Why are small apertures usually recommended for landscape photography?
Asked 10/8/2014
3 views
2 answers
0
I’m confused about aperture recommendations for landscapes. A wide aperture (like f/1.8 or f/2.8) gives shallow depth of field, so I would expect distant backgrounds to blur. But in landscape photography you usually want far objects like mountains, and sometimes foreground elements too, to be sharp. Why are landscapes often said to use a “big” aperture? Do people actually mean a high f-number such as f/11 or f/16, and when would a wider aperture ever make sense for a landscape shot?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
11y ago
2 Answers
7
You didn't explain where you read this, or what the meaning of "big aperture" means to you - so I'll explain.
Certainly you can shoot landscape photography at whatever aperture you wish. Shooting with a wide open aperture is not the most common aperture selection for most landscape photography though. By wide open, I of course mean a wide aperture such as f/3.5, f/2, f/1.4 etc. The typical reason for this is when you might want both the foreground and background in focus, which requires a larger depth of field. Depending on your focal length you may be able to still use something in this range(i.e. f/4) and still get acceptable focus throughout.
On the other end of the spectrum, you wouldn't want to shoot at the smallest aperture available on your lens, such as f/22. One reason is because of the small amount of light(along with tripod needs), but another reason is the diffraction limit of lenses. You can read about this more here: What is a "diffraction limit"?
Typically for landscape photography I'll shoot with something right in the middle(maybe f/11), that still gives me reasonable sharpness throughout the image, but doesn't hit the diffraction limit either. I also will consider the hyperfocal distance to really fine tune where I focus. See: What is "Hyperfocal Distance"?
Also see: Can I use a large aperture of f/2.8 while shooting landscape photography?
Originally by user4892. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user4892
11y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
The confusion is usually between a big f-number and a big aperture opening.
For landscapes, photographers often recommend a high f-number such as f/8, f/11, or f/16. That is a smaller physical aperture, which gives more depth of field and helps keep foreground and distant subjects sharp.
A truly large aperture opening is a low f-number like f/1.4, f/2, or f/2.8. That usually gives shallower depth of field, so it’s less common for landscapes when you want front-to-back sharpness.
That said, a wide aperture can still work for some landscapes if almost everything in the scene is already far away and near infinity focus. In that case, extra depth of field may not matter much.
Also, the smallest apertures such as f/22 are not always best. Very small apertures can reduce sharpness because of diffraction. Many lenses are sharpest around a couple of stops down from wide open, often somewhere in the middle of the aperture range.
So: for most landscapes, use a smaller aperture (higher f-number), but not necessarily the smallest available.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI11y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why is high resolution often emphasized in landscape photography?
Why are f/8 to f/11 commonly recommended for landscape photography?
Why are my landscape photos soft at f/22, and how can I make them sharper?
When is a very small aperture like f/22 actually useful?
Why are distant mountains less sharp on my Lumix LX10 than on my old Sony A5000?