of land in focus from foreground to background (I do, but I think it is becoming a limitation). If you do not specify these basics then a discussion that follows appears haphazard to me.

 

I do appreciate Sexton work, but the principles of focusing a view camera have been known as looong ago as the first cameras with moving standards were designed. Weakness of the links provided above (�How to focus the view camera�), lies in the fact that the description is entirely verbal. There is no single illustration provided. I wonder how many readers of these pages understand that focusing by stopping a lens down, while the lens is tilted, improves the focus in a direction PERPENDICULAR to the plane of sharp focus (PSF) offered by the tilt? Or how many knows that at certain, large angle between the film plane and PSF, the hyperfocal 1/3 rule breaks down so that the depth of field on the NEAR side of the PSF is actually GREATER than on the far side? Please look at the example provided. (FocusingNails.jpg)

 

No I do not want to write an article on focusing, but if I ever did I can assure you it would be aptly illustrated. And there are good books on the market. I hope David you are satisfied.

 

PS. There are no �sweet spots� in my lenses.

Wieslaw, "sweet spot" is an over-used American euphamism derived from the baseball sport. My use of was a way of simplifying the question. Maybe over-simplistic. Being new to large format, somewhat studious, and concerned for developing good technique, I became concerned that I was in danger of falling into a bad habit. The responses to my question confirmed my suspicion.

 

No, I did not know the fine points of focusing you pointed out. Your illustrative example is quite good. Very innovative too. Thanks for bringing it to the discussion. Alex

I smelled the euphemism, but did not know the baseball connection - live and learn!

" . . . this forum is a childish discussion of kids who do not know how to focus a camera and how to control exposure."

 

This forum is a place where people from many backgrounds can learn from each other. Viewing oneself as advanced can be self-limiting.