Ken Vigil wrote:
One warning about shooting high f-stops:
Because of diffraction, most lenses become less sharp at f-stops above f16 (my 16-35L begins losing sharpness at anything above f11) even while they are increasing in depth of field. If you want to shoot these underexposed shots during the day while still keeping your shutter speed below 1/250 (the sync speed of the flash), you are better off using a neutral density filter on the lens so you can keep you f-stop lower.
Technically true, but the point is that shooting at very narrow apertures creates the star effect he's after. And practically speaking, where does diffraction make a real difference? The answer is in very large prints, just as with every other sharpness issue. And while this is critical for landscape photography, we're talking about wedding photography here where 99% of prints will be 4x6 and a very select few may be 8x10s.
The point is to shoot at the setting that gives you the effect you're after. I've seen some photographers take this diffraction issue so far that they won't stop down their lenses to get the depth of field necessary to get the entire subject in focus. They were so concerned about critical sharpness that portions of their landscape images are out of focus!
The point is to shoot at the setting that gives you the effect you're after. I've seen some photographers take this diffraction issue so far that they won't stop down their lenses to get the depth of field necessary to get the entire subject in focus. They were so concerned about critical sharpness that portions of their landscape images are out of focus!
It comes down to an issue of balance for me. Just depends on what you really want and what you are willing to give up to get it. I love shooting high f-stop underexposed shots during weddings so the diffraction issue really causes a problem when we do the album layouts (those shots often end up as two page 12x24 prints in the album or 20x30 engagement prints - one of my favorite engagement shots from last year did end up getting printed large like that and didn't really hold up well in the full print because of the blurriness introduced by diffraction). If they are just for 4x6, it doesn't really matter.
Ken Vigil wrote:
It comes down to an issue of balance for me. Just depends on what you really want and what you are willing to give up to get it. I love shooting high f-stop underexposed shots during weddings so the diffraction issue really causes a problem when we do the album layouts (those shots often end up as two page 12x24 prints in the album or 20x30 engagement prints - one of my favorite engagement shots from last year did end up getting printed large like that and didn't really hold up well in the full print because of the blurriness introduced by diffraction). If they are just for 4x6, it doesn't really matter.
The image I posted above (as well as a similar close-up of the bride where her face and arms fill the frame) have been blown up to 16x24 with no discernible issues.
unblinkable wrote:
The image I posted above (as well as a similar close-up of the bride where her face and arms fill the frame) have been blown up to 16x24 with no discernible issues.
Yes, diffraction is more an issue for critical landscape/commercial work, where a discerning editor/buyer may take note of such a technicality. But fortunately for wedding photography, the photo is 99.8% light and subject. Get that, and you've got it, no matter what fstop you are shooting at!
The image I posted above (as well as a similar close-up of the bride where her face and arms fill the frame) have been blown up to 16x24 with no discernible issues.
In my experience it depends on the lens you use... The copy of the 35L I've used seems to start having issues above f16. My 16-35L, however, seems to start having issues above f11. I'm really not a sharpness nazi, despite what it may look like I just got more than a few pics that ended up far more soft than I'd like due to diffraction.
Thank you for everyone replying. So I went out and gave it a shot, and it worked perfect. I had my aperture at f/22 and found out that is where I am getting my best results. I also found out that my sensor needs some cleaning!!
Jared Bludsworth wrote:
Thank you for everyone replying. So I went out and gave it a shot, and it worked perfect. I had my aperture at f/22 and found out that is where I am getting my best results. I also found out that my sensor needs some cleaning!!
, that's how I discovered my sensor needed cleaning this past weekend. Shooting our daughter outside with the sunflare in the background at f/16
I just got more than a few pics that ended up far more soft than I'd like due to diffraction. 
, that's how I discovered my sensor needed cleaning this past weekend. Shooting our daughter outside with the sunflare in the background at f/16