# Help me with my kit lens and bokeh



## exilarch (Jun 20, 2012)

Hello! I am just starting seriously with photography and I am teaching myself using the manual of my camera and some youtube videos. I want to start applying the "bokeh" effect with my kit lens ( 14-42mm M.Zuiko 1:3.5-5.6 on a Olympus E-PL1). 
Using manual mode I have setted up the lowest possible aperture and adjusted the shutter speed, so that I don't overexpose the photo. I have used manual focus on this particular example using the ring on the front of the lens. 
At the focal length of 18mm the camera allows me to use f4.0 aperture, however I don't get the "bokeh" effect. The lowest possible aperture is at 3.5, as far as I can tell at the focal length of 14mm. 
So I shot another photo at the focal length of 14mm and f 3.5, however I still don't get the shallow depth of field. 
Correct me if I am wrong on the details, but is there a way to do this right? 
I understand that the focus is not perfect, I am still working on that without a viewfinder (they are very-expensive for me) 
What am I missing ? I am attaching the photo 

Here are the properties:

Exposure Time: 1/40 sec.
ISO Speed Rating: 200
Metering Mode: Pattern
Exposure Program: Manual
Focal Length: 14.0 mm


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 20, 2012)

What area of the photo are you trying to blur? Everything's pretty much on an even focal plane. You'll have more luck at the longer end of your lens at f/5.6 @ 42mm.


----------



## exilarch (Jun 20, 2012)

Hello  		o hey tyler! I am trying to have the mask as the subject and everything else blurred.Here are my results at a focal length of 42mm and f 5.6


----------



## KmH (Jun 20, 2012)

It's called *depth*-of-field for a reason, and by the way, bokeh is something quite different.

The mask is essentially at the same distance as the wall it's hanging on.Assuming you have a APS-C size image sensor in your camera a DoF calculator Online Depth of Field Calculator shows that at a focal length of 42 mm, an aperture of f/5.6 and assuming a focus point that is 7 feet away, what will be in focus, the depth-of-field,  starts 6 feet in front of the camera  and extends to 1 foot behind the point of focus, a total of just under 2 feet. Anything in the scene that is in that 2 foot deep corridor that is approximately parallel to the plane of the image sensor will be in focus.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jun 20, 2012)

It doesn't look like there is enough distance between your object of focus and it's surroundings to get the results from bokeh that you are looking for at that focal length. In other words, the door is too close to your mask. 

From a longer focal length, the objects close to your subject are all going to be in focus. To get a shallow DoF, you need the shot at a close range, wide angle and a large aperture, with a fast shutter.

Nikon D5000 | 18-55mm AF-S VR | 50mm 1.8G | HB-47 Hood


----------



## exilarch (Jun 20, 2012)

Thank you for the answers. As far as I understand the problem that I am having is related to the placement of the subject and distance of the camera.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jun 20, 2012)

exilarch said:
			
		

> Thank you for the answers. As far as I understand the problem that I am having is related to the placement of the subject and distance of the camera.



As well as the distance of the objects *behind* your subject.

Nikon D5000 | 18-55mm AF-S VR | 50mm 1.8G | HB-47 Hood


----------



## bobandcar (Jun 20, 2012)

More so the distance from your subject to your background


----------



## exilarch (Jun 20, 2012)

I will try and experiment with shooting subjects outdoors. That would also teach me about exposure, since light changes every few hours.


----------



## BXPhoto (Jun 20, 2012)

exilarch said:
			
		

> I will try and experiment with shooting subjects outdoors. That would also teach me about exposure, since light changes every few hours.



To learn Depth of Field it's best to use static test subjects. So grab a teddy bear and sit him on the kitchen table. Now DOF and Bokeh is a mixture of variables. But the three most important things to consider are aperture, distance to your subject and the distance of the back ground to the subject. So rather than getting into the math take a photo of the teddy bear in these settings.

Set your camera lens to its longest length and largest aperture. (Ie 14-42 @ 42mm and f/5.6) then take a photo of the bear from like 8-10 feet away. Next get up close basically creating a headshot of the bear. Take a shot again and your back ground should show some separation/blur.


----------



## exilarch (Jun 20, 2012)

I managed to do that with the shortest focal length. The results were good, thank you. 
However I am thinking of getting some older adapted lens for better results. I am looking at some great m42 manual focus lens.


----------



## KmH (Jun 20, 2012)

Be aware that older lense's image quality usually isn't as good as what modern lenses can deliver.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jun 20, 2012)

exilarch said:
			
		

> I managed to do that with the shortest focal length. The results were good, thank you.
> However I am thinking of getting some older adapted lens for better results. I am looking at some great m42 manual focus lens.



An easier solution would be simply adding blur during PP.

Nikon D5000 | 18-55mm AF-S VR | 50mm 1.8G | HB-47 Hood


----------



## exilarch (Jun 20, 2012)

@ *KmH* - At this stage I am not thinking of delivering the best quality possible. I like to play around with things. Manual focus lens are affordable for me and they can teach me a lot about using the manual mode, which is currently my main objective.
@*AaronLLockhart* - I deliberately don't want to use PP, since I want to master the basics of the camera


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 20, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> exilarch said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's actually not easier, really. Producing natural OOF blur in camera is technically easier (but likely more costly due to the high price of fast lenses). 

PP blur will undoubtedly look worse than what the lens can render.


----------



## BXPhoto (Jun 20, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> It's actually not easier, really. Producing natural OOF blur in camera is technically easier (but likely more costly due to the high price of fast lenses).
> 
> PP blur will undoubtedly look worse than what the lens can render.



+1 with this... Now motion blur can sometimes look cool with automotive work.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jun 20, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> PP blur will undoubtedly look worse than what the lens can render.



Out of a kit lens I don't think you would be able to tell the difference between PP and lens produced bokeh. Especially if using good software, such as Photoshop and the smart blur filter.

The simplicity of lens created bokeh is automatic. So, of course with knowledge of setup, it is simpler than PP.However, you have to understand bokeh, what it is, and how DoF will affect bokeh before you can get good results from your camera alone. 

I come from a graphic design background. I have only been doing Photography for about 5 years now, but I have been in the graphic design field for 14 years. So, there are many times I will snap a fast photo and make up the difference in photoshop simply because I'm fluent enough with the software to create what I'm looking for, easier than taking 2 minutes to setup the camera to get a certain desired result. 

However, if you are just now starting to learn photography and how each element of the trade works, I would advise spending long hard hours learning your camera and taking experimental photos.

-----------------------------------
edit 6/20/2012

To give you an example of what I'm talking about, take the attached image for example. Please note that I am not the photographer of this image. The model is a close friend of mine, and this was taken when she first got into modeling about 3 years ago. The photographer wasn't a very experienced photographer as well. I had to use the dodge tool on the majority of the photo, because the lighting was very harsh and the majority of her body was underexposed. Anyway, that's beside the point. The point here is that this image was taken with a very large DoF, and there wasn't hardly any naturally occuring bokeh at all. So, I pulled this image into Photoshop, applied the smart blur, and sent it back.

Now, you cannot tell me that if you did not know that I added it, that you would know this bokeh was PP added and not naturally occuring:


----------



## jake337 (Jun 20, 2012)

Here is some discussion on M42 mount lens.

Flickr: Discussing Best M42 Lenses in M42


----------



## BXPhoto (Jun 20, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:
			
		

> Out of a kit lens I don't think you would be able to tell the difference between PP and lens produced bokeh. Especially if using good software, such as Photoshop and the smart blur filter.
> 
> However, the simplicity of lens created bokeh is automatic. However, you have to understand bokeh, what it is, and how DoF will affect bokeh before you can get good results from your camera alone.
> 
> ...



This always why I recommend a fast cheap prime as the next lens purchase for most new photographers. Teaches them more creative composition and allows them to play more control of depth of field.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 20, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > PP blur will undoubtedly look worse than what the lens can render.
> ...



If it takes you two minutes to take a photo with a desired shallow DoF, you're doing something wrong, or do not have the proper equipment to produce an image with the DoF you desire. 

And yes, commonly it's quite easy to tell if blur has been digitally inserted. It is always, always, always better to get it right in camera rather than use PS as a crutch. Of course, I am not advocating that one not digitally enhance their images... But when taking a photo, it's best not to have the mentality of putting minimal effort into the photo, and then polishing the turd in post processing.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 20, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> edit 6/20/2012
> 
> To give you an example of what I'm talking about, take the attached image for example. Please note that I am not the photographer of this image. The model is a close friend of mine, and this was taken when she first got into modeling about 3 years ago. The photographer wasn't a very experienced photographer as well. I had to use the dodge tool on the majority of the photo, because the lighting was very harsh and the majority of her body was underexposed. Anyway, that's beside the point. The point here is that this image was taken with a very large DoF, and there wasn't hardly any naturally occuring bokeh at all. So, I pulled this image into Photoshop, applied the smart blur, and sent it back.
> 
> ...



Yes, I can tell you that it was added blur. It's not "bokeh," it's just an artificially blurred background. I've been into photography for long enough, used enough wide aperture prime lenses, and experienced some extreme lack of DOF to know what out of focus areas should look like for the most part. The area directly around her head would be my first red flag. The second would be the softness on the post she's leaning on. It takes a REALLY good edit to make faux DoF look realistic.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jun 20, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Yes, I can tell you that it was added blur. It's not "bokeh," it's just an artificially blurred background. I've been into photography for long enough, used enough wide aperture prime lenses, and experienced some extreme lack of DOF to know what out of focus areas should look like for the most part. The area directly around her head would be my first red flag. The second would be the softness on the post she's leaning on. It takes a REALLY good edit to make faux DoF look realistic.



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

1. Bokeh is blur. 

2. I fibbed. Not only is that image not mine, I did not photoshop it. It's just a random chick from the internet. However, you just validated my point. You cannot tell added blur from natural blur. The only reason you said you could tell is because I told you I did, when in reality, I actually did not.



Also, I'm not trying to insult or discredit your knowledge in any way. I don't even know 1/3 of what you do about photography.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 20, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It doesn't change the fact that the blur is clearly photshopped in. You can SEE where the image has been photoshopped, so I guess you chose a great image to demonstrate your point. Not only did you choose a great image to demonstrate your point, you also broke TPF's forum guidelines/rules by posting an image that you do not own the copyrights to. I think 9/10 people on this forum would tell you that the image you posted had been digitally manipulated in terms of DoF.

Furthermore, bokeh is blur, but bokeh is NOT fake blur (which is what I stated). It's a product of the lens design, it's non-adjustable, and it is commonly used to describe the aesthetic quality of the OOF areas. 

Why don't you lecture me on more photographic terminology I already know about?

You can start with focal length, and next you can go on to aperture... Because really, I haven't been at this whole "photography" thing very long, and I have no idea what I'm doing.


----------



## e.rose (Jun 20, 2012)

Ok... Since I had to log in for this sh*t to see the image, ima go ahead and post...  Tyler randomly messaged me and asked me what I thought about the image and the first thing I told him was that the blur was fake.  There is a clear outline of the woman's body caused by fake PP blur.  And I'm on a cellphone and could see that.  Do it right in camera.  Just do it.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 20, 2012)

e.rose said:


> Ok... Since I had to log in for this sh*t to see the image, ima go ahead and post...  Tyler randomly messaged me and asked me what I thought about the image and the first thing I told him was that the blur was fake.  There is a clear outline of the woman's body caused by fake PP blur.  And I'm on a cellphone and could see that.  Do it right in camera.  Just do it.



JUST DO IT!

<Nike Swoosh>


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jun 20, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> JUST DO IT!
> 
> <Nike Swoosh>



If you two can see that, your eyes are much better than mine.

Sent from my iPhone 4S


----------



## paigew (Jun 20, 2012)

yup fake blur...fake boobs too 

to the op to get blur/bokeh/DEPTH you need depth between your subject and what you want blurred. So if your subject (mask) is virtually on the same plane (or the same depth of field) as the background you won't notice any bokeh. 

I get the best bokeh when I am close to the subject and the subject is far away from the background. This creates a lot of depth in the image. aka bokeh!


----------



## TCampbell (Jun 20, 2012)

Here's an exercise you can do to help understand depth of field and "bokeh".

You'll need 10 objects -- grab 10 bottles, cans, whatever you have laying around.

Line them up out in the yard (or in a long room) front to back (so that the first bottle is close to you and the last bottle is far away -- not side by side).  Separate them by about 1 or 2' between each bottle.  

Frame them up so that you can see the entire row through you camera, but focus carefully on the 3rd bottle (use a tripod if you must).  Set the aperture to f/16.  Snap a photo.  Back the aperture down to f/11, snap another photo.  Back it down to f/8 snap another.  Repeat f/5.6, then f/4, then f/2.8, then f/2 (if the lens can do f/2), and lastly... if the lens can support it, snap a photo at f/1.4.

Now inspect your photos.  At f/16 the entire row of bottles will be in focus.  At f/11 most of them will be in focus... you might feel the last bottle is a tiny bit soft.  By f/4 (I've skipped over f/8) you'll notice your focused bottle is totally sharp, but the end bottles are definitely showing bokeh - possibly not strong bokeh, but certainly enough that there's no mistaking you've got bokeh.  At the f/2.8 shot... probably just the bottle you focused on will be sharp, the rest will be noticeably soft, and the the bottles in the rear will be extremely soft with fairly strong bokeh.   If you can get to f/1.4, the bottle you focused on might not actually be completely sharp -- we're getting to the point where we have paper-thin DoF -- but the blur on the rest of the bottles will be extreme.  There would be absolutely no chance that you could read the text if the bottle had a label on it.

Keith posted a great visual to understand Depth of Field.  The only thing not quite correct in that image is that it shows the focus point being in the exact center of the Depth of Field.  In reality, the focus point is about 1/3 of the way into the DoF -- or about 1/3 of your DoF will be in FRONT of your focused target and 2/3 of your DoF will be BEHIND your focused target.  If you play with the bottle exercise you'll see this -- this is why I said to focus on the 3rd bottle... instead of the middle bottle.


----------



## greybeard (Jun 20, 2012)

To the OP, is this what you are after?  Since the subject and the background are only a few inches apart, creating a natural lens Bokeh is pretty much impossible.  You can do this in PP with PhotoShop by selecting the part you want blurred and then adding lens blur.  Not perfect but if done tastefully it can be effective.  I did notice that your camera uses a pretty small sensor which translate to a shorter focal length which intern translates to a deep DoF at even f/3.5.  I have the same problem with my Sony F828.  Everything is always in focus.  Good for snap shots, not so good for what you are wanting to do.


----------



## Patrice (Jun 20, 2012)

Even with the excellent effort demonstrated in the post immediately above, a critical examination reveals that the blur was created in post. The rendering of out of focus elements is not that 'linear' when real.


----------



## BXPhoto (Jun 20, 2012)

Theres nothing as nice as real bokeh IMO

via the 135L




The Signorelli's by BX | PHOTO by BX | PHOTO, on Flickr


----------



## Stradawhovious (Jun 22, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If it makes you feel better, I can see it too.  Very clearly photoshopped..... and I don't even know what I'm doing in the world of photography.  Like you say in your sig.. perception is everything.  My perception of that photo is that it was photoshopped, and poorly at that.

This raises a question.... Why would you want to spend hours getting a result that is mediocre at best in photoshop, when you can have the camera effortlessly do it for you naturally and correctly?  Even with a Kit lens this effect can be had.

Doesn't make any sense.  This is another example of "just becuase you can, doesn't mean you should."


----------



## TCampbell (Jun 22, 2012)

If you want to see an example of Photoshop'd bokeh, I replied to another post a few days ago with an example:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...um/288390-bokeh-canon-24mm-f-1-4-l-lense.html

There are three images in the post.  The first image is natural bokeh.  The second and third images are the same except the 2nd image is the original (no photoshop bokeh) and the third image has the bokeh applied via photoshop.

In the post I describe the process used to add the bokeh.

I prefer natural bokeh -- it looks great and it's easy if you've got a low focal ratio lens -- especially one with a nice round aperture.  

When using photoshop it isn't the blur that's the problem.  Making the "blur" is the easy part.  But creating an easy transition so that the bokeh looks natural can be quite a challenge.  I've tried to use the technique with some images where the are no clear dividing lines between foreground and background... and I haven't found a way to make photoshop gently increase the level of blur to create a more natural appearance (it may be easy to do... I probably don't use photoshop enough to know all the tricks.)


----------



## Chris R (Jun 22, 2012)

The Alien Skin Bokeh plugin does a very good job at faking Bokeh (if used properly) in Photoshop.


----------



## Chris R (Jun 22, 2012)

Real or Photoshopped?


----------



## KmH (Jun 22, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 1. Bokeh is blur.


You quoted out of context. It's more involved than just blur and it actually says:



> Japanese: [boke]) is the blur,[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] or the aesthetic quality of the blur,[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] in out-of-focus areas of an image.



It also notes on this page - Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - 





> The English spelling _bokeh_ was popularized in 1997 in _Photo Techniques_ magazine, when Mike Johnston, the editor at the time, commissioned three papers on the topic for the March/April 1997 issue; he altered the spelling to suggest the correct pronunciation to English speakers....



It goes on to make the distinctions-



> Bokeh has been defined as "_*the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light*_".[SUP][8][/SUP] However, differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting"good" and "bad" bokeh, respectively.[SUP][3][/SUP] Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions.


----------



## enzodm (Jun 23, 2012)

exilarch said:


> I managed to do that with the shortest focal length. The results were good, thank you.
> However I am thinking of getting some older adapted lens for better results. I am looking at some great m42 manual focus lens.



In Bulgaria you should be able to find a Helios 58/2 - decent bokeh, sharp, and cheap. You may find it attached to most Zenit cameras; if not, usually they come with Zenitar 50/1.9 or 1.7, good too. Another piece worth of buying and usually cheap is Jupiter 135/3.5 (copy of Zeiss Jena Sonnar: same sharpness, better build quality, sort of tank cannon). Their quality is not worst than economical modern lenses (to be conservative).

Usually is easier to blur with longer focal lengths - look here for calculated DoF: http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html (but of course, as all others explained to you, subject and background should be well separated in distance from you).


----------



## greybeard (Jun 23, 2012)

I kind of look at Photo Shop blur with photos like autotune with audio.  If it is done tastefully, it adds to the whatever you are doing.  And, I can tell you that some pretty big stars would be dead in the water without autotune (Taylor Swift OOOH NOOOO :lmao. Some of the posts seem to be saying that PP blur is some sort of sin against the great camera god.....lol.


----------



## greybeard (Jun 23, 2012)

Chris R said:


> Real or Photoshopped?



If this is PP blur then it is real good.  I'm leaning toward PP because it is so uniform and the edges are soft in places.  I'm probably wrong lol .


----------

