Updated .gitignore, fixed post, new post 'aperture-study'
This commit is contained in:
Bastian de Byl
91
content/post/aperture-study.md
Normal file
91
content/post/aperture-study.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "A Study in Aperture"
|
||||
date: 2019-01-16T22:32:33-05:00
|
||||
categories: ["Blog"]
|
||||
tags: ["photography"]
|
||||
---
|
||||
I found out recently that using the maximum aperture for a lens can have
|
||||
deminishing returns. Simply put: it makes the image look "soft", or otherwise
|
||||
out-of-focus. In this post I aim to find out find the best *acceptable* aperture
|
||||
setting for a specific lens.
|
||||
|
||||
<!--more-->
|
||||
|
||||
# The Setup
|
||||
I started out using a tripod, with the same ISO and exposure compensation using
|
||||
a [**Minolta 50mm f1/7**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_AF_50mm_f/1.7)
|
||||
lens. Starting at *f/1.7* I worked my way up at reasonable steps to *f/4.0*. My
|
||||
aim was to compare the differences. See the shots below. The target couch
|
||||
cushion was set up roughly a meter from the bottom center of the tripod.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# Depth-of-Field
|
||||
There may be something to be said about maintaining the best DoF
|
||||
(*Depth-of-field*). However, using [PhotoPills DoF Calculator]
|
||||
(https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof) proves just how **wild**, using a
|
||||
50mm lens, an aperture of *f/1.7* is. Shooting a target of *2 meters* results in
|
||||
a depth-of-field of **16 centimeters** -- that's a very narrow range! Bumping up
|
||||
the aperture value to *f/2.8* provides a much more reasonable *27 centimeters*,
|
||||
though still a bit narrow. Either way this allays any fears I had of losing out
|
||||
on that sweet, *sweet* [bokeh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh), though the
|
||||
photos themselves illustrate that not a significant amount of Depth-of-Field is
|
||||
lost at that target distance of 1 meter.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# Comparison
|
||||
## *f/1.7*--*f/4.0*
|
||||
---
|
||||
The biggest difference can be seen between the *f/1.7* and *f/4.0* shots. Note
|
||||
the increase in clarity on the pillows fabric.
|
||||
|
||||
{{% admonition info %}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{% /admonition %}}
|
||||
|
||||
## *f/1.7*--*f/2.8*
|
||||
---
|
||||
At *f/2.8* and above I started noticing less increase in perceived sharpness of
|
||||
the image, though the difference in comparison to *f/1.7* was still fairly
|
||||
noticeable
|
||||
{{% admonition info %}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{% /admonition %}}
|
||||
|
||||
## *f/2.8*--*f/4.0*
|
||||
---
|
||||
Aside from the perceived exposure difference from what is most likely a
|
||||
difference in shutter speed, the overall difference does not seem as dramatic
|
||||
from *f/2.8* to *f/4.0*. Personally, I'd say that *f/2.8* is the clear winner in
|
||||
finding the best middle-ground between maximum aperture and image quality.
|
||||
|
||||
{{% admonition info %}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{% /admonition %}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# Individual Photos
|
||||
---
|
||||
Below is the entire collection of all the photos taken of the subject at
|
||||
increasing aperture steps.
|
||||
|
||||
{{% admonition info %}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{% /admonition %}}
|
||||
{{% admonition info %}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{% /admonition %}}
|
||||
{{% admonition info %}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{% /admonition %}}
|
||||
{{% admonition info %}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{% /admonition %}}
|
||||
{{% admonition info %}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{% /admonition %}}
|
||||
{{% admonition info %}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{% /admonition %}}
|
||||
{{% admonition info %}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{% /admonition %}}
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user