Why does a portrait shot at f/29 look soft instead of extra sharp?
Asked 7/21/2015
1 views
2 answers
0
I shot a portrait at about 38mm on a 17-85mm lens, ISO 100, 1/250s, with the subject around 1.2 m away. A depth-of-field calculator suggests most of the subject distance should have been within the DOF at roughly f/28-f/29, yet the image still looks soft when viewed closely. Is this normal, and why doesn’t stopping down to f/29 make the image sharper?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
11y ago
2 Answers
52
You've run over the diffraction limit. Light rays passing through a small hole will diverge and interfere with each other and a pattern emerges--a sort of banding where different frequencies/placement can cause separate rays to add up or negate each other. The smaller the opening gets, the larger this divergence/interference becomes. This pattern is called an Airy disk. When the diameter of the Airy disk's peak gets larger than the size of a pixel and the Airy disks for each pixel begin to merge, you get softness--so the higher the pixel count of your sensor and the smaller your sensor, the sooner you'll see it as you stop down.
You're generally sharper at a "happy medium". Where your gear's "happy medium" can be will change depending on the pixel density/size and lens design. With APS-C-sized sensors, which I cleverly detect you are using from the 17-85 lens reference, you probably don't want to be going over f/11 without a really good reason and a willingness to give up some sharpness. Theoretical diffraction limits will probably be in the f/5.6-f/8 range. You'll also want to find out where your lens's "sweet spot" is--many lenses perform better stopped down 1-2 stops from wide open. For example, the EF 50mm f/1.8 II's "sweet spot" is in the f/4-5.6 range.
I would also say, judging sharpness at 200% magnification is just asking for all your lenses to look like dogmeat. That's not a realistic magnification in terms of viewing distances you'd have from a typical print, and it's a rare lens that's going to stand up to that kind of test, even when used at its sweet spot. Stop pixel-peeping. Start looking at the print.
See also: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
Originally by user27440. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user27440
11y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes—this softness is normal. The issue is not just depth of field; it’s diffraction.
At very small apertures like f/29, light spreads as it passes through the aperture, creating an Airy disk that reduces fine detail. On many cameras, especially APS-C bodies with smaller pixels, diffraction becomes visible well before f/29. So although stopping down increases depth of field, it also lowers overall sharpness.
In other words: more of the scene may be “in focus,” but the entire image can still look softer.
For a portrait at that distance, f/29 is far beyond the usual sharpness sweet spot. A mid-range aperture such as f/8 will usually look noticeably sharper, while still giving useful depth of field.
Also, viewing at 200% exaggerates softness. But even so, f/29 is expected to look softer than a moderate aperture.
So the likely cause is diffraction, not a failure of autofocus or an incorrect DOF calculation.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI11y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why does this f/2.8 portrait look sharp front to back if depth of field should be shallow?
How sharp should a DSLR landscape photo be at f/11–f/16, and why might it still look soft?
Why do my Canon 750D landscape photos look soft/noisy with a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8?
Why can a subject within the calculated depth-of-field range still look out of focus?
Why is my adapted Takumar 200mm lens so soft on a Canon 60D, and can it be fixed?