To melmcree: DOF

[JorgeCK]

Hi Mel,
Thank you for your nice comments.
I used a smaller aperture f32.0 to get a better DOF. Since I always seem to have problems with the sharpness of my pictures I decided to use a smaller aperture and increase my ISO.
At the time that I took this picture it was dusk.
Basically I traded a little bit of noise in the picture for sharpness. I read this suggestion in a photograhy magazine.

I have other pictures at home that I took the same day with different setups. I will email them to you tomorrow so you can see the different effects.
take care
Jorge

[melmcree]

I see what you mean. I have heard several discussions on TE about how the smaller the aperture the less sharpness you actually get. I always thought that if f/2.8 was a small depth of field that f/32 would be sharp all the way though but others disagreed. I actually did a test setup with my own 17-40 f4L lens and set it up on a tripod. I took left the focus in one spot and went through all the f-stops. F/11 was the sharpest of them all and after f/16 it dropped off quiet a bit. F/22 wasn't very good at all. That's why if you look at almost all my landscapes they are shot at f/11. I was just curious as to why you set it up that way. It's obvious it worked out because your photo looks great.

Thanks for your insight,

Mel

[kwazireal]

Jorge

Above f/16 you also get into a technical phenomenon called reciprocity, which is like a de-facto change in effective ISO. The slight additional DOF, at the cost of reduced absolute sharpness and reduced brightness at higher f/stops is usually not worth the trade-off.

Regards,

Chris