# How do I remove Bokeh???!!



## iHateBokeh (Dec 31, 2012)

I can't find any info online on how to REMOVE bokeh. Everyone seems to love it and all the results are about how to increase the blurry background effect, but I wish to eliminate it. I hate to have to keep refocusing and would like to have the whole shot in focus. So my question is , how do I film close objects (ie, things 1-2 ft away) and have the whole thing be in focus? It seems that bokeh is even more apparent with closeups (ie, video of skyline has no bokeh etc for obvious math reasons), so how does one record video of close up objects and have the whole scene in focus? I'm trying to record skits using toys (ie, gi. Joes, roomboxes, etc). I have a t3i and a 50mm 1.4 lens. I hate bokeh.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 31, 2012)

Use wider-angle lenses and smaller apertures.

Learn how to calculate Hyperfocal Distance.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 31, 2012)

Use the smallest aperture possible.


----------



## Demers18 (Dec 31, 2012)

Stop shooting wide open.


----------



## iHateBokeh (Dec 31, 2012)

I recorded with a 22 fstop and it is still super bokehd (ie anything one centimeter closer or further than the object starts blurring).


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 31, 2012)

f/22 is only part of the equation.  What distance was the lens focused at?


----------



## Demers18 (Dec 31, 2012)

How are you focusing? 
At f22 everything should be quite sharp.


----------



## Overread (Dec 31, 2012)

Sparky has already suggested a few ideas, here are some more:

1) Use a camera with a smaller sized sensor/film size. The bigger the recording area the more pronounced the blurring effect becomes, so similarly the smaller the recording area the less blurring effect you will get (This is why many phone cameras can often show almost no background blurring at all even when they are using a very wide aperture*

2) Learn focus stacking - sometimes the only way to get even more depth of field is to take a series of photos focused at different points and then stitch the photos together (software or manually - software is faster most times for a complex scene) so that you can an artificially increased depth of field. This can be used for any type of photo though its more commonly used with macro photography.



*remember:
Wide aperture = small f number
Small aperture = bigger f number


----------



## invisible (Dec 31, 2012)

If you're shooting with a professional camera (except Canon), go to the settings and select "Remove Bokeh".


----------



## Light Guru (Dec 31, 2012)

Learn how to get bokeh and the to the opposite.


----------



## iHateBokeh (Dec 31, 2012)

I focus manually. I simply turn the focus ring until the object is in focus, but anything in font or farther than it is still blurred. I guess an option would be to film with digital zoom so that I can stand farther away than 1 foot


----------



## amolitor (Dec 31, 2012)

Is it blurred in the final image, or just through the viewfinder?

The aperture is wide open all the time when focusing, closing down to the setting value when you take the shot. For most cameras, anyways. So setting the aperture will have no effect on what you see through the finder.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 31, 2012)

invisible said:


> If you're shooting with a professional camera (except Canon), go to the settings and select "Remove Bokeh".



Telling a beginner a trade secret like this is almost as bad as sharing the secret of rotating the air in one's car tires!!! Ssssshhhush,dude!!!!


----------



## iHateBokeh (Dec 31, 2012)

invisible said:


> If you're shooting with a professional camera (except Canon), go to the settings and select "Remove Bokeh".


I went ahead and checked my Canon (t3i) anyway, and lo and behold, it had that setting. Bokeh is gone. Thanks


----------



## SCraig (Dec 31, 2012)

First off, the actual blurring of the background isn't "Bokeh" it's just a function of depth of field.  So now, what is it you really want to get rid of?  Bokeh or depth of field?  Or do you not really understand the difference between the two?


----------



## invisible (Dec 31, 2012)

iHateBokeh said:


> invisible said:
> 
> 
> > If you're shooting with a professional camera (except Canon), go to the settings and select "Remove Bokeh".
> ...


I'm glad to hear that! Two lessons learned: the t3i is a pro camera, and we're always here to help


----------



## thetrue (Dec 31, 2012)

iHateBokeh said:


> invisible said:
> 
> 
> > If you're shooting with a professional camera (except Canon), go to the settings and select "Remove Bokeh".
> ...


Congratulations! You must have RTFM!!!


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 31, 2012)

I can't help but feel like the op is trolling hard.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 31, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> I can't help but feel like the op is trolling hard.


Honestly, it feels kind of like a Derrel game


----------



## KmH (Dec 31, 2012)

Your issue is not with bokeh. Your issue is with depth-of-field (DoF).

Specifically, you want deep DoF, and yes, having a close focus point distance makes DoF more shallow.

Point of focus distance has more of an effect on DoF than lens aperture does, but camera image sensor size and lens focal length also play a part.

Understanding Depth of Field in Photography


----------



## mostlysunny (Dec 31, 2012)

Can we see a picture?


----------



## unpopular (Dec 31, 2012)

thetrue said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > I can't help but feel like the op is trolling hard.
> ...



I like this "name that troll" game.


----------



## iHateBokeh (Dec 31, 2012)

mostlysunny said:


> Can we see a picture?


I'm not home right now, and I'm not trolling. I want to be able to film with my dslr without having to focus by having everything in focus. This problem is especially poignant with regards to closeup film, which I need since I'm trying to do "robot chicken" type skits with toys (but film instead of stop motion) and thus need to be upclose and to have all the things in focus (to emulate scale sized film).


----------



## pgriz (Dec 31, 2012)

Maybe you should take us through the process you're using, and some images of what you consider "unacceptable", and we "may" have an idea or two on how to help you.  If you're doing close-up work, then the relative distance to the background plays a role.  You could move the background closer, and then with a high f/stop the background will be in focus (more or less).


----------



## Buckster (Dec 31, 2012)

With closeup work, it's going to be especially difficult.  I'd look to hyperfocal settings to try to solve it.


----------



## Dao (Dec 31, 2012)

Maybe using these software


----------



## manicmike (Dec 31, 2012)

Is anything in focus?


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 31, 2012)

Dao said:


> Maybe using these software




Lemme know how that works.



iHateBokeh said:


> ......so how does one record video of close up  objects............


----------



## Dao (Dec 31, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe using these software
> ...



Like how Disney make their animations.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 31, 2012)

Dao said:


> ........Like how Disney make their animations.



Didn't realize painted animation cels were so thick they needed focus stacking.


----------



## Dao (Dec 31, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > ........Like how Disney make their animations.
> ...




Stack multiple photos into one frame.   And frame by frame.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 31, 2012)

Dao said:


> Stack multiple photos into one frame.   And frame by frame.



I understand focus stacking.  But I didn't realize Uncle Walt did it with animation cels.  After all, they're flat.

Of course, they don't use cels any more... it's all done digitally.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 31, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> I can't help but feel like the op is trolling hard.



Yep. I got the same feeling.


----------



## Tony S (Dec 31, 2012)

I really wish some one would burn forever the term "bokeh", it's so misused. 


 99.9% of the time the subject being talked about is depth of field, whether shallow or deep.


----------



## Buckster (Dec 31, 2012)

Tony S said:


> I really wish some one would burn forever the term "bokeh", it's so misused.
> 
> 
> 99.9% of the time the subject being talked about is depth of field, whether shallow or deep.


Agreed.  It's almost never about the _quality_ of the OOF areas.


----------



## keith foster (Dec 31, 2012)

My recommendation would be to shoot on a green screen and shoot the background separately.  It will much easier than trying to get the kind of DOF you are talking about when you are shooting so close to the subject.  Even zooming isn't probably going to work unless you have a high dollar, very stable video tripod.

There are some fairly inexpensive video editing softwares that allow you do to do the green screen process.


----------



## iHateBokeh (Dec 31, 2012)

Is there software that lets me do green screen live, so I know how it's looking? I have a Mac pro and a t3i. Nonetheless, thanks for the answers thus far. When I get home tomorrow I will post examples of the blurriness and what I would like it to look like.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Dec 31, 2012)

Sometimes I think that all of this photographic knowledge starts to run together in the brains of some of the people that post here. Bokeh is directly related to depth of field, as it is the term that describes the aesthetic quality of the blur pertaining to the objects outside the area of focus, or outside the lenses DoF. 

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


----------



## keith foster (Dec 31, 2012)

There is probably one that will give you a preview while you are filming but it would require a huge amount of processing power and there would have to some delay.
The software and the processing you would need would be movie studio kind of stuff.  I can't think of anything at the consumer level that would do it but I could be wrong.  I haven't actually tried to do it so haven't investigated the possibilities.


----------



## keith foster (Dec 31, 2012)

I just did a quick Google search and apparently there are some ways to do it.  Here is a link to a video tutorial on Vimeo that shows one way to do it.   I only watched the first
30 seconds so can't judge how difficult it would be.

At least gives you a starting point.


----------



## Overread (Dec 31, 2012)

Ok guys lets stop throwing around random "Troll" comments. If you're concerned about posts report them to the mod team and then leave it be and lets focus on the actual question and matter at hand (and if you don't want to answer just move along). 


Another though to add to the matters is the use of tilt-shift lenses. Using a tilt shift at range would let the photographer control the plane of focus far more directly. I know that product photography often makes use of tilt shift lenses so stop motion style would also be another area I'd expect to see it appear.


----------



## Buckster (Dec 31, 2012)

In light of the direction this is taking on the super-computing power and special software, I'll just reiterate what Sparky posted:



480sparky said:


> Use wider-angle lenses and smaller apertures.
> 
> Learn how to calculate Hyperfocal Distance.


It's gonna be tough with the 50mm.  But with something like the 20mm @ f/22, you can hyperfocal everything into focus from 1.56 feet to infinity.  Just lock it in on your lens and start shooting.  As long as nothing you want in focus gets closer than a foot and a half from the camera, you're golden all the way, no fuss, no muss.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 31, 2012)

So does bokeh then refer to the quality of the OOF region, or specifically the airy disk itself? Why not just discuss the airy disk? To me bokeh is more a subjective quality which relates to technically specific optical qualities. But i've seen good bokeh with "bad" airy disk profiles.

And don't get me started on swirl (lentil-shaped airy disk), a quality which people have convinced themselves is a good thing. It's not. It's icky and makes me feel all barfy!


----------



## Mully (Dec 31, 2012)

They did not have bokeh when I was growing up..... funny how it just came to be when I was not looking


----------



## Derrel (Dec 31, 2012)

Mully said:


> They did not have bokeh when I was growing up..... funny how it just came to be when I was not looking



Mully...when you were growing up there also was no "Starbucks"...there was just "Folgers" coffee (oh, and Maxwell House!).

Mully...when you were growing up there also was no "cell phones"...just big old land line phones called "telephones".

Mully...when you were growing up there also was no vintage wine...just Boone's Farm (and Mogen David!!!).

Mully...when you were growing up there also was no computers...just the old-timey abacus!!!


----------



## thetrue (Dec 31, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Mully said:
> 
> 
> > They did not have bokeh when I was growing up..... funny how it just came to be when I was not looking
> ...


Was a watch mechanical, or did it require sunlight and a proper angle?


----------



## Mully (Dec 31, 2012)

^^^^^ Too funny Derrel  ..... sad but true


----------



## tevo (Dec 31, 2012)

You need to set your WB (Without Bokeh) value to change the amount of bokeh present in your photos.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 31, 2012)

tevo said:


> You need to set your WB (Without Bokeh) value to change the amount of bokeh present in your photos.



How many mireds will that take?


----------



## pab (Dec 31, 2012)

your shooting with a 1.4 50mm lens.          LOL at your expected results.


----------



## nmasters (Dec 31, 2012)

Lol at your username


----------



## tevo (Jan 1, 2013)

480sparky said:


> tevo said:
> 
> 
> > You need to set your WB (Without Bokeh) value to change the amount of bokeh present in your photos.
> ...



Somewhere between 4 and 22


----------



## j-digg (Jan 1, 2013)

iHateBokeh said:


> I can't find any info online on how to REMOVE bokeh. Everyone seems to love it and all the results are about how to increase the blurry background effect, but I wish to eliminate it. I hate to have to keep refocusing and would like to have the whole shot in focus. So my question is , how do I film close objects (ie, things 1-2 ft away) and have the whole thing be in focus? It seems that bokeh is even more apparent with closeups (ie, video of skyline has no bokeh etc for obvious math reasons), so how does one record video of close up objects and have the whole scene in focus? I'm trying to record skits using toys (ie, gi. Joes, roomboxes, etc). I have a t3i and a 50mm 1.4 lens. I hate bokeh.



Go out and purchase an expensive tilt-shift lens and learn how to use it, that will solve your problem.


----------



## iHateBokeh (Jan 1, 2013)

keith foster said:


> I just did a quick Google search and apparently there are some ways to do it.  Here is a link to a video tutorial on Vimeo that shows one way to do it.   I only watched the first
> 30 seconds so can't judge how difficult it would be.
> 
> At least gives you a starting point.



hello, can you post the link?


----------



## BrianV (Jan 1, 2013)

Remove the lens, put the body cap on the camera. Use a pin to poke a hole through the center of the cap. No more bokeh. Happy shooting, be sure to post the results.

Or, do the words "Fourier Transform" mean anything to you?


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 1, 2013)

OP,

You need to search for and read about Depth of Field. *Understanding Depth of Field in Photography*

Until you understand that, you won't understand what you need to do.

After you read that, then ask a question if you need to.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 1, 2013)

You have to stop using refractive optics to eliminate Bokeh from your images. 

This means switching to diffractive imaging.

You are back to using a Pinhole camera, and that is the only way to completely eliminate Bokeh from a photographic image.

You could also use CGI to eliminate Bokeh. "Focus Stacking" is basically CGI with a photographic base.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 1, 2013)

Fourier transform means something to me but I am at a loss as to what that has to do with depth of field.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 1, 2013)

He wants to eliminate Bokeh. It does not matter what the DOF will be, Bokeh will still be there. The Circles of Confusion will be smaller, but still there. You could eliminate the frequency of the Bokeh that he finds objectionable. Or better yet, he should eliminate Bokeh completely by getting rid of the refractive optics that produce it.


Basically, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer department.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 1, 2013)

^^^ well, yeah ... but that's like splitting hairs. Everything that is sharp in a photograph is encompassed by "bokeh" then, since the focus point does not exist in three dimensional space. (actually, it doesn't exist in "space" at all... but that's a whole 'nother bucket of turkeys)


----------



## Buckster (Jan 1, 2013)

BrianV said:


> He wants to eliminate Bokeh. It does not matter what the DOF will be, Bokeh will still be there. The Circles of Confusion will be smaller, but still there. You could eliminate the frequency of the Bokeh that he finds objectionable. Or better yet, he should eliminate Bokeh completely by getting rid of the refractive optics that produce it.
> 
> 
> Basically, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer department.


Yeah, don't answer his ACTUAL question, because he didn't word it correctly.  Why, the NERVE of that guy, using the term "bokeh" when, per the rest of his post, he clearly meant "DOF"!  Some people!

Good thing you ignored that!  You wouldn't want to actually be helpful, even accidentally.  Better to make an obscure point that doesn't even matter.  :thumbup::er:


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 1, 2013)

j-digg said:


> iHateBokeh said:
> 
> 
> > I can't find any info online on how to REMOVE bokeh. Everyone seems to love it and all the results are about how to increase the blurry background effect, but I wish to eliminate it. I hate to have to keep refocusing and would like to have the whole shot in focus. So my question is , how do I film close objects (ie, things 1-2 ft away) and have the whole thing be in focus? It seems that bokeh is even more apparent with closeups (ie, video of skyline has no bokeh etc for obvious math reasons), so how does one record video of close up objects and have the whole scene in focus? I'm trying to record skits using toys (ie, gi. Joes, roomboxes, etc). I have a t3i and a 50mm 1.4 lens. I hate bokeh.
> ...


----------



## amolitor (Jan 1, 2013)

BrianV said:


> He wants to eliminate Bokeh. It does not matter what the DOF will be, Bokeh will still be there. The Circles of Confusion will be smaller, but still there. You could eliminate the frequency of the Bokeh that he finds objectionable. Or better yet, he should eliminate Bokeh completely by getting rid of the refractive optics that produce it.
> 
> 
> Basically, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer department.



Diffractive imaging produces bokeh as well, if you want to get all fancy. They just all render as Airy discs, I think.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 1, 2013)

Bokeh is a stupid concept. The japanese word simply means "blur" and is used to describe senility. It's misappropriation adds a sense of mystery or romance. There really isn't anything precise about the idea of "bokeh", and nothing technically new that hasn't been defined before it's introduction in the 1990s.

I personally think we'd be better off just doing away with "bokeh" as if it's something magical like unicorns. It's just the airy disk with a fancy wapanese name to add a certain mystique to it - it's just an attempt by some magazine writer to make something out of nothing, like he's invented a concept already discovered in the 1880's.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 1, 2013)

amolitor said:


> BrianV said:
> 
> 
> > He wants to eliminate Bokeh. It does not matter what the DOF will be, Bokeh will still be there. The Circles of Confusion will be smaller, but still there. You could eliminate the frequency of the Bokeh that he finds objectionable. Or better yet, he should eliminate Bokeh completely by getting rid of the refractive optics that produce it.
> ...



An airy disc pattern is all that bokeh is!


----------



## amolitor (Jan 1, 2013)

I dunno, it's definitely a something. There truly is a character to the out of focus crud in a photograph, and we haven't got a word for that crud. We could call it 'the character of the out of focus crud' but that seems unwieldy. I admit that anyone using the word "bokeh" automatically loses like 500 coolness points with me instantly, but I'm still stumped by what the heck to call it if not "bokeh".


----------



## unpopular (Jan 1, 2013)

"Airy Disc Pattern" just doesn't have the same romantic quality, but that's really all it is.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 1, 2013)

Wouldn't "Airy Disc Pattern" be the same for all lenses, though? It sounds like something that it purely aperture dependent.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 1, 2013)

If the lens were ideal and the aperture perfectly round, then yes. In practice spherical aberration and aperture shape, and I'm sure a whole host of other things influence the actual pattern ... 

but now that I am reading it, traditionally the airy disk pattern applies to the smallest possible CoC, not the "bokeh". 

Still, though, it's pretty much the same, only measured at a different focus point. Astronomers just weren't so interested in OOF areas as we are.

BTW - good bokeh is circular saw shaped!




Actually this lens does do "bokeh" well, just not with pin light sources, which seems to be the subject most people are interested in with bokeh because it's the easiest to see and interpret.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 2, 2013)

No update on what Fourier Transforms have to do with it?


----------



## unpopular (Jan 2, 2013)

Lightfield photography is the only thing I can think of. Maybe FFT is used in some focus stacking?


----------



## jake337 (Jan 2, 2013)

Look into Tilt/shift lenses.


----------



## kathyt (Jan 2, 2013)

We could never be BFF ihatebokeh.


----------



## christop (Jan 2, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Lightfield photography is the only thing I can think of. Maybe FFT is used in some focus stacking?



Lytro video camera?


----------



## thetrue (Jan 2, 2013)

Can someone off this thread already? Just take the M42 with the scope, aim, and take 'er down. A big fat bucket of uselessness here, me thinks.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 2, 2013)

iHateBokeh said:


> mostlysunny said:
> 
> 
> > Can we see a picture?
> ...



If you watch Robot Chicken, you will see that rarely is their whole scene in focus. They have background blur (bokeh) from shallow DoF.
It has been suggested that Robot Chicken uses a Nikon D300, but no information on the lens(s) they use could be found.


----------



## IByte (Jan 2, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> If you watch Robot Chicken, you will see that rarely is their whole scene in focus. They have background blur (bokeh) from shallow DoF.
> It has been suggested that Robot Chicken uses a Nikon D300, but no information on the lens(s) they use could be found.



Bitter...Robot Chicken who knew?


----------



## unpopular (Jan 2, 2013)

christop said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Lightfield photography is the only thing I can think of. Maybe FFT is used in some focus stacking?
> ...



Well, Lytro won't produce it. WAY too useful.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 2, 2013)

IByte said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > If you watch Robot Chicken, you will see that rarely is their whole scene in focus. They have background blur (bokeh) from shallow DoF.
> ...



Who knew what?


----------

