Tricky shot of an old church

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

f/64 is sharp enough and required for DOF in some cases
but f/64 is not sharp

... But Scott has some good points and is illustrating
some new methods, and hopefully both he and I and others reading
are learning (I am). I do see Scott's point that f/64 is
not as sharp, but I already knew that. I don't think other large
format (4x5) photographers use f/64 unless it is needed, but
sometimes it is needed and it is not the factor of 2 loss in
sharpness from f/32 that some might believe. It is not
because film MTF contributes too. I was hoping Scott would
see the light too (perhaps he does).

Isn't f/64 kind of a straw man in this argument anyway?
I know it was the name of Group f/64 and all, but the average
4x5 user, if there is such a thing, is not likely to use f/64
often. Many lenses for 4x5 don't even stop down to f/64,
at least not the older lenses I've used. 8x10 is another
story, I guess.

Followups set to r.p.e.l-f.

making a "correct" picture is completely personal ... what is correct
to you may not be to others ... personally I find the image less than
thrilling ... but alas it is not my judgement to make ...