Among the three essential elements of exposure in photography, it is always stated that a larger aperture produces shallower depth of field and

more blurred backgrounds, while a smaller aperture delivers deeper depth of field and sharper images. But is it really true that the smaller the

aperture, the sharper the picture? The answer is neither a simple yes nor no, but a trade-off within an optimal range. Key conclusion: Smaller aperture does not mean better quality. Using an extremely small aperture (such as f/16, f/22) will instead reduce image

quality and sharpness. Below is a detailed explanation of why this happens and how to choose the best aperture. 01 Why You Shouldn’t Always Use the Minimum Aperture? This mainly involves two competing physical concepts: depth of field and diffraction effect. Benefit of a smaller aperture (higher f-number): increased depth of field In landscape photography, we usually want everything from the foreground to infinity to be sharp. Using a small aperture (such as f/8, f/11, f/16)

greatly expands the area of sharp focus, making it essential for achieving full depth of field. Drawback of a smaller aperture (higher f-number): diffraction effect What is diffraction? When light passes through an extremely small opening, diffraction occurs, causing light rays to spread slightly and interfere

with one another.