I took two pictures of mountains. One at f/5, one at f/22.

File: f22 (2).jpg (3MB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5184x3456px

the OP image is the f/5 picture, here is the f/22 so you don't have to go to imgur.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T5
Camera Software	Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:01:03 15:36:26
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction

When any wave passes through a small hole it gets slightly disorganised on the other side, more so the smaller the hole. This is called diffraction. When you shoot at f/22 your aperture is absolutely tiny and thus diffraction decreases the sharpness of your image by interfering with the light waves.

Most lenses tend to be sharpest around f/8 to f/11. f/22 shouldn't be used unless you really really want a long exposure for some reason and there's too much light around. Also if you shoot at f/22 dust spots on your sensor appear because the depth of field is so incredibly huge that specks on the sensor itself are nearly in focus. There are one or two in the sky in that picture, look to the top left and you'll see a small dark circle.

Also it's rare for a sensor to be absolutely clean unless you cleaned it five minutes ago. So again, leave f/22 alone.

>>2735552
i'm not OP but one thing I don't understand is why dust on the sensor appears due to the smaller apertures. I would've thought the aperture can only affect the DOF from light coming into the lens.

File: Dust-on-Sensor.png (27KB, 550x796px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 550x796px

>>2735564
maybe it's not strictly speaking a depth of field effect

>>2735539
>>2735552

Didn't know that, thanks guys!

>>2735583
thanks for that, that's pretty interesting

File: tumblr_nz1zh4Ko3Z1teqokwo1_1280.jpg (480KB, 664x1000px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 664x1000px

>>2735531
You should maybe see about getting on some of the parking garages downtown around sunset and see what you can manage. Harsh daylight landscapes aren't usually that good.

Maybe head down towards Chatfield also, they're closer to the mountains and accessible via rail, if you don't have your own transportation.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-6
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	264 dpi
Vertical Resolution	264 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:08 11:48:58
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	2.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2735539
>>2735552
I'm very familiar with diffraction causing poor image quality. But does this work differently with film? I know that Ansel Adams was part of the f-64 club, and if I remember correctly they shot exclusively at f-64, but I recall Ansel having incredibly sharp images. I figured this has something to do with the diffraction not taking place when it's being projected onto a plane (Film) unlike it going into small photo receptors

>>2736178

It's not so much to do with the media and more the format and the relative circle of confusion.

Large format film has a very large circle of confusion, and so f/64 is not diffraction limited.

35mm film (and digital) starts to show problems with diffraction past f/22 and is heavily limited by the time you get to f/32.

1.5x aps-c crop is diffraction limited at f/16.