Help... I couldn't get Crisp image for landscape with Nikon d5000 + 3 examples

[howard_owen]

Fears of diffraction loss at small apertures are generally overblown. I've shot both landscapes and macro at f16 and above without issues. You do what you have to do to get the shot.<br><br>

 

As far as the third image goes, I think I agree that there's enough detail there for a good print, and then some. Here's a link to a 100% crop:<br>

 

http://i.pbase.com/o6/23/224523/1/136855077.h7094594.Untitled1.jpg

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Howard<br>

Be nice to be able to see your crop but I get a 404 error.<br>

This shot was done with a 55 f/1.2 on a D300 at f/16. It is still plenty sharp.</p><div></div>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>This one is from the same set up at f/5.6 and it is still plenty sharp</p><div></div>

[howard_owen]

<i>Be nice to be able to see your crop but I get a 404 error.</i><br><br>

 

Try this. Let me know if it's borked too, please.<br><br>

 

http://www.pbase.com/ho72/image/136855077/original.jpg

[michael_bradtke]

<p>And this is the full shot at f/5.6</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Ok let me try this again...</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Michael Bradtke: To me, it is very clear that between your two samples, the one captured with "f5.6" is a lot sharper than the one with "f16." The bubbles in the glass are much worse when the aperture is very small.</p>

<p>However, according to the respective EXIF data, the one captured at "f5.6" was actually captured at f8, and the "f16" one is actually f22. I wonder how this discrepancy occurs. But regardless, the one captured with a very small aperture is worse. Whether that is due to diffraction or perhaps other issues is not entirely clear.</p>

<p>P.S. I don't think Nikon's 55mm/f1.2 AI-S closes down to f22, but there may be other versions of that lens.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>The f/5.6 shot of Michael's definitely looks sharper to me as well - I'm noticing particularly the bubbles halfway down the glass.</p>

<p>I'll post an example of my own; done when I was running a test on a lens lately. It's a boring shot of a brick wall I'm afraid (Of course it is!).<br>

Anyway the setup was this: Camera was a D700, tripod mounted, and the lens was focused using magnified Liveview. The lefthand 100% crop was taken at f/5.6 and righthand at f/22. These are from the camera JPEGS. I suspect the RAW files would show a more marked difference after processing for optimum definition, but let's keep it simple. I can easily see the difference before posting off the image, so let's hope it survives a second JPEG mangling.</p>

<p>BTW, theory says that the effect of diffraction at f/16 on DX should be comparable to what I'm getting at f/22, and since the OP was apparently shooting at f/25.....</p><div></div>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Shun<br>

The EXIF data is incorrect. Unfortunately the conversion of my 55 f/1.2 was a hack. Got to love ebay sellers. So when it says f/8 you subtract one full stop.<br>

Thing is I am not saying that diffraction does not happen what I am saying is that it is not as big of a problem as some people make out.<br>

Also remember that the 55 f/1.2 is not the most renowned of lenses. But I chose it because I know it has weaknesses and figured of any of my lenses it would show a larger amount of diffraction.<br>

I would think that if I had used my 60 Micro the difference would have been much less. Diffraction is very much lens specific</p>

[forhood_lion]

<p>I made a test applying what I aready have learned from your responses guys<br>

they are shots with many kinds of aperture<br>

<a href="http://www.mediafire.com/?p44mr6jjj4js2xx">http://www.mediafire.com/?p44mr6jjj4js2xx</a><br>

New Settings : (( Landscape Sharp Images ))= My dream<br>

turn off vb<br>

aperture mode<br>

AF-A<br>

AF- area mode : 3D<br>

vivid Image : 9 sharpness + 1 saturation + 1 contrast</p>

<p> </p>

[swilson]

<p>The limit to sharpness from diffration does not depend on the lens. Of course a poor lens will show less problems with diffraction simply because it is not sharp to begin with.</p>

<p>Put another way, not matter how good a lens is it can't get around diffection problems.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Interesting that Michael Bradtke and I have totally different reaction to his sample images. He feels that even at f16, the diffraction is not that bad, while I think his examples and Rodeo Joe's examples demonstrate why those very small apertures are undesirable.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[Rodeo Joe's examples demonstrate why those very small apertures are undesirable.]]</p>

<p>But only if your only criteria is 100% views. It seems to me that it is important not to lose sight of the relationship to intended output.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>But only if your only criteria is 100% views. It seems to me that it is important not to lose sight of the relationship to intended output.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Typically I make 8.5x11 prints. For that size prints, it will usually use most of the pixels from a 12MP DSLR such as a D3, D700, and D300, although since the original has a 2:3 aspect ratio, I need to crop on the long side to fit 8.5x11. In other words, my experience is that if you can see a difference at 100% crop, you will also see a difference in moderate sized, 8.5x11 prints.</p>

<p>Recall that in this recent thread, Bjorn Rorslett suggests not to stop down a 600mm lens to f22 in order to compensate for manual focusing difficulties? Diffraction is definitely an issue: <a href="00Z51h">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Z51h</a></p>

<p>If you only make 4x6 or 5x7 prints, you can ignore a lot of concerns related to camera support, lens optical quality, diffraction, critical focusing ....</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>A follow up to the diffraction issue: I was a bit shocked by the side-by-side comparison I posted earlier. I really wasn't expecting that degree of diffraction softening, so I redid the test using a different lens to verify the result. Yep, same degree of softness at f/22. The comparison was between f/22 and f/4 this time, and if anything there's an even more noticeable difference.</p>

<p>Lens used was the oft maligned Ai-S 85mm f/2 Nikkor, which to me looks stunningly sharp at f/4, but obviously not-so-great at f/22. This time I used the RAW files and let Capture One apply its default sharpening to both crops. The interesting thing is that the already sharp f/4 image seemed to respond better to sharpening than the softer f/22 shot. Anyway, I'll shut up now and post the samples.</p><div></div>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Postscript. It appears that most of the sharpness lost to diffraction can be regained by using digital sharpening. The attached is the image above, but with the GIMP's sharpen filter applied to half of the f/22 crop. The filter setting was a bit aggressive at 45, which would usually result in distinct edge artefacts, but in this case seems to have reversed the effect of diffraction almost perfectly. YMMV.</p><div></div>

[robertbanks]

<p>thanks Rodeo Joe for posting these diffraction tests...very interesting. I worry about diffraction on my D3x...the sharpening recovery is very interesting...</p>

[john_mallery]

<p>Detail lost to diffraction cannot be recovered with sharpening.<br>

Just look at the difference between the bricks on the lower part of the frame.<br>

Sharpening does not reverse the effects of diffraction. <br>

maljo</p>