Narrow Histogram.

[JockoT]

My version of Lightroom 6 does not have the Dehaze filter. My purchased version is v6.0.
The reason I used f5.6 is because, as a shaky old codger, I need a fast shutter speed when using a 300mm lens.

[Timar]

You can use a plugin to enable the dehaze filter in Lightroom 6. See this post.

[JockoT]

LRHaze does not run in v6.0.0. Requires v6.1. It installed okay but gives the error message when I try to run it.

[Timar]

Of course it doesn't. The dehaze filter was introduced in 6.1. It's a free update to Lightroom 6 and brings a lot of improvements. Just click on Help, Check for Updates...

[DanK]

In general, apertures smaller than f/7.1 (4/3") f/8 (APS-C) or f/11 (full frame) should only be used for macro photography or in situations where a large depth of field combined with a close subject distance is an absolute priority.

This is off the topic of the original posting, but I think this statement is too categorical. The effects of diffraction are quite minor until the aperture is very small, and it is often not even noticeable, depending on the image, the display medium, and the size. We used to have a moderator here who consistently made this point. When there is no reason to go smaller than f/11 or so, I generally don't, to avoid the issue entirely, but when it is useful to go smaller, then diffraction is just one of the many tradeoffs to consider in deciding on settings.

I'll give a concrete example. The shot below was taken at nominal f/stop 13 at a magnification of approximately 1.4:1 using a Canon 7D (18 MP, APS-C), using a 100mm lens and extension tube. As explained here, the effective f/stop is much smaller at this magnification, by a factor of approximately 2.4. Therefore, in terms of effective f-stop, I was shooting at f/31. In terms of nominal f/stop, the image was diffraction-limited at f/3.4. This, by the way, is one of my standard bug-shooting set-ups, and my macros of this sort have had countless views both online and in print. I have never once had anyone say that an image like this isn't sharp enough. The most common comment is along the lines of "Look at that amazing detail." It is true that if one shoots with a smaller aperture and stacks, one can get a slight improvement, but you often wouldn't notice, and even the people who do that usually shoot at nominal apertures such that they are diffraction-limited.

This happens to be a macro, but the math is the same regardless.

[Timar]

Hi Dan,

I don't think that my statement is too categorical...

I'll give a concrete example. The shot below was taken at nominal f/stop 13 at a magnification of approximately 1.4:1 using a Canon 7D (18 MP, APS-C), using a 100mm lens and extension tube. As explained here, the effective f/stop is much smaller at this magnification, by a factor of approximately 2.4. Therefore, in terms of effective f-stop, I was shooting at f/31.

The effective f-stop only describes how much light will be gathered by your sensor. For diffraction as well as for the DOF, the nominal f-stop - the actual apperture - is all that matters. Unfortunately, one might say, because otherwise we would have much less trouble with the DOF in macro shooting . f/13 is a reasonable tradeoff for well-lit macros. I often shoot macros with my crop camera at f16, to gain more DOF.

This happens to be a macro, but the math is the same regardless.

Yes it is. And this is why my statement holds perfectly valid. Read the part of my post that you quoted one more time

To put it in another way: Unless "a large depth of field combined with a close subject distance is an absolute priority" (as in macro photography), there are no upsides and only downsides (diffraction, slower shutter speed) in using appertures smaller than those mentioned and hence they should be avoided. However, if a slower shutter speed is what you require (for a long time exposure), you should use a ND filter.

[DanK]

Hi Dan,
The effective f-stop only describes how much light will be gathered by your sensor. For diffraction as well as for the DOF, the nominal f-stop - the actual apparture - is all that matters. Unfortunately, one could say, because otherwise we we have much less trouble with the DOF in macro shooting .

Nope. From that same tutorial:

The most important consequence is that the lens's effective f-stop increases*. This has all the usual characteristics, including an increase in the depth of field, a longer exposure time and a greater susceptibility to diffraction. In fact, the only reason "effective" is even used is because many cameras still show the uncompensated f-stop setting (as it would appear at low magnification). In all other respects though, the f-stop really has changed.

The tutorial explains why this is so.

[xpatUSA]

In many ways, common photographic terminology is confusing in several ways, IMHO:

Some words have different meanings depending on context. So they are often used on a "everybody knows" basis.

Some concepts are "dumbed down" often without mentioning those caveats that "everybody knows". Such a concept is that of "focal length" which is germain to this sub-discussion.

Often, imprecise or even inappropriate units are used and this never more so than in most tutorials about depth of field where angular units would cut down the verbiage considerably but are almost never used.

Insofar as DOF is concerned, this paper has some historical references but, more significantly, throws out the dreaded "circle of confusion" and replaces it by a "cone of confusion" and also places proper emphasis on the actual diameter of the aperture and it's actual distance from the image plane.

Heavy going for many, I imagine, but well worth a read for those interested in myth-busting as such

[JockoT]

Of course it doesn't. The dehaze filter was introduced in 6.1. It's a free update to Lightroom 6 and brings a lot of improvements. Just click on Help, Check for Updates...

I have a standalone, purchased version of Lightroom 6. There are no updates for the standalone version. I will have to wait for Lightroom 7 if what I have read is correct. I could not opt for Lightroom CC 2015 as I have limited mobile broadband.
If I had known that the standalone version could not be upgraded, prior to making my purchase, I doubt whether I would have bought it.

[Timar]

I have a standalone, purchased version of Lightroom 6. There are no updates for the standalone version. I will have to wait for Lightroom 7 if what I have read is correct.

It isn't. Of course you can upgrade to 6.1. Just do as I have explained.

[JockoT]

Managed to upgrade to 6.1.1 and I am now able to use the Dehaze filter. Thanks.