How Does f-Number Influence Depth of Field in Photography?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JSGandora
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Depth Field
AI Thread Summary
A larger f-number results in a smaller aperture, which increases depth of field and sharpness in photography. This occurs because a smaller aperture reduces the amount of light entering the lens, minimizing aberrations and astigmatism, even in high-quality lenses. As light rays pass through the smaller opening, they do not converge perfectly on the film plane, leading to a sharper image. The discussion highlights the relationship between aperture size and image clarity, emphasizing that the effects are not limited to lower-quality lenses. Understanding these principles is essential for achieving optimal focus and depth of field in photography.
JSGandora
Messages
92
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Why is the depth of field greater, and the image sharper, when a camera lens is "stopped down" to a larger f-number? Ignore diffraction.


Homework Equations


f-number=f/D where D is the diameter of the hole.


The Attempt at a Solution


At a larger f-number, the diameter of the hole is smaller so there is less exposure, although I'm not sure what that has to do with the depth of field. Can someone help me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you drew a diagram of light rays from subject to film plane, where would you draw light rays passing through the aperture? More specifically, how many different light rays could you draw? What's bad about different light rays when it comes to sharpness of an image?
 
Ahh, with small aperature comes less aberration and astigmatism right?
 
JSGandora said:
Ahh, with small aperature comes less aberration and astigmatism right?

Well yes but it's more than that. Even with a theoretically ideal lens (no aberration or astigmatism) the effect is still there. It is not an effect of cheap lenses (otherwise the most expensive lenses would laugh at depth of field issues, would they not?)
 
Oh, because the diameter is smaller, the light rays don't really converge on a point and so some of the rays that come from the same point but pass through the hole at different points don't converge on the same point on the film which makes it blurry. Is that correct?
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top