splathrop Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Isquare. Yeah, the difference can be large, especially in big prints, > 21 inches wide, for instance. And the difference between f/16 and f/8 or f/5.6 can be larger still, when those apertures approximate the sweet spot of the lens you choose to use. Some of the best primes are notably better at f/5.6 even than they are at f/8.
In small prints, not so much visible difference.
Note, too, that it can't be stressed enough to let the expectations of the mind's eye into your thinking. If you are photographing macro subjects, where tiny detail that you never see visually is going to be evident, stopping way down to get depth of field isn't going to be too jarring, because you never expect to see that tiny stuff anyway. When you can see the facets in an insect's eye, it's always going to look sharp. At the other extreme, portraits can also look sharp despite being objectively slightly soft, also because of expectations. We don't have expectations for seeing facial detail anywhere near as high as the hair follicles and pores our cameras can record, so all that have to be delivered are the details that satisfy normal visual expectations. Showing more can even be jarring.
Landscapes are more demanding. The problem with them is that they are composed of zillions of discrete objects, almost all of which the viewer will have experienced seeing close up. So if there is a beach in the foreground, you may need to resolve sand grains. Nearby leaves may need to show veins and surface fuzz. And because each detail gets relatively few pixels, getting it all done can be demanding, for lenses, illumination and technique all together.
|