Without this turning into a shitposting fest, could we discuss whether or not we should recommend this book to new anons who want to learn about photography. I see it recommended regularly in different threads and, having read it, I think we might be doing more harm than good to novices.
My problem with the book is that even the latest editions of it offer distinctly bad advice and misportray optics work at higher and lower ends of aperture. This is particularly the case when it comes to diffraction. Peterson says that when shooting at f/22 "any worries about loss of sharpness and contrast are just as overblown as the Y2K fears were!"
and blames the fear-mongering on a couple of '"big" photography forum Web sites'. This is, of course, absolutely incorrect and diffraction can be seen very clearly even on entry-level cameras.
I have a few older books from the film days that don't have any of this nonsense, but do you guys know any other more modern books that don't discuss film defects while at the same time contain fewer fairy tales and useless anecdotes that just waste the reader's time.
Sample of what we're talking about. Both pictures are taken at ISO 100 and 30 second exposure roughly two minutes apart. The left one is at f/22, right one at f/16. While neither is ideal, the difference is quite noticeable.
>>2817262
Sorry I can't help you since I don't have experience in this, but could you recommend one of those from the film days you talk about? I have the John Shaw's Nature Photographer's Complete Guide to Professional Field Techniques. I didn't have any problems with metering after following what he says on exposure but just wanted to know if you would recommend anything else, or if simply there isn't anything else to know for a beginner.
>>2817262
Holy shit, again anon?
Did Peterson fuck your mom or something?
>>2817291
Sure. The one I'm referring to is "The Manual of Outdoor Photography" by Michael Freeman. You can get it nearly for free nowadays and it is an absolutely fantastic manual on film photography of the eighties. Large parts of it are redundant nowadays, but it is much more subject oriented than OP.
>>2817293
I don't think he did, but you never know.
>>2817293
This is a very valid criticism though. Even in 2010, diffraction was a significant issue. Bryan has a number of weird quirks, like always shooting in Cloudy mode, but those you can fix in PP. Long exposure with closed aperture instead of using an ND filter completely ruins what would otherwise be good photographs. It is bad advice in a book aimed at people who don't know any better.
>>2817267
Of course it's going to look like shit when you are using the equivalent of the bottom of a glass bottle as a lens.
>>2817262
It's recommended because it explains a lot of the major concepts of photography in a clear, easy way to understand.
It's right there in the title, you're trying to understand exposure. The book helped me understand a lot of it and learn a few minor techniques while I was at it.
I didn't take everything as if it were scripture though and also tried stuff for myself.
>>2817399
Diffraction will make things look like shit no matter what glass you're using.
>>2817399
Without starting a brand war here, it is shot on a normal prime that is generally considered to be a very decent quality. This is not a kit zoom. f/22 simply produces very bad IQ on modern sensors with high pixel counts.
>>2817430
What parts (say, chapters) would you say are good and worth reading for a beginner?
>>2817262
Perhaps OP, if the relevant/good/non-waste-of-time sections could be identified, then just they could be cherry picked to be recommended to noobs?
>"Try Understanding Exposure but skip chapter ______"
Or is the entire work without any merit?
I dl it ages ago but never really got around to having a look.
For starters, UE does not actually explain what exposure even is. There's a nice long thread on DPReview detailing how many people have been misinformed as a result of exposure to this book.
>>2817653
Rink purease.
>>2817657
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3579796
>>2817653
>>2817747
No wonder you have issues going through that book, probably any other as well, your reading comprehension is atrocious. I mean hell, how else could you miss how the poll in the very link you provide giving a 75% recommendation rate with only 25% saying that it's not worth the money?
Anon, you've been crusading against this book for a couple of months now, and all you can come up with are niggling technicalities or devaluing what you value that you frame as being mountainous problems.
In a way I do understand where you're coming from because I do appreciate highly technical treatments of the subjects, but I'm also balls deep in photography. The reason why your attacks on this book never really gain traction is that most of the rest of us understand that we've amassed a great deal of technical information from places that aren't really engaging or of use to the majority of beginner/hobby photographers. For instance, I love Ansel Adam's books and think at the very least The Negative should be read by anyone no matter if they shoot film or digital, but I also acknowledge that it takes a certain kind of person to be able to wade through that and still give a shit about photography/even finishing the book in the beginning. Peterson is capable of reaching most audiences with this information and illustrating why it's important.
Notice how most of the critiques of him are people finding and reading the book after they already have years of experience? I mean hell, the OP of that link you posted states clearly that he only read the first couple of chapters and then abandoned it because there was nothing in there that he hadn't already learned? A lot of people want and expect rigor in sources for other people to learn. They don't remember how annoying that process was when they were going through it. They forget that they might read one opinion and find another later.
tl;dr it does the job of explaining in an understandable way the big stuff
>>2817766
As a continuation, I'd argue that his treatment of how the meter works in the book is more important than discussions about exposure, because that's one of the most vital aspects of learning photography. Yeah you can use heuristics like sunny 16 to guess metering of a scene, but let's be real, most every beginning photographer leans on the meter hard and heavy. Frankly most all photographers do. Understanding how it interprets a scene is what informs you of the exposure for a scene. This is true of using a separate meter as well. If you don't understand that bit, then you're buggered. This is one of the few books I've seen that give the meter proper weight in the exposure determination process.
And frankly, this book is around 90% of what most people out there with a camera need to know to work it properly. Yeah, there's a lot more too it, but there are a lot more books/websites/workshops/etc. to go out and learn that information.
In any event, you *have* to consider the audience. You have to realize that a bunch of people will be straight turned off if you point them to some ancient book with dry recounting of the facts and you really want something that directly addresses digital photography because you don't want the person sitting there wondering the entire time how much of what they're reading is applicable to digital because it's all about film.
Recall, you're looking at this stuff with at least advanced novice knowledge and experience. They won't be. They won't know things like digital behaves much like slide film with regard to exposure and opposite of negative film...but only in one aspect.
Eh, I guess what I'm trying to say is this is not a case where the rest of the world is wrong and you are right. Pedagogically speaking, this book is great. The things it gets wrong are no more of a problem than telling people learning math who haven't been introduced to negative numbers that you don't subtract bigger numbers from smaller.
>>2817267
So f/16 is generally the limit when it comes to sharpness on 35mm systems?
>>2817779
Depends on the aperture and sensor/film size. Diffraction starts at f/16 for full frame, but it also depends a decent amount on the scene as well in that in some scenes it's more apparent than others.
Don't be afraid of using higher apertures, but also make sure to check out the results to make sure that they're acceptable.
>>2817766
A popular vote from beginners is worthless compared to the discussion below. I have not been crusading against this book at all, unless you count this post. I will not argue for my reading comprehension, but I would against your writing discipline. Even Peterson is more concise than you are.
>And frankly, this book is around 90% of what most people out there with a camera need to know to work it properly.
Yes, clearly, they need to know that they should shoot landscapes at f/22, which results in everything looking like utter ass. The problem with the book is not that it explains basics, it's that it completely misportrays basics and routines gives really bad advice.
>>2817779
The f/16 is completely arbitrary. It varies from lens to lens, but you get optimal sharpness somewhere between f/5.6 and f/11. Shooting at f/22 creates a huge mess. Sometimes you have no choice, because you need big depth of field, but unless you really do, you should avoid anything past f/11 like the plague.
>>2817788
If you need f/22 for large DoF you are using the wrong focal length.
>>2817766
That's grand guy. Let's just ignore how multiple users say that the author is just lying to the readers because they are too stupid to understand and how multiple of his descriptions are completely and utterly inaccurate. Diffraction mentioned in the OP appears in that thread too. Great book if you want to explain the universe to a child in geocentric terms, cause they're easier to understand.
>>2817788
>haven't been crusading
Sure thing guy.
>Yes, clearly, they need to know that they should shoot landscapes at f/22,
Often it doesn't hurt anywhere near how as much as you are pretending it does.
>which results in everything looking like utter ass.
In your opinion
>The problem with the book is not that it explains basics, it's that it completely misportrays basics and routines gives really bad advice.
You've shown literally one example and keep harping on it. It's also not that horrible of a thing which is not remotely "completely misportrays basics and routines gives really bad advice"
>The f/16 is completely arbitrary. It varies from lens to lens, but you get optimal sharpness somewhere between f/5.6 and f/11. Shooting at f/22 creates a huge mess. Sometimes you have no choice, because you need big depth of field, but unless you really do, you should avoid anything past f/11 like the plague
This is beautiful because this topic of diffraction that you champion so strongly, you literally have no clue what you're talking about with it. That book you recommend must be complete shit because f/16 on 35mm is not in the slightest arbitrary. It is a physical fact.
I kinda tried to humor you, but you're literally autistic (inability to consider other points of view, obsessive latching onto of singular aspects and idiosyncratically elevating them to prominence), so there's no point.
That said, here's another "popular vote" that means nothing...around 1700 reviews and almost a full five stars.
>>2817813
>Often it doesn't hurt anywhere near how as much as you are pretending it does.
Honestly, sensor dust is more often a reason not to shoot at f/22 than diffraction is.
Not because the diffraction isn't real, but because...its pretty fucking hard to keep a sensor clean to the prying eyes of f/22.
>>2817831
That's just the result of not taking care of your shit and not having the automatic sensor cleaning function set to power on.
>>2817838
>automatic sensor cleaning function
>making much difference at f/22, where microscopically invisible dust becomes apparent
lol found the amateur.
>>2817848
If you can't keep your camera clean that doesn't mean others can't. It's not hard, you just have to take care of your stuff. Your stuff you paid huge money for, unless daddy bought it in return for diddling you every night.
>>2817267
While this difference is real, there are a few factors left out here:
a) recoverability (i.e., what local contrast information can be sparred and inserted back in with sharpening)
b) I suspect focus wasn't shifted when aperture was; changing aperture changes your focus distance slightly, remember.
>>2817841
Fucking so damn soft it's unusable.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D810 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 804 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 20 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:17 14:36:47 Exposure Time 1/400 sec F-Number f/22.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 1600 Lens Aperture f/22.0 Exposure Bias 1/3 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 20.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2817851
>If you can't keep your camera clean that doesn't mean others can't.
I don't doubt your unused camera has a clean sensor at f/22.
Any camera that goes outdoors every day does not, except for about a 5-10 minute period after the last intensive cleaning.
Your lenses probably only stop down to f/16 from the sound of your squeaky voice, anyway.
>>2817848
>not using a new fresh sensor for every shot
lel found the digipleb
>>2817859
Heavily over-sharpened evidence that most of that info could be extrapolated from the raw file.
Diffraction isn't a reason to internalize "NEVER SHOOT OVER X." It's something you should learn to counter-act when necessary.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:04:17 14:43:10 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1351 Image Height 691
>>2817862
Look at the rocks closer to the camera. It looks like a soup.
>>2817872
>look at the place that's OOF
Nigga, you can't even tell where focal planes are. Why should anyone give a shit about your opinions on diffraction?
>>2817875
It's not out-of-focus, but just about the only place in your photograph that has a clear texture. Look at the rocks further away. They look just as bad, but are more difficult to look at because of their chaotic pattern.
>>2817871
Alternatively, you could just shoot at an aperture that yields optimal sharpness instead of shooting all landscapes at min. aperture.
>>2817877
Black and white photos are actually mostly shades of grey kid
Knowing the optimal conditions is a starting point.
Knowing how to deal with suboptimal conditions is the advanced course.
Hope you're enjoying your new hobby. :)
>>2817877
and what if the depth of field isn't sufficient at the optimal sharpness aperture? Like, 5.6 at 90mm?
Or maybe you want your water to be smoothed out more, so you opt for 3 seconds longer exposure at the expensive of 2% sharpness, then recover it in post with local contrast adjustments?
"instead of shooting all landscapes at min. aperture"
nowhere is she suggesting that, but you ironically are suggesting to shoot all photos at the same aperture because of "maximum sharpness", despite the fact that "maximum sharpness" has much less effect on the narrative of a photo than its depth of field or timespan of the exposure and the movement within it.
WHO THE FUCK SHOOTST F/22 ANYWAY, WHY?!?!?!
F/16 IS THE SMALLEST APERTURE YOU SHOULD EVER SHOOT. EVER.
FUCK.
WHY IS THIS EVEN A QUESTION!?!?!?!
IF YOU WANT EVERTHING IN FOCUS THEN HYPERFOCUS HOLY SHIT.
DID YOU FAGGOTS EVER HEAR F/8 AND BE THERE?????
DIFFRACTION IS A NON ISSUE.
NON ISSUE
O
N
I
S
S
U
E
>>2817889
Anon, do -you- have a problem with reading comprehension? Yes, there are some specific instances when you need to use high apertures; it's why they're there to begin with. You should not shoot at high apertures for landscape and "story-telling" shots in general, which is what Peterson suggests. Diffraction is not a Y2K myth.
If you want smoother water, put on an ND filter. They are not that expensive and everyone should have one for shooting long exposure.
Have you even read the book?
>>2817881
Aperture is a social construct for tripfag going full retard.
>>2817889
Then you make a trade off. For longer exposures, ND filters are a great solution.
I can't speak for all situations, obviously, butt chances are good that if you are trying to get a wide depth of field for something that is far away where you would want a 90mm, you have a better chance of creating a good photo if you just get closer to it.
>>2817895
Autists cannot evolve their conversation as the parameters of the discussion evolve.
I forget I expect too much of this board. Academic like an A/V club.
>>2817895
babies and bathwater mean anything to you autistanon?
>>2817898
>if you are trying to get a wide depth of field for something that is far away where you would want a 90mm, you have a better chance of creating a good photo if you just get closer to it.
Lmfao.
>>2817892
>f/16 is the smallest aperture you should shoot at
>diffraction is a non issue
Wut?
>>2817903
>No.
I'd recommend learning it, you dichotomous doorknob.
>>2817905
That's fresh, coming from someone who shoots at the wrong aperture and creates mediocre remedies to it in PP. ;)
Can the pro-Peterson side actually formulate a coherent argument? Peterson is clearly wrong when it comes to diffraction. This is a testable fact and can be verified under lab conditions. This thread is literally little more than "hurr durr it looks good enough <random insult>".
>>2817909
You don't go to /p/ to discuss testable facts. You go here to discuss untestable facts, shill your Flickr account and sniff your own farts for artistic merit. Nobody here knows jack shit about optics and neither does the author.
Is any part of the book worth it or should I just delete my free copy?
>>2817911
The fundamentals are not better or worse than any free article you'll find on the internet. Just prepare to unlearn a lot of things after you finish reading it.
>>2817908
I don't shoot f/22 unless I'm using flash right in someones grill (because the flash I carry most of the time is full power all the time)
I'm quite confident my technical work is sharper than yours, though, anon. :)
>>2817909
>Pro-Peterson
this is where your autism gets the last of you.
the world is not just team sports. I've never read this guys book, nor do I know who he is; but I do know that no matter how wrong he is in his insistence that its "just as overblown as the Y2K fears were" that you're equally wrong in your equally hyperbolic beliefs.
I honestly feel a bit bad for you. Stuck in something like a weird delineation of celebrity obsession extended into...fucking decade old books relevant to your hobby?
A real showcase of the dangers of being too absorbed in pretendillectual academia and not at all concerned with practical experience, compromise, or how to work around the inoptimal condition.
https://jonrista.com/2013/03/24/the-diffraction-myth/
baby faggots
>>2817871
>isi getting attacked for providing the only relevant information
as usual
The reason that the traditional diffraction limits underestimate the number of pixels that you can achieve is that they don't consider the detail that can be recovered by sharpening. In this post: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=30447131
I explain that the pixel spacing to recover all the available information with diffraction after using sharpening is half the usually cited value. When using sharpening the table below shows the diffraction limited pixel pitch and the resulting full frame mega-pixels based on the f-stop used. Note thart in the real world other sources of blurring like the anti-aliasing filter and lens aberrations exist that would suggest that fewer megapixels are useable; but with Bayer sensors only half the sensor mega-pixels (the green ones) yield the luminance information anyway so a Bayer sensor with the full number of listed pixels would still be reasonable.
fstop microns FF-Mpixels
4.00 : : 1.3 : : 517
5.66 : : 1.8 : : 258
8.00 : : 2.6 : : 129
11.31 : : 3.7 : : 65
16.00 : : 5.2 : : 32
22.63 : : 7.3 : : 16
32.00 : : 10.3 : : 8
The bottom line is that even with a 16 Megapixel full frame sensor f/22 is not past the sensor diffraction limit with sharpening.
>>2817917
NO! f/22 renders any image entirely useless. The arbitrary assignment of f/16 is to protect photographers from entirely destroying their images by thinking of using smaller apertures than f/11! DO NOT RUIN YOUR CARERER BY SHOOTING WITH SMALLER APERTURES THAN 2^4! It'll look like satan jizzed on your sensor!
>>2817921
It must be a terrible reality to think you're the smartest person in the room all the time, but be so susceptible to some of the most basic logical fallacies.
I'm sorry your parents failed you. I'm sorry educational systems failed you.
I'm so sorry.
hey guys
>>2817922
Anon, cut the shit. This CWC-tier insults wouldn't roll even on /adv/.
>>2817902
if you need to cut light more, use a ND filter.
tell me when and why you shoot tighter than f/16
>>2817929
More depth of field?
Who the fuck uses aperture to cut light?
>>2817929
Because I don't carry my full set of filters with me everywhere because I'm not a gearfaggot that misses shots because "its too heavy to walk 5 miles with"
>>2817930
did you miss where i said hyperfocus?
if your shit isn't all in focus at f/8 or f/11 then you're doing it wrong.
you probably focus on a mountain a mile away and wonder why you need to be at f/22 to get it all sharp, when it's not even sharp because lol f/22
>>2817932
Hit the gym more often, you weakling
>>2817929
>implying that the cheap ass ND filter that most noobs carry won't cause far worse problems than easily corrected diffraction
Well, this thread is pretty pointless.
>>2817937
so poorfags either shoot f/22 or f/shitfilter.
how about f/16 and fuckoff?
i've still not seen a photograph in this thread that needed to be shot above f/16
i'm waiting.
>>2817941
>washed out mess incoming
>>2817935
>hyperfocus
Hyperfocal, anon. Hyperfocal isn't always sufficient for landscape work, btw.
>f/8 or f/11
is not really much DoF at all at 90mm.
Hyperfocal does not automatically mean "all of the depth of field", anon. If you try to shoot hyperfocal this way, you're gonna have some soft foregrounds at times.
Just as inaccurate of a way of thinking as "shoot at infinity all the time."
Hyperfocal is more about quickly accomodating subjects in street photography than it is about getting dof for landscapes. Yeesh, guy.
>>2817944
isi being retarded as designed. On crop with a 16mm lens, the only elements you will blur out at f/11 are a bit more than half a meter away. Unless you are rubbing your mug into the dirt, your floor will be perfectly sharp. As you increase the focal length, the floor gets further away and so the increase in hyperfocal does not influence the photograph. Literally the only case you would need to go over f/11 is if you have shit right in your face.
>>2817945
>On crop with a 16mm lens, the only elements you will blur out at f/11 are a bit more than half a meter away.
relevancy, where? Yeah, dude, wide angles are easy to get insanely deep DoF on. Literally everyone knows that.
>As you increase the focal length, the floor gets further away and so the increase in hyperfocal does not influence the photograph
Today I learned anon is a stationary object and photographs from that perspective.
>Literally the only case you would need to go over f/11 is if you have shit right in your face.
>literally the only time hyperfocal f11 dof is too shallow is when its too shallow
Literally the biggest moron I've talked to lately.
>>2817947
fuck i'm so glad i sold my expensive dslr, lenses, and lights and only shoot for fun now.
people like you ruin photography with your autism.
>>2817949
It's a shame you let a shitposter ruin your hobby. Learn 4chanplus. There's a good reason that one of the pre-made filter is specifically for hiding tripfags. ;)
>>2817947
Hey isi, how is college doing for you? Are you preparing for your exams?
>>2817949
>correcting a guy giving misleading information is autism
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
>>2817954
>correctin
>literally where?
The distance you managed to get up your own ass is truly remarkable.
>>2817949
I don't think the person arguing its okay to shoot imperfect conditions is the autistic one here
are you sure you're responding to what she said and not who she is?
>expensive dslr, lenses, and lights and only shoot for fun now
I'm 99% sure isi uses very little gear, so this is an interesting response to her.
>>2817958
What a retort
>>2817960
Retort to what? My favourite Facebook quote? A full thread of vague comments and pseudo-intellectualism along the lines "drinking bleach is not a bad idea, but there are certain circumstances when it can be a good idea"? Calling every second posted a moron? Fuck off.
>>2817932
What do you shoot that ND filters are a burden? I'm guessing you have a setup with one of those holders that attaches to the lens so you can slide filters into, and aren't complaining about the little screw on ND's that weigh like 1/6 a kilogram each.
>>2817929
I just thought the post you made was odd. You said "diffraction is a non issue" right after saying that you shouldn't stop down past f/16, but it sounded like you were implying that stopping down past f/16 is non ideal is because of diffraction in the first place.
holy shit i remember why i don't come here anymore.
you guys can go back to stroking your namefag trip bitch that's probably a guy.
>>2817965
It's more than a little pathetic.
>>2817964
thanks for the attention to detail.
99% of my photos were with flash so i always kept my f stop in check and rarely did i shoot shallow dof.
it's easy to shoot when you're between f/2.8 and f/11 99.99% of the time
no idea what you fags are doing shooting at f/999 pin holing your way into not even being famous on 4chan.
>>2817399
This is a complete idiocy. There is very little difference between good glass and bad glass at high apertures. For refraction, yes, for diffraction, no.
Having actually read the book unlike our tripfag here, I can say that it's more than slightly religious. Diffraction is a major problem, but you also have things like shooting only on Overcast setting. I would advise against it.
luv a good shitposting anon gets btfo by isi with photo examples thread
>>2817963
>A full thread of vague comments and pseudo-intellectualism
I only see that from you t b q h
isi's posts are pretty specific
>along the lines "drinking bleach is not a bad idea, but there are certain circumstances when it can be a good idea"?
lol
>Calling every second posted a moron? Fuck off.
There are 90 posts and 19 posters. She's probably calling the same person a moron over and over and he (you) doesn't like it.
He's also probably the autist that thinks no one can defend the notion of using f/16 or smaller without implicitly defending the author of some random book.
isi is chemo, not cancer. both make you sick, but let's be honest.
>>2817974
>isi's posts are pretty specific
>
>>along the lines "drinking bleach is not a bad idea, but there are certain circumstances when it can be a good idea"?
Remove two line breaks, one > and you'll be spot on. Only a few more posts until pussy, Sir Knight.
>>2817974
>defending the least productive and the most narcisistic poster of the thread
>>2817974
>isi is chemo, not cancer. both make you sick, but let's be honest.
Assuming you're not just samefagging, you and the tripfag should spend more time together. The amount of pretentious plebbit posting and thread derailing is incredible.
>>2817979
>least productive
how do you figure?
>>2817985
>pretentious plebbit posting
what does that even mean besides "I don't have anything to actually accuse her of, I just don't like her"
>thread derailing
Isi doesn't derail threads. Anons derail threads when they have fits of rage because they can't actually disprove the things she says.
Isi is painfully on topic usually.
>>2817941
>>2817942
I mean, after all f/16 is arbitrary and anything past f/22 is "soup", right?
>>2817974
>isi is chemo, not cancer. both make you sick, but let's be honest.
Nah, isi is just a different form of cancer. It's like a guy with prostate cancer and brain cancer racing to see which kills it first.
>>2817993
Ansel Adams shot large format film, and larger films or digital sensors have a higher diffraction limit. This is why large format lenses have much narrow aperture options as well.
>>2817994
>racing to see which kills it first.
I'm not sure you're aware, but the analogy to chemo already implies this.
>>2817941
Necessary here, extremely close foreground subject
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. Camera Model E-3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.2 (Macintosh) Photographer Rob Sheppard Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Color Filter Array Pattern 822 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 24 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 100 dpi Vertical Resolution 100 dpi Image Created 2012:07:27 12:09:43 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/22.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/22.0 Exposure Bias 1/2 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Cloudy Weather Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 12.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2817997
Meant to use "him" but you got me.
>>2818002
If you take these kinds of shots often, consider buying/renting a tilt-shift lens. Or, look into focus stacking. It's tricky but gets the job done. The former works better for photographs with motion, but the later could've easily been used on the photo you posted there
>>2817995
No son. It's clearly stated earlier by our diffraction specialist that f/16 is an arbitrary limit. As it's arbitrary things like the airy disk and science don't come into play.
>>2817941
f/16 for dof. would have needed more stopping down if it wasn't a wide angle.
Most small format cameras and lenses don't have movements for tilt/shift, which means that you're left with stopping down further as your only option for this kind of focus.
It's not hard to resharpen diffraction. isi is right.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model NEX-5N Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.2 (Macintosh) Photographer Rob Sheppard Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 27 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 100 dpi Vertical Resolution 100 dpi Image Created 2012:07:27 12:09:38 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/16.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/16.0 Brightness 10.4 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Cloudy Weather Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2817993
>>2817995
That notwithstanding, this image is by no means not "soup" by 2016 standards. You can argue that the trees are washed out due to exposure time, but the mountains are not much sharper. If this was shot on APS-C or FF, there is also nothing close enough that would warrant using high apertures.
>>2817997
Can you fuck off already with your Kojima-wannabee narrative.
>>2818005
>let me make up a reason that I HAVE TO have more gear, even though its possible to do it with what I have and more intelligent editing
/p/ - the post
I'll take a technician like isi over a gearfag like you any day.
>>2818010
>technician
>add sharpen for mediocre results
>>2818010
>let me make up a reason you have to have more gear
I mentioned focus stacking which doesn't require more gear at all, but I guess you missed that part. The limitation of focus stacking is that you can't really successfully photograph moving objects or long exposures with a lot of movement using this technique, without things turning out strangely. Thus, a tilt-shift lens or camera with movements would possibly be ideal, IF you often find yourself in a position where you're often having to stop all the way down to f/22 to get the depth of field you want. This would be no different than telling somebody "hey, if you're always shooting at ISO 6400 on your crop camera from 2010, why don't you consider investing in a newer camera with better high ISO performance?" But this being 4chan, I guess I should've expected getting lashed out at for recommending a lens. Or did you think I was this guy? >>2817941 Because I'm not.
>>2818019
>The limitation of focus stacking is that you can't really successfully photograph moving objects or long exposures with a lot of movement using this technique, without things turning out strangely.
There's also a huge problem with parallax error to the technique, which you'd know if you ever actually tried it outside of macro.
>>2818019
And what if I only shoot these kind of scenes once or twice a year?
I'll...keep doing it the way I do, by stopping down, and then sharpening to cover the loss to diffraction.
Like many hundreds of thousands of other photographers that are actually taking photos rather than bitching online about others not doing it their way.
I like how you completely forgot that this was an option when writing your run-on paragraph of a response.
I feel bad for OP, who actually raises an important point. Having glanced through this book at my local B&N, I must say that it looks rather unpromising (mostly because the author seems to spend more time explaining how he sold $4000 worth of stock photos and gives non-answers to valid questions (i.e. what is exposure?)) and would probably not suggest it to a friend interested in photography. Instead of suggesting a better book (which I unfortunately do not know of), this thread turned into a thread where we deny physics and pretend that we can magic it away in post-processing.
I usually anonymize all posters, but having looked at isi's contribution, I don't see anything that would merit any praise. Why are you even discussing some tripfag?
>>2818013
>isi makes a demonstration that even from a terribly processed jpeg you can bring back a lot of local contrast and detail through sharpening, let alone what you can do with the raw file
>anon extrapolates this to mean isi actually shoots f/22 and sharpens it all the time
This board is literally retarded.
>>2818023
>Like many hundreds of thousands of other photographers that are actually taking photos rather than bitching online about others not doing it their way
>I like how you completely forgot that this was an option when writing your run-on paragraph of a response.
Didn't mean to strike a nerve there guy. I literally was just lurking the thread and responded to that post because I felt like engaging.
>>2818025
>deny physics and pretend that we can magic it away in post-processing
You mean a thread where we say "modern photography isn't just physics and all shooting conditions aren't ideal" and "but if you learn how to post-process your photos, the possibilities are endless!"
Funny how you spin it.
>>2818029
Did you extrapolate that I extrapolated that?
>>2818031
Don't waste time and get to the point. Are you arguing that your conditions are so not ideal that you can lower the aperture on your camera? If that is the case, you are truly oldschool.
>>2817993
>>2817993
>>2817993
>>2817993
>>2817993
YOU'RE A FUNNY GUY
>>2818023
I don't think there is much loss to humanity if you shoot those kind of scenes once or twice a year.
>>2818036
I'll bother responding to you when you bother learning how to speak this language, you disgustingly over-assertive ESL speaker.
>>2818040
This is probably the new low.
>>2818045
>I'm offended that someone expects me to be understandable
>>2818040
You are genuinely pathetic.
>>2818058
How so? I couldn't understand that post either.
>>2818025
This is a fairly known phenomenon in psychology and one of the reasons why young people are not suited for office. They prioritise doing things differently even if it is detrimental to their objective. Essentially, what OP did wrong is that he presented reasons why this book should not be recommended, which resulted in idiots like isi coming out of the woodwork and explain why a blatant mistake is not a mistake because it may not be as bad under certain circumstances. Let's ignore the fact that Peterson is a known purist, who dislikes post-processing and would thus not sharpen his photographs. More importantly, what OP should have done is made a post about how great the book is and shilled it in a few threads. The same people would then counteract his adverting and he would have achieved what was presumable his goal to begin with.
>>2817863
>Your lenses probably only stop down to f/16 from the sound of your squeaky voice, anyway.
Did chortle.
Twice.
>>2818061
This is a fairly known phenomenon in modern western culture and one of the reasons why westerners are not suited for even governing themselves. They prioritize doing things the way their elders did, because thats the ways it's always been done, even if it is detrimental to their opportunities in an age of expanding horizons.
Essentially, what OP did wrong is that he presented a dialogue on how important the emphasis placed on diffraction limited aperture actually is through the lens of western personality politics and the culture of celebrity, assuming the argument would remain bounded by his non-reasoned obsession with the titular writer, rather than the greater concepts expressed and discussed, which resulted in people looking to expand on the nuance of the matter rather than the politics of the self that the OP would rather remain preoccupied with, willing to explain that a blatant mistake is sometimes just a blatant compromise due to the unpredictability of real-world, non-scripted interactions with the world and other humans.
Let's ignore that Peterson is known to virtually no one in the world of photography or outside of it, and that his personal desires or beliefs are beside the point to a greater conversation about the fluidity of what is technically appropriate.
>>2818065
>I understand my own typos because I made them, why don't you???
Autism: the cognitive gap
>>2818070
You're both faggots, but you're clearly the top.
>>2818061
Nope.
The book's pretty much universally regarded (as universally as such things can be) as one of the best introductions to the subject on the market by all levels. This is not the same thing as being considered a perfect work, incidentally. If you ever pursue higher education, you'll discover that practically every subject's texts are littered with little idiosyncrasies like this (similarly, in mathematics, you have Stewart's Calculus books, and similarly, you have a minority who single out small issues attempting to claim them as reason to dismiss the entire text). You'll even experience authors who openly and outright disagree with one another. Part of the educational process is throwing these different views into the blender of a person's mind and letting them make up their mind about things.
The objection (singular, because this whole time, the plethora of problems have been reduced to talking about f/22 and someone talking about overcast mode which is literally a nonissue no matter how you slice it) is a minor one considering the level of the text (raw beginner) and frankly doesn't warrant any real consideration because it's not a dedicated landscape photography book and frankly if a person starts having issues with sharpness due to diffraction, there's a wealth of resources for them to track down the culprit. Or they might decide it's good enough for them, but in any event, the treatment of this one subject is unimportant to the whole of the book.
I bet you're someone who dismisses Rockwell because of the jpg shit without considering how effective his ideas on things like composition are.
This thread is amazing, keep it up /p/.
Also, the solution to your diffraction problems is to just use a bigger sensor.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.6 Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.8 Serial Number 1132529712 Lens Name EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:09:06 08:58:41 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/9.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/9.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1225 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Partial Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Timed Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Self-Timer Length 10 sec Macro Mode Normal White Balance Custom Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2818076
>the solution to your diffraction problems is to just use a bigger sensor.
Nope. Diffraction happening at f/16 is just an arbitrary idea so the answer to diffraction problems is to simply arbitrarily decide on a different point at which diffraction starts happening. I vote for f/222.
>>2818075
I don't find the whole diffraction discussion very interesting, so let's keep it focused and look at your second paragraph. Not trying to play the authority card, but I am a teacher in higher education. You are absolutely correct that it is a good practice to let the students look at multiple points of view and agree that the author whom you've assigned for today may be at least partially wrong. What is missing from your post however is at what stage this technique is used. It does not make much sense to offer several theories to freshmen, because they are not equipped with the tools to determine, which of the said theories can be useful and under which circumstances. It makes even less sense to use this method for school children and, if you follow American politics to any degree, you would know that this is exactly the issue with schools that teach things like Creationism and evolution side-by-side. People who just do not know any better should not be exposed to several conflicting opinions prior to learning the ropes. To make things worse, Peterson does not even present the two as conflicting opinions and dismisses diffraction outright.
Recently, a friend of mine who just got into photography reported this very issue. He read this very book, went out and started taking long exposure photographs thinking that f/22 is the optimal exposure for maximum sharpness across the frame. I've met him a few days later and he said he was a bit disappointed with his D5300 for this very reason. In his mind, there was absolutely no reason why his pictures should no be crisp and having subsequently read the book myself, I can't blame him. Now on /p/, it's perfectly fine to discuss whether or not we should always shoot in overcast for whatever reason, because the basis is already there and there are enough people to call bullshit if someone is wrong. This is not something that should be presented by itself to someone who literally does not know any better.
>>2818084
Well maybe that's a bit of a lie. The whole thing was more like two years ago. I guess it's more or less recently.
>>2818084
>I don't find the whole diffraction discussion very interesting
Then stop posting in the fucking thread you autistic twat
>Not trying to play the authority card, but I am a teacher in higher education.
Probably an elective at a community college
I noticed you didn't say professor
>Recently, a friend of mine who just got into photography reported this very issue.
Well, I know you're not a Creative Writing teacher.
>>2818087
>professor
I don't see how this is a relevant issue, but I chose the term teacher specifically not to imply tenure. It can be a bit confusing in international settings.
>>2818084
>teacher in higher education
You say that as though it implies you have any real knowledge or training in education. I'll put that aside though to deal with how you're wrong in general.
I'm kind of bored of this but:
1) Diffraction isn't a major concern to new photographers. It never has been and never will be. This is because there's many other more important factors to sharpness that beginners have to sort out. It is also a side topic to the book.
2) This isn't about comparing and contrasting opposing views. That you seem to think it is seriously puts to lie the idea that you're an educator (or it might again just be that college/university professors don't know dick about teaching in general, but I'm guessing this isn't the case because you're exhibiting an abject lack of reasoning skills that in my more optimistic moments will choose to believe precludes you from teaching at any level). This is about the convenient lie -- an idea that works well enough for the subject in question at the level in question. This is done because to adequately understand the topic would involve a long, deep aside into a tangentially related subject or even a closely related subject that's beyond the scope of the work. Since I've used mathematics as an example already, in an effort to not tire out that direction, I'll use grammar as an example this time. Much of what's taught through all levels is not grammar and is style. However in an effort to not bog down the progress of the class via debates over whether or not a given point is style or grammar and which results in more clear, effective communication, it's all presented as being grammar. This is done because it gets people to a generally acceptable level rather quickly, and does nothing to stop those who want to further improve from this basic level of competency from digging deeper and developing their skills further.
>>2818099
I like that we're starting of with one side being categorically wrong. Before we do though, the vastest majority of highest grade educational staff have no "training in education". They are experts in their fields tasked with guiding students toward ideas they have not considered. They are not school teachers.
I also don't see how these two statements are not mutually exclusive without some serious mental gymnastics, though I am confident you will find a way:
>Part of the educational process is throwing these different views into the blender of a person's mind and letting them make up their mind about things.
>This isn't about comparing and contrasting opposing views.
Ignoring the ad hominem, I think your comparison between grammar and syntax—style has nothing to do with this—is unfortunately somewhat off. We use a more general, overarching label for teaching school students and a more specific one in linguistics. No debate there. What we do not do is say "your and you're are the same thing", because that mistake will only result in points being deducted in the following year of their study. To stress this idea further, preventing misconceptions and bad habits is precisely why you even have teachers overseeing learners.
>>2818084
>>2818124
Anon, you must be either very new or very naive. This is not the website to discuss things you may or may not know more about than your average Joe, because Joes outside of your profession always know how to do your job better. Just about the only thing that occasionally works is posting a reference, which occasionally intimidates people and they occasionally fuck off. More often than not, they will just tell you that the author of your reference is wrong. Trust me, I teach economics on high school level and /biz/ is the last place I want to be. I am certain that the anon you are talking to knows as much about teaching as most bizfags know about finance.
>>2818124
>one side being categorically wrong
I'm glad you admit that. Doing all this to practice your lacking rhetorical skills?
>They are experts in their fields tasked with guiding students toward ideas they have not considered.
And as they have no real training in adult education, they often do a piss poor job of doing exactly that. The mechanics of education are pretty well understood.
>I also don't see
That you still fail to understand this very simple and clear delineation is a further damnation of the idea that you are qualified to teach anyone anything. There's no gymnastics necessary.
>grammar and syntax--style has nothing
[actual exasperated sigh] No, syntax is a subject within grammar. Much of what is presented as grammar through basically all levels of schooling is style and not the more general grammar nor the more specific syntax. You're doing yourself and your argument no favors here.
In any event, your "what we do not say is 'your and you're are the same thing'" is actually abjectly wrong, not necessarily in that specific case (but I'm pretty sure no one belabors that point with first graders), but in general, we freely and happily tell students both partially incorrect and fully incorrect things all the time, especially if we're trying to get across general concepts and the details are not necessary at the level (quick! Why is the sky blue? Why do we still show people the Bohrs model? Why is a negative times a negative a postive? Why do we teach Newtonian physics?) Additionally, we're talking about an introductory text. I'm pretty sure that I've never seen algebraic spaces covered in a pre-cal book.
Next I want to point out that there's literally nothing wrong with someone using f/22 all the time. Does it result in less than optimum sharpness? Yeah, but where exactly is the rule that states optimum sharpness must be present in all photographs?
>>2818134
>knows as much about teaching as most bizfags know about finance.
Actually just about to turn in my capstone for my Ed. D., but nice try friend.
>>2818145
>Why do we teach Newtonian physics?
Because Newtonian physics is an accurate model of reality for the problems students are solving at that level, you mongoloid retard. Thank fucking God you're not turning anything in for the field of physics.
>>2818148
>Because Newtonian physics is an accurate model of reality for the problems students are solving at that level, you mongoloid retard. Thank fucking God you're not turning anything in for the field of physics.
No, it's an accurate *enough* model of reality.
And that's exactly my point. Thanks for playing!
>>2818151
It is a PERFECTLY accurate model of reality for those cases. If you think that Newtonian physics aren't widely used for most applications today, you're living in the fucking lalaland.
>>2818147
>Ed. D.
So essentially a glorified secretary. Impressive.
>>2818152
>It is a PERFECTLY accurate model of reality for those cases.
Nope
> If you think that Newtonian physics aren't widely used for most applications today, you're living in the fucking lalaland.
I never said nor implied that.
I know the thread has shifted, but can we discuss diffraction on different sensor sizes. Not to interrupt the important discussion you're having on a photography board. >>2817995
>>2818156
google is your friend
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
>>2817615
It's been nearly 6 years since I've picked the book up so I don't really remember details.
All I can tell you is I went in with a rabal no idea what anything meant and I came out knowing solidly about shutter speed, aperture, ISO.
>>2818162
As opposed to shutter speed, aperture and illumination.
>Does it result in less than optimum sharpness? Yeah, but where exactly is the rule that states optimum sharpness must be present in all photographs?
And here anon-kun goes full retard.
I don't know why this thread exists. I also don't know why professional teachers are all such utter shits.
>the narrative arc of this fucking thread
>25 posters
>156 replies
>just shot hundreds of photos at f/22
>find out they're all unsharp garbage ruined by diffraction
fuck me
>>2818182
Don't worry. They don't have to be sharp and it was all for your benefit.
>>2818183
they're fuckiing garbage, i'm deleting every single photo and buying some helium
it might take too long, maybe i'll buy a handgun instead
FUCK
ME
I'M
FUCKING
SUBHUMAN
GARBAGE
DIFFRACTION DOES NOT RUIN IMAGES
DIFFRACTION RUINS SOULS.
>>2818176
You're welcome. I had to get a bit of a second wind, but I think I finished up nicely.
>>2818174
>I don't know why this thread exists.
Autism.
>I also don't know why professional teachers are all such utter shits.
Only working 8 months out of the year gets you a little salty from boredom.
Also, students are horrible people.
please tell me diffraction kicks in at higher fstop for crop and not lower fstop.
also, AI that identifies photos with EXIF data including Fstop over 16, identifies user, and executes drone strike when? people who knowingly shoot into diffraction ruined territory deserve death.
>>2817262
Soooo...is f/22 now a meme like 7 stops overexposed?
Or is the f/16 is arbitrary more likely to be the meme from this thread?
>>2818188
There's a calculator...this plus that earlier link about the "myth of diffraction" are all you really need to know.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
S H A R P N E S S
IS THE ONLY METRIC OF PHOTOGRAPHY
I'M SO FUCKING MAD I DIDN'T KNOW DIFFRACTION KICKED IN THIS EARLY
KILL
ME
>>2818186
Whatever rocks your boat, but having scrolled through it, most walls of text look quite a lot like your walls of text. OP seems to be a little preoccupied with this, but you are even more so.
At least we're not paying you too much for being lazy.
>>2817919
PLEASE ERXPLAIN FURTHER
ARE PHOTOS TAKEN AT F/22 ON A 18MP SENSOR (CROP) RUINED, OR NOT RUINED BY DIFFRACTION
PLEASE
I BEG YOUR SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE
>>2818194
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand
>>2818196
>you did a lot of stuff
>lazy
Friend, we're masters of pointless work.
>paying you too much
Just $80k this year. I should be up around $110k in another couple of years. I'm not complaining.
>>2818070
fuck off back to /lit/
JASDFJLKASDJFASDF I THOUGHT ALL THESE FUCKING IMAGES LOOKED SOFT BECAUSE OF THE LENS BUT IT WAS THE FUCKING FSTOP ALL ALONG
FUCKSA
DFJA
KLSDFJASDFLKASD
F
I'M SO FUCKING MAD.
asdfajxzdfljkalsdfjklASDFJL
asjdkfajklsdefjkalsd
f
CROP
SENSORS
ARE
FUCKING
GARBAGE
CANS
THEY ARE GARBAGE CANS COLLECTING GARBAGE, DIFFRACTION-ALIASED PHOTONS TO GO IN GARBAGE GALLARIES AND BE GARBAGE
FUCKING
TRASH
F U L L
F R A M E
IS THE ONLY
SOLUTION
ON
GODS
GREEN
EARTH
TO
THE
CANCER
OF
DIFFRACTION
FASD;FLKAJSDLKFJASKLDF
FUCK
EVERYONE SHOOTING ANYTHING LANDSCAPE WITH A CROP SENSOR SHOULD BE PROMPTLY EXECUTED
>>2818206
>full frame
>not medium format
>>2818207
>film
when you meme too hard
>>2818134
Seems pretty straight forward. One is supervising future professionals, the other explaining things to teenagers who don't give a fuck. Never wanted to stay in college longer than I had to, but I really don't envy the later.
>>2818197
Generally they will be pretty soft. In fact, because the sensor is even smaller than full frame/35mm it'll have even more pronounced diffraction than an identical shot taken with a larger format.
What may or may not have been mentioned here yet is that larger sensors and films don't just have higher diffraction limits - they actually throw more out of focus at wider apertures too. A large format shot at f/4 will have as much out of focus as a full frame or 35mm shot at f/1.8 or so. Likewise, you don't need to stop down as much on smaller sensors to get more of the photograph in acceptably sharp focus, which means that the diffraction setting in earlier isn't really a huge deal.
Also worth mentioning is that large format's depth of field can be further enhanced by the use of camera movements. Tilting and swinging the bellows allows you to alternate between having almost everything and next to nothing in focus. When you see a landscape or architecture photo shot on large format, and there's a very close foreground object and background detail that's all very sharp looking, the photographer probably titled the lens. I only have a small amount of experience with LF but when I did shoot it, it felt like camera movements were more effective at dealing with the focus area than aperture.
>>2818209
Umm, you do know there are mf digital cameras, right?
>>2818214
>mf
>digital
pick one.
>>2818217
So medium format is the collective name for all formats that are larger than 120 but smaller than 4x5, so the argument you're waiting to spring that the likes of the Phase One systems, Hassy's digital systems, and the Pentax 645d/z aren't medium format because they're not 220 film is ignorant and idiotic.
>>2818220
*220 film sized
>>2818220
>larger than 120
You mean 35mm, right?
>>2818200
sounds pretty autistic desu
>>2818228
>renting a meme camera
but why
ITT people insult each other over pixel peeping
this whole thread makes /p/ look bad
>>2818232
It's not a meme. You really don't know how words or photography work, do you?
>>2818233
Nah, we do a good job of making this place look bad by ourselves :^)
>>2818233
to be fair, if you read op, all it is about is op asking if we should be recommending a different book to complete newfags. then captain autismo with an education degree arrived and the thread went to shit.
>shooting double digit fstop
its like you enjoy diffraction eating your image quality and sharpness alive
>>2818233
>reee all objective metrics and quantifications of photography are bad
my sides
every time from luddite bads who cannot git gud at photography
>>2818240
>one person obsessing over a single point in a book
not autistic
>someone entertaining themselves on a lazy Sunday by destroying arguments that it's worth dismissing this entire book because of one single, minor, side point is autistic
Gotcha.
Finally, i know why Diffraction is referred to as "The Hitler Of Photography".
>>2818248
More an Eichmann
If a genie could grant me one wish, it wouldn't be to cure cancer, or solve world hunger, but to eliminate diffraction, the greatest of ancient evils which has plagued mankind.
>>2818244
a double post wall of text that isn't a copypasta is pretty fucking autistic bro. i spend too much time here and i never noticed anyone crusading against any book here before. you definitely spend too much time here.
>destroying arguments
p:^)
Diffraction, or שָּׂטָן in the ancient tongue.
Diffraction is of course horrible, and the biggest threat to Image Quality Known To Man, but even more troublesome is the lack of knowledge of sharpness loss to due sub-pixel microdiffraction.
Diffraction, my old foe. We meet again.
>>2818243
no, hang on. i completely do think you can use Science to take better pictures. i just think the difference between f/16 and f/22 is hardly a make-or-break. there's a lot of good stuff for beginners in UE, and their photos will hardly be "ruined" by shooting at f/22 instead of f/16 UNLESS the only thing from which they derive satisfaction is exact perfect sharpness of every last detail......ie, pixel peeping.
everyone's talking about what shit Peterson's book is and points to this one thing as proof. nope. i learned a lot from that book (and by the way i am a shit photographer and i have not git gud at photography yet). if us beginners follow all of his advice, f/22 included, our photos will be better. we have /p/ to tell us about diffraction, and i say that without sarcasm.
Diffraction, a foe, a beast so terrible not even IBM could defeat it.
>>2818250
>diffraction is eliminated
>walk outside, pitch black sky with a blinding sun
>super harsh shadows everywhere with no skylight fill
It would actually make that f/22 pop with microcontrast desu
>>2818256
>it's ok to be bad
nope.
>>2818256
Let's bring it to a close. It doesn't matter because you faggots will completely fuck up your images with VSCO anyway.
Diffraction, a nemesis so potent that we engraved the algorithm to its cruelty upon the grave marker of Sir Ernst Karl Abbe.
>>2818251
>a double post wall of text that isn't a copypasta is pretty fucking autistic bro.
I guess by web standards sure.
>i spend too much time here and i never noticed anyone crusading against any book here before.
I'll admit to the mischaracterization of hyperbole. It's been about five times, the same argument against the book has popped up in the last two months or so, iirc two other threads and posting in like the gear thread/stupid question threads (yes, I realize precisely how autistic that sounds, but this sort of pattern recognition is part and parcel to what I do...more a practiced skill than innate talent).
>you definitely spend too much time here.
Nah, but I do maximize my use of time here.
>>destroying arguments
>p:^)
I know right? Pretty damn devastating. I wouldn't want to be that other guy. I might have to start trying to write differently or something like anyone gives a damn about me on this site.
>>2818260
the point being not that it's okay to be bad, but that there's wayyy more good than bad in that book, especially for noobs.
>>2818256
>it's ok to take photos that are a blurry low defintion mess because the alternative is those evil people with objective, mathematically defined quantitative metrics for image quality
??
i never got this meme, to be quite honest
reminder for people taking landscape photos:
Increasing fstop is deprecated by focus stacking and ND filters.
we have moved based the barbaric process of far-inferior aperture choice with these two superior options.
>mfw glorious Maximum Sharpness photos
>>2818265
you're not reading my entire post. i don't disagree on f/16 vs f/22 - my experience has been that i'd rather not use f/22, and i avoid it. but someone who doesn't know anything about photography will learn much more useful information using Understanding Exposure than misinformation. it is a net positive for beginners. OP asked if we should recommend it to people new to photography. i absolutely think one should.
>>2818268
this thread isn't about some meme book
it's about why any photo that is shot in the Diffraction zone is immediately garbage
>>2818263
>devastating
<:^)
i would not want to be either of you. you're both autists as is op, but you are the least self-aware one by a mile.
btw can't diffraction also happen at bigger apertures? e.g. 1.8 depending on the lens
>>2818520
Yes, but generally the effect is lessened to the point that resolution isn't lost due to whatever interference there is.
