This post will be a little different than my last posts as I'm not very technical, but I think it's an essential topic for visual storytelling. And that is the relation between a F-stop and visual storytelling. As you know, an f-stop, such as f/1.4, f/2.8, f/5.6, f/11, etc., indicates the amount of light coming through the aperture. (The f stands for focal length) So, a wider f-stop, meaning the opening of the blades is wide open like a dialated pupil of our eye, is classified by a smaller number, such as f/1.4 or f/2.8. A wider opening of the aperture means more light can come in, thus a smaller f stop number. And the bigger the number, such as f/22, means less light can come in. I know it's confusing, but it makes sense if you think in the reverse. Additionally, the f stop also correlates to the depth of field in our lens. A wider aperture, such as f/2.8, means a shallower depth of field, so only one small portion of your lens will be in focus, and the rest will be soft and blurred. On the reverse end of the spectrum at f/22, since it's a smaller aperture (a small pinhole), less light comes through the aperture, thus making everything within the frame sharp and in focus. Mind you, this is a very simplistic explanation, but I wanted to share the basics for the rest of the post.

Now, how does the f stop relate to visual storytelling? Let's think about it like this. Shooting at a wider aperture creates a feeling of intimacy and closeness. And since the aperture is wide open, the result is a milky, creamy, soft, and blurred effect around your subject. I personally love shooting at wide aperture because I find the soft, creamy effect so beautiful. Even in my landscape and nature shots, I still shoot as wide as I can given the light situation because it creates a softness and dreamy quality. But again, it all comes down to the story you want to tell and how you want to capture your subject. For most of my food photography, I typically shoot around f/4 or f/5.6 if I'm shooting overhead because it gives enough context and detail of the dish and the scene and gives some depth that gradually fades away.

In general, I wouldn't shoot a flat-lay or an overhead tablescape with dishes and plates at f/2.8 because it simply doesn't give me enough depth of field to tell the whole story of the table. If I did, only a small portion of my focal point would be in focus, and the rest would be blurred. If you think of a full table feast with lots of dishes, there are so many possible compositions and little stories on the table, from the cracked nuts and spoons by the sliced bread to the main dish sitting in the center. In that case, I would shoot those smaller compositions at a wider aperture because it creates a sense of closeness with soft focus around the subject. Think of it like a detailed snapshot representing the broader picture of the feast on the table. But again, there really is no right or wrong here; it all comes down to the feeling and story you want to convey. In detail shots of a food scene, I shoot wide open, so I have a beautiful creamy effect with a shallow depth of field.

Now, if we shoot higher f stop like f/ 11 or higher, everything in the frame will be clearer and more in focus, thus creating a wider depth of field. I rarely shoot higher than f/5.6, but that's my creative choice and my way of visual storytelling. Sometimes, the light or situation calls for it, but, in general, I really love creating a sense of intimacy within a frame. Shooting food at a wider aperture can distort or ruin the composition, losing all sense of time and place. Blur or bokeh can be too much of a good thing if you know what I mean. It's all about finding the right balance between highlighting your subject, providing enough context, and telling your story.

Small apertures like f/11 or f/16 render your subject or scene entirely in complete focus, making it ideal and a "safe bet setting" for landscape photography because the foreground and background will be in focus. But, it feels completely different and tells a different story than the intimacy and closeness if the landscape scene was shot at a wider aperture like f/2.8 (which I do all the time.) Notice the softness of the photo on the right shot at f 2.8 versus the sharpness of the one on the left shot at f/13. I love shooting landscapes at a wider aperture because it has a painterly quality and allow you to direct the viewer's eye to a particular feature or a singular point in the distance or foreground.

There's no right or wrong way to choose your aperture, but what's more important is how the depth of field enhances or detracts from your subject or story. The flatness and crispness of a smaller aperture can be excellent for still-life portraits where everything is in a sharp focus (think Old Dutch Master paintings), but it isn't the appropriate setting to focus on a floral detail on a cake. Overall, wider apertures naturally create a sense of presence, softness, and intimacy, whereas a smaller aperture can feel all-encompassing, broad, and contextual, with a sweeping view. Experiment with both and see how they differ in feeling and look with different subjects. If you are used to shooting at a small aperture for landscapes or sweeping views, set your aperture to f/2.8 and try focusing on one point within your viewfinder, such as a distinct feature like a tree, a mountain, a rock, anything, and see how it feels. Notice how creamy it looks compared to being shot at f/22.

This is a very basic overview of how the f stop can enhance or detract the story we want to share. It can dramatically affect the feeling and look of our subject and the overall feeling of the story itself. That’s why shooting in manual mode gives you so much freedom to play and use your creative discretion. If you'd like further guidance on this technical subject, do send me an email me, and I'll do my best to support you.