# What to do about ugly background?



## AggieBecky (Jun 13, 2013)

I've just started to edit this picture and the ugly fence in the background is driving me crazy.  I know I should have thought of that before shooting the picture, unfortunately it was just a shot of my cousin's little boy playing in their backyard that's surrounded with the ugly fence.  Anyway, is there anything I can do about it?  Some kind of fix that wouldn't be too difficult?  Thanks so much!


----------



## Designer (Jun 13, 2013)

it's not so bad.  The child not making eye contact is what you might be concerned about.


----------



## AggieBecky (Jun 13, 2013)

Hmm, good point.  Looking back I do have a pic of him making eye contact and it's got a much better angle on the fence so that you don't see any of the red posts.  That may be a better option.  Thanks!


----------



## Juga (Jun 13, 2013)

Get in closer using a shallow DOF but the fence isn't that bad like Designer said. If the fence only had one red post and it was poking out from the back of his head then it might be an issue but as it is you didn't get any post poking out and it isn't cluttered.


----------



## AggieBecky (Jun 13, 2013)

Thanks for the info about the fence not looking so bad.  So now I'm looking at the pic where I have eye contact but he has a bad shadow across his face.  I'm usually pretty good at using the Lightroom adjustment brush to remove shadows but this one is proving to be tough.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Jun 13, 2013)

This one doesnt really bother me.. but if you have something in the background that is bright and different color, usually that is the time you want B&W.


----------



## MiFleur (Jun 13, 2013)

I think your picture looks good enough, I like the interaction of the boy with the dog, the fence does not bother me either, what does, is the perspective of the fence. The post closest to the boy should normally go straight up! just rotate the photo a bit and it should solve the problem.


----------



## MaVBG (Jun 14, 2013)

Crop.  Juga said get in closer.  The focal point is the child and the dog.  I had to force myself to look for the background. (Hah). CS6 can blur the background even more.  I like the pic, great job....


----------



## ndancona (Jun 14, 2013)

I did a quick edit of your pic.  Blurred the background a bit and moved the subjects off centre.  The child is looking down there's no correcting that unless I clone him a new pair of eyes (can be done).  The dog however is looking left so you can enhance the composition by using some negative space to the left of the subjects.
Just my 2 cents.


----------



## ToorboCharge (Jun 14, 2013)

as stated I wouldve blurred the background more and changed the composition up by putting the dog and child to the right, consider the "rule of thirds" guideline. the background isnt that disturbing though as stated if the child or dog had a post growing out of their heads is when an issue would be presented.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 14, 2013)




----------



## Buckster (Jun 14, 2013)

So, it looks like the suggestions so far are:


Don't worry about it - it's not too bad.
Go back in time and shoot it again, but better.
Rotate/Straighten it so the fence post is true vertical.
Blur the background.
Crop it.
I'll add to the list with:

Mask it and drop in any background you like better:






You could even use a magazine mockup over top of it for some fun:


----------



## amolitor (Jun 14, 2013)

You can do any or all of these things to de-emphasize it:

- blur it
- darken it
- desaturate the color on it

Apply each one of them gently and non-obviously, and you might be pleased with the overall effect. I prefer to do these changes on separate layers (that is, duplicate the entire layer, then blur/darken/desaturate the whole layer) and then "paint in" with a mask the amount and position of the modified material I want. This makes it easy to feather the effects pleasingly.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jun 14, 2013)

Buckster said:


> So, it looks like the suggestions so far are:
> 
> 
> Don't worry about it - it's not too bad.
> ...




Buck to the rescue....:hail:


----------



## AggieBecky (Jun 14, 2013)

Yall are so good!  I'm still learning how to use photoshop....

ndancona-  Your edit is probably closest to what I had in mind to distract from the background.  Can you tell me how you did it?  How did you extend the background/fence?  And how did you add so much blur to the background?

Buck-  I don't know if your edit is what I had in mind but it is so much fun-- I love it!  Where do you get fun backgrounds like that?

Thanks everyone!


----------



## Tailgunner (Jun 14, 2013)

AggieBecky said:


> Yall are so good!  I'm still learning how to use photoshop....
> 
> ndancona-  Your edit is probably closest to what I had in mind to distract from the background.  Can you tell me how you did it?  How did you extend the background/fence?  And how did you add so much blur to the background?
> 
> Thanks everyone!



The blur background technique is called Bokeh. 

Bokeh


----------



## AggieBecky (Jun 14, 2013)

I thought bokeh is lens driven.  My question is how to add it in photoshop.  Thanks!


----------



## ndancona (Jun 14, 2013)

AggieBecky said:


> I thought bokeh is lens driven.  My question is how to add it in photoshop.  Thanks!



It's very easy.  I will give you some simple steps, of course there are better methods but the easiest is as follows:
open image in photoshop.  Duplicate image. Filter/Blur/Gaussian Blur entire image (on the duplicate image). Select entire image and copy.  Paste image as new layer onto your original image.  Select eraser tool on a soft brush and erase blur over the areas you want visible.

I did not recreate anything in the image.  I moved your subjects with the clone tool.  Experiment with the clone tool it's very useful.  What I basically did is duplicate the background to extend it.  If you do it right you can blend the background in and you will never notice the difference.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 14, 2013)

First I am going to suggest using some sort of Lens or Focus blur instead of a Gaussian blur. Secondly, I will emphasize that whatever technique you use to blend, you want to be able to feather the effect fairly delicately.

This was done by:

- duplicate layer
- partially desaturate, and then apply a modest focus blur to that layer
- blend the two layers, leaving the kid, the dog, and the foreground material pretty much alone, and feathering back to increase the effect as you proceed further back along the lawn and the fence
- one more layer to burn some stuff and make it darker




ETA: also opened up the darkest tones a bit so the kid's eyes don't look so much like little black coals


----------



## ndancona (Jun 14, 2013)

it's a good method but OP is new to photoshop so it might be a bit technical for her.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 14, 2013)

AggieBecky said:


> Buck-  I don't know if your edit is what I had in mind but it is so much fun-- I love it!


Thanks.  It's just another possible tool that can be used.



AggieBecky said:


> Where do you get fun backgrounds like that?


I shoot a lot of backgrounds and objects that I think I might be able to use later, and have a fairly large library of them.  However, I got that particular one at www.Fotolia.com, which is the main resource I use if I'm looking for something in particular and don't have it in my library already.  I got it a year or two ago to use in a composite of my granddaughter at Easter, and now I have the license to use it for anything, so it's part of my backgrounds library.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2013)

find a better background.

IMO plopping in a fake background or adding fauxkeh is never a suitable option. Fake backgrounds can work in studio when you have this in mind, but otherwise it's better to focus on composition and camera control before learning how to do it in post.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 14, 2013)

unpopular said:


> find a better background.
> 
> IMO plopping in a fake background or adding fauxkeh is never a suitable option. Fake backgrounds can work in studio when you have this in mind, but otherwise it's better to focus on composition and camera control before learning how to do it in post.


"Never".  lol


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2013)

It can be a quick fix to deliver a substandard product which visually looks better than a bad photographic flub, but nonetheless, this isn't saying much. The images here are pretty good examples of tacky fake backgrounds and mushy fauxkeh.

Sure. We're all human, we make mistakes and we can't control every aspect, these techniques can deliver the goods. But 'suitable'? If so, only barely.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 14, 2013)

unpopular said:


> It can be a quick fix to deliver a substandard product which visually looks better than a bad photographic flub, but nonetheless, this isn't saying much. The examples here are pretty good examples of tacky fake backgrounds and mushy fauxkeh.
> 
> Sure. We're all human, we make mistakes and we can't control every aspect, these techniques can deliver the goods. But 'suitable'? If so, only barely.


Like anything, it depends on how it's used, and how well.  It's not all crap, as you seem to think.  Great work can and is being produced with the technique - on purpose even - not just to fix mistakes.  

"Never" is a statement of ridiculous and unfounded prejudice, as is the question of how "suitable" it is to use it, or to use any tool available for that matter.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2013)

On purpose is kind of a different situation entirely, which I eluded to with the 'in studio' comment. This kind of gets into special effects photography or graphic design, though, which I think has a different set of rules.

I don't think it's ever suitable though to cover a mistake, at least not in the context of doing it right in the first place.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 14, 2013)

unpopular said:


> I don't think it's ever suitable though to cover a mistake, at least not in the context of doing it right in the first place.


Whatever - difference of opinion, I suppose.

I think it's just fine to use any tool available for any purpose at all that works, and see no reason to put artificial limits on creativity.  I don't personally have different sets of rules for this or that type of image made using photography in any part of the process, unless it's for journalism where boundaries of integrity are somewhat valid.  Everything else is fair game to me, and the whole "purist" thing some folks ascribe to just comes off as pretentious to me.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2013)

I wouldn't say I am a 'purist'. But I do think that a 'i'll just fix it in post' attitude doesn't make for good photography. Especially for people who are just learning.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 14, 2013)

unpopular said:


> I wouldn't say I am a 'purist'. But I do think that a 'i'll just fix it in post' attitude doesn't make for good photography. *Especially for people who are just learning*.



For Anyone!  

Get it right in camera... and reshoot if you don't get it right the first time! Fake blur sucks!


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2013)

Fake blur does suck, PS fake blur especially. There are some decent options out there, but without a genuine depth map I don't think it's possible to accurately render it.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 15, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Fake blur does suck, PS fake blur especially. There are some decent options out there, but without a genuine depth map I don't think it's possible to accurately render it.


We all see it every day in advertising, on magazine covers, etc., and rarely if ever question it's veracity because it looks completely natural most of the time, and we just plain can't tell - you included.  Saying it sucks (especially if made by PS - LOL) as though it's some kind absolute universal truth is just pretentious baloney.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 15, 2013)

Buckster said:


> we just plain can't tell - you included.



I can pretty much guantee that I could tell, or at least confuse it for a crappy lens. No matter how many magazine ads use it.

But i understand how you pros have to protect your position of being idolized.



> especially if made by PS - LOL



You're right. Next time I will be more respectful of the great and powerful Adobe.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 15, 2013)

We will actually accept a tremendous amount of inaccurate modification to a photograph before we begin to casually reject it as "faked". This is mainly because photographs look real, they begin as real tracing of the real world, so we approach them with an attitude of trust. It takes a fairly ham-fisted edit to shake us from that attitude.

There's a whole lot of daylight between "I can tell if I look super close and think really hard" and "the casual viewer will reject it as faked".


----------



## unpopular (Jun 15, 2013)

amolitor said:


> There's a whole lot of daylight between "I can tell if I look super close and think really hard" and "the casual viewer will reject it as faked".



And this is why it works in magazines ... I personally would hope though that we all aim beyond 'casual viewing' at 133lpi where a "good enough" attitude might be appropriate.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 15, 2013)

amolitor said:


> First I am going to suggest using some sort of Lens or Focus blur instead of a Gaussian blur. Secondly, I will emphasize that whatever technique you use to blend, you want to be able to feather the effect fairly delicately.
> 
> This was done by:
> 
> ...



This post-processing adjustment has taken the ugly fence background and made it look like the photographer shot the photo of the boy and dog in front of an ugly fence at around f/5.6 with a 50mm lens on full-frame digital. The OOF effect here is pretty close to "real" out of focus...at least at this very small size. The background is still sub-par, but it looks like genuine DOF blurring at this size.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 15, 2013)

Derrel said:


> The OOF effect here is pretty close to "real" out of focus...at least at this very small size.



Really? While I agree with your post in general, the OOF looks entirely fake to me. The DOF doesn't seem to match the geometry at all, the bokeh has no texture or variation at all and seems flat. While I realize that amolitor probably didn't spend a lot of time on this, I have seen good examples of fauxkeh and this really isn't even a close approximation.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 15, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > The OOF effect here is pretty close to "real" out of focus...at least at this very small size.
> ...



Fooled YOU. What you don't know is that I found an identical kid and dog on modelmayhem, and quickly built myself an identical fence. That's SOOC, baby.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 15, 2013)

Are you really too lazy to shoot at f/1.2, amolitor? I mean seriously, how much effort does it take to screw on an ND filter?


----------



## esselle (Jun 15, 2013)

I took some photos recently of my daughter in my garage. My garage is horribly messy, but I made the best of it, by trying to keep the background darker than the subject (my daughter). Still couldn't get it (the background) to where I wanted. I didn't post edit it either, which might have helped, but I doubt it. I didn't want the picture to look like the background was nothingness, a black space. But, it taught me a lesson, which is to really think of my background, and will it distract from the subject. In my case, some here commented that it did distract from the overall picture. I agreed. Lessons learned! 

Like you, I've never used photoshop...I didn't know that all those cool effects could be created with it. Buck did a great job, above! When I think of PS, I think of something fun to do with photos. I think it gets a bad rap, because it's often used to trick people. I've been on exercise message boards, and people have been 'accused' of photoshopping someone else's body using their face, when showing progress pics. lol. That's just one example of the connotation it has...

I will say though...in your case...I honestly don't think the fence is half bad. lol 

[edit to add; i agree with cgipson on trying to get the shot right to begin with as opposed to trying to edit over the mistakes, after the fact...which takes time to learn, when you're new. but, i'm learning. Photography takes a lot of patience, and you might not always get that 'right' shot the first time out. Maybe the next day, you will. But, we want it NOW. lol It's human nature. To get better at anything, takes time. No way around it. So, if we keep at it, the mistakes will be fewer, and the need to edit out this or that, will be less.] Sorry for my ramblings, just my thoughts on it!


----------



## amolitor (Jun 15, 2013)

Buckster said:


> We all see it every day in advertising, on magazine covers, etc., and rarely if ever question it's veracity because it looks completely natural most of the time, and we just plain can't tell



I'm curious, if we can't tell, how do you know? That's a genuine question. For all I know you work in the ad industry, and that's how. But I'd like to know the answer!


----------



## unpopular (Jun 15, 2013)

^^ I was wondering the same thing. I am sure that they do use it in situations where the art director is not sure what direction to take, the client requests a something different than what he or she had in mind, the photographer didn't receive direction and made a judgement call which didn't work out in the final comp, stock which is otherwise suitable ... stuff like that ... it'd seem though that there is a place for aperture bracketing, so that a photographer wouldn't need to make that final decision and provide the art director a choice, does this feature exist?

But having been an art director, I'd much rather have a photograph that can be prepped for print without having to add a faux blur. Making it look even passable takes a lot of time. Graphic artists don't have the luxury of creating accurate depth maps, which is kind of a special skill in of itself. At the same time, I can appreciate the flexibility of having a sharp image which you add blur after since you can only sharpen so much, I just kind of doubt that this is common practice.

Of course, how they do things in the million-dollar placement market might be a little different and I could very well be wrong. I do notice it frequently on television programs, I find it especially distracting.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 15, 2013)

In the original photo the part of the background that seems most distracting is the dark corner where there's light coming thru the fence - I found my eyes somewhat drawn along the fence to that. I'd think about cropping the left side of the photo to eliminate that.

It's a fun photo of the boy playing with the dog, and I don't think I'd alter the background much otherwise because it would be obvious that it wasn't their backyard if something else was edited in. 

I think it would work to leave the area on the right side of the photo as is since it gives some space where the boy and dog would be moving towards, and keeps it from seeming too cut off.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 15, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > we just plain can't tell - you included.
> ...


I like how you left out "most of the time" from my quote, so as to better erect your strawman fallacy.  Kudos.

This will be child's play for you and a couple other purists with the keen eyes of a hawk, no doubt, but it's worth others having a look to see if they can easily spot the fake.  Since a fake blur (_*ESPECIALLY*_ a fake blur made in PS) sucks _*SO*_ horribly bad, it should be obvious to all.  So, let's have some fun.

One of these is a fake blur.  Not only that, but it was faked in PS, which makes it especially suck.  Which is the obvious fake blur, and what makes it obvious?


----------



## Juga (Jun 15, 2013)

FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT! 

I do want to guess though because I love games...1 or 3 is the fake and I am leaning towards 3


----------



## IByte (Jun 15, 2013)

Buckster said:


> I like how you left out "most of the time" from my quote, so as to better erect your strawman fallacy.  Kudos.
> 
> This will be child's play for you and a couple other purists with the keen eyes of a hawk, no doubt, but it's worth others having a look to see if they can easily spot the fake.  Since a fake blur (ESPECIALLY a fake blur made in PS) sucks SO horribly bad, it should be obvious to all.  So, let's have some fun.
> 
> One of these is a fake blur.  Not only that, but it was faked in PS, which makes it especially suck.  Which is the obvious fake blur, and what makes it obvious?



Woooo hooo lucky number #2!


----------



## unpopular (Jun 15, 2013)

I also am going with #2, though I'll admit - I fear I'm going to make an ass of myself... Here is the reasoning: the first has a swirl imperfection which isn't typically rendered. #2 looks too clean, the OOF region in the translucent plastic also may not be rendering properly, and the depth map appears inaccurate in the leaves in the upper right. There is also something off about the leaves in the foreground. My next guess would be #3, but this more looks like a lens with mushy bokeh at about f/4ish.

Either way, these are all examples of pretty ideal circumstances - objects far from their background with little middle ground.

If it's #1, I'll be impressed - even if the bokeh is less than pleasing.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 16, 2013)

unpopular said:


> I also am going with #2


Noted.



unpopular said:


> I'll admit - I fear I'm going to make an ass of myself.


Really?  Suddenly you lack confidence in your very strong opinions and near-guaranteed fake-spotting abilities on this subject?  How could that possibly be?  After all, "Fake blur does suck, PS fake blur especially".  That's why a fake is so obvious and easy to spot, especially for a pro art director such as yourself (obviously), and why it should "never" be used - amirite?

I mean, this shouldn't even require a close look, let alone spur feelings of insecurity, given that "Fake blur does suck, PS fake blur especially", stated to let folks know that it quite obviously jumps out and screams "*FAAAAAAAKE!!!*", which is why they should "never" do it.  I'm sure that whole jumping out and screaming thing is true for everyone who sees it since it "sucks" so bad, but it must be _*especially*_ true whenever some expert PS "fauxkeh" fake-spotter like you or Charlie sees it, which is no doubt where your very strong opinions on it, concluding with the written-in-stone admonishment that it's "_*NEVER*_ a suitable option", come from.

And golly, that should be _*double-especially*_ true when it was thrown together by a mere hobbyist such as myself, rather than it being the work of an expert professional who does it for a living.

Well, maybe Charlie will show more confidence in his expert choice...



unpopular said:


> Here is the reasoning: the first has a swirl imperfection which isn't typically rendered. #2 looks too clean, the OOF region in the translucent plastic also may not be rendering properly, and the depth map appears inaccurate in the leaves in the upper right. There is also something off about the leaves in the foreground. My next guess would be #3, but this more looks like a lens with mushy bokeh at about f/4ish.


Reasoning noted.  Looking forward to what others see and say about them, especially those with very strong opinions on the subject; Those who use words like "never" and "sucks" in association with the technique.



unpopular said:


> Either way, these are all examples of pretty ideal circumstances - objects far from their background with little middle ground.


You mean like the OP's photo?  Not that it matters in any case, when we're going to use words like "never" and "sucks" to tell folks when it's acceptable to use it and why it's not ever acceptable to use it, of course.



unpopular said:


> If it's #1, I'll be impressed - even if the bokeh is less than pleasing.


Noted.

Btw, "find a better background (before shooting it)" as a suggestion to answer the question of how to improve an impromptu snapshot like this that's already made after the fact always seems a bit ridiculous to me - no offense intended.  It amounts to, "go back in time and do it again, but better".

Or maybe you're trying to advise that this should just be thrown out because there obviously is no possible fix to be made, since "fixes" using PS suck and it has to come out of the camera right or it's just junk, so _next time_ you see some nice unplanned interaction like this while visiting a cousin (or other friend/relative/acquaintance), go ahead and stop the interaction between the little kid and dog, position them somewhere else with a better background (probably not even in that yard, since the OP told us that the fence SURROUNDS the yard, so it's basically always a background there in the yard, other than the house itself - which would likely be less than a delightful background either) then, when you get to the park or wherever your better background sans-fence is, tell them to stay on the X you've made on the ground so that you have your better background perfectly positioned behind them, and tell them to strike that nice, playful, natural, interactive pose you liked that just needed a better background, now that you have that better background in place behind them.  Be sure to tell them to make their playful interaction look natural again, as though it was unplanned and the change in venue didn't interrupt that natural flow at all.

Is that how you'd do it?  Is that really the best advice someone who shoots photos of dirt and sticks on the ground can give to someone looking for ideas to improve a snapshot _already taken_ of a kid and dog playing in their back yard - "go back in time and transport the kid and dog to someplace with a better background before shooting"?

There are ideal circumstances that require little or no post processing, and it's great when that happens naturally or when we can pre-plan it to happen.  But for when that can't or simply doesn't happen to be the case, it's good to have post processing techniques to fall back on in a pinch.

I don't personally know anybody who routinely shoots with the attitude, "I'll just fix it in Photoshop".  Unless they really realize at the time of shooting that there simply is no other way to pull it off, or are planning a composite or something from the outset, "fixing" a shot in Photoshop is usually an afterthought that comes to mind when viewing the shots long after the shoot's over and something jumps out as out of place that didn't jump out at the time the shot was made.

I think (and it's just my personal opinion, mind you) that the idea that there are droves of pro, semi-pro or serious-hobbyist level photographers out there who shoot willy-nilly and without a care at all to backgrounds or details or DOF or light or shadow or anything else of photographic consequence all day long _*while muttering to themselves, "I'll just fix it in Photoshop"*_ is just a made-up persona created by "purists" who often have little to no ability with Photoshop (as an all-encompassing term for digital post-processing), and use that "purist" anti-Photoshop attitude as a justification for their own ignorance and lack of ability with modern digital post processing techniques.

People don't just pick up Photoshop one fine day and successfully start "fixing" problems with their photos, especially not big problems, any more than they bought all the stuff for a darkroom one day and successfully started "fixing" problems in that medium right off the bat.  As has always been the case, there's a learning curve involved in processing and printing, just like there's a learning curve involved with using the camera itself.  There's nothing new about that.  Ansel wrote books titled, "The Camera", "The Negative" and "The Print" about a million years ago because it's NOT JUST all about getting it right in the camera and then you're done - and it never has been.

As a photographer hones their post-processing skills and acquires knowledge and experience with how to "fix" things in photos, they come to realize that it is indeed usually much easier to get it in the camera in the first place, rather than have to put in the work required in post to "fix" it, so they do.  Without the PS skills yet to "fix it" Photoshop, they don't have the mindset, "I'll just fix this in Photoshop" while they're shooting because they don't have the skill to do so yet.  That's why they come on here and ask us how to do it - to learn the techniques and acquire the skills.  And in a pinch those skills and abilities will be able to help them.

But that doesn't mean they'll use those acquired PS skills and techniques as a matter of conscious choice at the time of shooting, rather than just take a step to the left for a better background or dial their aperture to get a more appropriate DOF while shooting, while saying to themselves, "I'll just fix it in Photoshop".

The whole idea smacks of baloney piled high on a purist's inferior-PS-skills sandwich to me.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 16, 2013)

YEAH INTERNET ARGUMENT LETS GO! WOOHOOOOO!

Fwiw Buckster your edit is very clearly shooped IMO. Not saying it to be rude, I didn't know you had done the edit as I scrolled through the photos on my phone. 

Please forgive me in advance for having an opinion in the same way unpopular does. PLZ. THX. K.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jun 16, 2013)

Buckster, that was an incredibly well thought out and presented response.  I'm only jumping in on this because I've spent quite a bit of time learning Photoshop and a few other alternatives to add to my photography.  I believe they're powerful tools and quite useful, but I've encountered a lot of people who just brush it off and tell me "get it right in camera, so you don't have to worry about it."

You've very clearly and intelligently put into words what I always think when I'm told that.  I naturally try to do as much as I can when shooting to get a shot right, but sometimes you just have to take the shot when you have it... whether conditions are "perfect" or not. 

Anyway, an awesome and educating response!


----------



## Buckster (Jun 16, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> YEAH INTERNET ARGUMENT LETS GO! WOOHOOOOO!


I prefer to think of it as a learning opportunity.



o hey tyler said:


> Fwiw Buckster your edit is very clearly shooped IMO. Not saying it to be rude, I didn't know you had done the edit as I scrolled through the photos on my phone.
> 
> Please forgive me in advance for having an opinion in the same way unpopular does. PLZ. THX. K.


No problem.  It wasn't meant to be a final edit done to print quality, just a quickie to show possibilities.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 16, 2013)

> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > I'll admit - I fear I'm going to make an ass of myself.
> ...




Obviously my confidence is a bit out-dated. I haven't worked as an art director in several years. Adobe's fauxkeh has improved. But nonetheless, I have always felt that accurate depth-mapping is more of an issue.



> Btw, "find a better background (before shooting it)" as a suggestion to answer the question of how to improve an impromptu snapshot like this that's already made after the fact always seems a bit ridiculous to me - no offense intended.  It amounts to, "go back in time and do it again, but better".



There is no excuse for bad photography. If it were just a snapshot and intended to be just a snapshot, then the background wouldn't matter.



> Or maybe you're trying to advise that this should just be thrown out because there obviously is no possible fix to be made, since "fixes" using PS suck and it has to come out of the camera right or it's just junk



I am hardly an SOOC advocate. The nature of my workflow involves very heavy-handed post production.



> Is that how you'd do it?  Is that really the best advice someone who shoots photos of dirt and sticks on the ground can give



I am sorry that you do not like the subject matter which interests me, but that is not really my problem, and hardly pertinent to the topic.



> There are ideal circumstances that require little or no post processing, and it's great when that happens naturally or when we can pre-plan it to happen.  But for when that can't or simply doesn't happen to be the case, it's good to have post processing techniques to fall back on in a pinch.



How much planning is involved by opening the iris? I mean seriously.



> I think (and it's just my personal opinion, mind you) that the idea that there are droves of pro, semi-pro or serious-hobbyist level photographers out there who shoot willy-nilly and without a care at all to backgrounds or details or DOF or light or shadow or anything else of photographic consequence all day long _*while muttering to themselves, "I'll just fix it in Photoshop"*_ is just a made-up persona created by "purists" who often have little to no ability with Photoshop (as an all-encompassing term for digital post-processing), and use that "purist" anti-Photoshop attitude as a justification for their own ignorance and lack of ability with modern digital post processing techniques.



Trust me. You have me entirely wrong. I shoot nothing SOOC, literally nothing. 



> Ansel wrote books titled, "The Camera", "The Negative" and "The Print" about a million years ago because it's NOT JUST all about getting it right in the camera and then you're done - and it never has been.



It sounds like you got this sentiment from me. I've posted about this adamantly many, many times in the past, that SOOC minimizes the ability of technology and is an attitude that limit subjective interpretation, using Adams as my example. But Adams also saw a continuum between camera, negative, darkroom and print. Post is not about 'fixing problems', it's the same continuum - from camera to raw to working file to print. Post shouldn't be seen as an inconvenient step to fix shortcomings in skill or technology, or a nuisance necessary only to get to a tangible print. Post IS Photography. Sometimes fixes are necessary, but that shouldn't be the extent of how we see post.

My point is though that photographs start in your head, not in the camera. Adams called this previsualization, and it's a skill that people should focus in on if they want to improve photography beyond snapshots - which is after all the point of this entire forum!



> But that doesn't mean they'll use those acquired PS skills and techniques as a matter of conscious choice at the time of shooting, rather than just take a step to the left for a better background or dial their aperture to get a more appropriate DOF while shooting, while saying to themselves, "I'll just fix it in Photoshop".



It is not a conscious choice, but bad habits do develop quickly. I don't think any of us learned in Intro to Photography that if you miss an exposure that it's OK, just push and pull development or bleach or intensify away and it'll be fine - and in many cases, it would be. But it seems that there was once an emphasis on camera control that seems to be lost. When I was in college, if we missed the exposure it was pretty much "next time decrease shutter speed", it wasn't "go mix up a batch of farmer's". Certainly we could.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jun 16, 2013)

Just to interject a quick question into this (for my own learning experience)... let's say I'm shooting and my goal is candid shots.  Or as was in the case of the OP, it just kind of presented itself whether I planned to be doing a photo shoot or not... a candid moment that you want to capture is there one second and gone the next.  One of my instructors in school always tell us,  "Take the shot... do what you can to adjust for it on the fly, but take the shot.  Don't sacrifice a good moment on camera, because you can always do some post-editing later to fine tune what you capture."

So my question is, if this is the case and I need to get that shot rapidly, why would I not want to?  Why would I want to miss my chance at it trying to get everything absolutely right in camera?  I could make a few adjustments, get the shot and then work with it later.. as I understand it?  Planned shoots are one thing, where you know what you're after well ahead of time.. be it location or studio.  You're going to be prepared.

Is my instructor correct?  (I believe he is, just curious about other views on this.)


----------



## unpopular (Jun 16, 2013)

I think yes and no. There are certainly situations where you cannot afford to miss the shot, you were perhaps shooting a subject suitable at f/11 when suddenly there is something that comes across at f/1.4. Shoot it, sure - there's no reason not to shoot it, i'm not really saying that. But this doesn't mean that the end result will be successful.

But i think "fine tune" is an important thing here. It's one thing to try to recover some hilights or crop, it's another to replace the sky or fauxkeh the background.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jun 16, 2013)

unpopular said:


> I think yes and no. There are certainly situations where you cannot afford to miss the shot, you were perhaps shooting a subject suitable at f/11 when suddenly there is something that comes across at f/1.4. Shoot it, sure - there's no reason not to shoot it, i'm not really saying that. But this doesn't mean that the end result will be successful.
> 
> But i think "fine tune" is an important thing here. It's one thing to try to recover some hilights or crop, it's another to replace the sky or fauxkeh the background.



Sure, I understand what you're saying. Probably the same thing my instructor talked about when he covered the idea of avoiding "plastic" or "overdone" edits. I've played around with a bit of HDR and although that's fun too, it's easy to go too far and end up with an image that might have what people think is a cool effect, but is a bit over the top. 

By the way, I'm not picking sides in here.. there are a great many people on this forum with vastly more experience than myself. I'm just learning what I can.. so thanks for the reply.

EDIT: An after thought.. my instructor is big on the idea of "compose with your feet".. which can relate to the background you get with an aperture.  I shot a bunch of photos for some friends of mine this past Easter, and had a general idea that I wanted a shallow DOF, so I stuck with that and moved around as I needed to get the shots I wanted of the kids.  That seemed to work pretty well for me.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 16, 2013)

unpopular said:


> How much planning is involved by opening the iris? I mean seriously.


The point I was making was in response to your statement about people shooting with the attitude, "I'll just fix that in Photoshop".  I contend that people don't think to themselves, "well, let's see... I can either open up my aperture here to blur the background, or I can just fix that in Photoshop...  Ummm...  I'll just shoot at f/22 and blur it in Photoshop.  Yeah, that's the ticket."



unpopular said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, it's definitely not something I got from you, no matter how many times you've posted it (Frankly, I haven't seen much at all from you since right after you arrived here at TPF.  No offense intended, but the truth is that I put you on ignore early on because the vast majority of your posts seemed irritatingly immature and faux-expert-full-of-bull to me.  I recently removed you from that list, thinking you might have grown up a little and I'd enjoy seeing what you have to say, and I'm hoping for the best on that.  So I'm afraid I missed those "many, many times in the past" that you posted about it).  So, no, rather than get it from you, it's something I got before you were actually born, assuming the age you posted in another thread really is 31 or 32 (you can't quite remember).



unpopular said:


> But here's the catch, Adams also saw a continuum between camera, negative, darkroom and print. Post is not about 'fixing problems'


Then maybe you should stop talking about how others use it as though it is, or accept that Adams' burning and dodging was "fixing problems" from his POV.

Or are you trying to say that while pre-visualizing his shooting, Adams was saying to himself, "I'll just fix that in the darkroom", whereas modern photographers who are pre-visualizing their shooting and saying, "I'll just fix that in Photoshop" are far, far different somehow?



unpopular said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Then perhaps you should stop saying people have an "'i'll just fix it in post' attitude".


----------



## unpopular (Jun 16, 2013)

In this particular photo, it really is a case of not paying attention, and that is what it boils down to. Looking at the whole image is something we all have to learn, and is one of the hardest things in photography to master. I certainly haven't.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 16, 2013)

Buckster said:


> No, it's definitely not something I got from you, no matter how many times you've posted it (Frankly, I haven't seen much at all from you since right after you arrived here at TPF.  No offense intended, but the truth is that I put you on ignore early on because the vast majority of your posts seemed irritatingly immature and faux-expert-full-of-bull to me.  I recently removed you from that list, thinking you might have grown up a little and I'd enjoy seeing what you have to say, and I'm hoping for the best on that.



By all means go right ahead and put me back onto that ignore list. I don't need to be privileged by your misinterpretations of what I'm saying and passive aggressive stabs at subject matter and my age.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 16, 2013)

unpopular said:


> In this particular photo, it really is a case of not paying attention,


The OP already admitted that was the case in their opening post.  They were already aware of it.  You offer them nothing new or helpful or of value with that statement, so what's your point?  To rub it in?



unpopular said:


> and that is what it boils down to.


I disagree.  I think what it boils down to in this case is answering the OP's actual question: Is there anything I can do to improve THIS PHOTO that's ALREADY SHOT?  I view that as an opportunity to help the OP learn about some techniques in post-processing to deal with situations that may arise in the course of their photographic journeys to come, and that's not all bad.



unpopular said:


> Looking at the whole image is something we all have to learn, and is one of the hardest things in photography to master. I certainly haven't.


Agreed.

I think it's worth noting that today's cameras differ significantly from those many of us cut our teeth on in one very significant way, and that's what you see in the viewfinder.  Back when aperture was adjusted by manually rotating a collar for it on the lens itself, you could see the results in the viewfinder as you made that mechanical adjustment.  These days, the view doesn't change as it always looks wide open unless you press the DOF button.  So, while looking through the viewfinder and a wide open lens that's showing a really nice OOF background, it can be easy to forget that you're set to f/22 and what you see is NOT what you'll get UNLESS you press that DOF button.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 16, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's definitely not something I got from you, no matter how many times you've posted it (Frankly, I haven't seen much at all from you since right after you arrived here at TPF.  No offense intended, but the truth is that I put you on ignore early on because the vast majority of your posts seemed irritatingly immature and faux-expert-full-of-bull to me.  I recently removed you from that list, thinking you might have grown up a little and I'd enjoy seeing what you have to say, and I'm hoping for the best on that.
> ...


I'd like to give it a little more time, and see what happens, rather than just write you off again so soon.  But thanks for the suggestion.  



unpopular said:


> I don't need to be privileged by your misinterpretations of what I'm saying



I'm sorry.  Truly.  I thought the things you said were pretty straightforward, and I was careful to use actual quotes.  What did I misinterpret? 



unpopular said:


> and passive aggressive stabs at subject matter and my age.


I think perhaps we're just on different wavelengths or something like that.  You just don't seem to really be a "kids and dogs in the back yard spontaneous snapshot" type of guy.  Your usual subject matter doesn't lend itself to jumping up and running  around and showing emotions and giving you trouble as you try to get a fix on a good  background for it while watching for good timing.  So it strikes me that perhaps you're just not very tuned in to that kind of shooting when you say something like, "find a different background" as a response to, "is there anything I can do in post-production to fix this photo that's already shot?"  That's all I meant by it.

As for your age, I was just telling the truth about when I learned that bit of photographic knowledge.  I can't help it that you weren't born yet when that happened, and I'm sorry that it didn't occur to me that it might burst your self-importance bubble to find out that I didn't learn it from you.  It's not like I said your short career as an "Art Director" was probably a stint in your early 20's working with the large format photo printer at Kinko's or something like that.

Chalk it up as simple crossed signals, I think.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 16, 2013)

So which one is it?


----------



## unpopular (Jun 16, 2013)

Buckster said:


> As for your age, I was just telling the truth about when I learned that bit of photographic knowledge. I can't help it that you weren't born yet when that happened, and I'm sorry that it didn't occur to me that it might burst your self-importance bubble to find out that I didn't learn it from you. It's not like I said your short career as an "Art Director" was probably a stint in your early 20's working with the large format photo printer at Kinko's or something like that.



Well Buckster. 

I'm not about to justify my experience to you or provide you with a resume, or explain what challenges got in my way that prevented that career from accelerating. But, I didn't actually think you got that from me, and I edited my post accordingly (take a look). But really, all you had to say was "no, I didn't get this from you", there was no need to bring your relatively advanced age into the equation, and when you learned it isn't really important.

I don't really know what I said in the past to make you think I don't know as much as I let on. I've always been pretty up front about what I don't know much about, things like studio lighting - and yes, portraiture. And I've been wrong on many occasion, and am willing to admit it, something you didn't seem to respect when I admitted I might be wrong about the quality of fauxkeh.



> Chalk it up as simple crossed signals, I think.



I think that's it, and more than anything - we just don't get along well.


----------



## IByte (Jun 16, 2013)

Im confused, I mean it just over my head and through the woods you know.  So it's number #2 right?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 16, 2013)

Is it really worth getting this argumentative over what is basically a snapshot? The OP states she didn't pay attention to the background, etc... so it is basically a snapshot. Trying to edit and improve something like that is usually a waste of time... a reshoot would be a much better option (especially since there is no eye contact with the subject). Some photographers apparently do more photoshop than others... (some badly, some not) that is a given. But is it worth five pages? lol!


----------



## ratssass (Jun 16, 2013)

....ahhhh,Sunday morn at the forum....:hugs:


----------



## Buckster (Jun 16, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Is it really worth getting this argumentative over what is basically a snapshot?


I think the discussion has actually moved on to one about some advice given about fake blur, especially if it was made in Photoshop, and how some feel it should "never" be done because it "sucks".  The implication made with those statements is that it always looks obviously fake, and we're now testing that theory.  As one who had very strong things to say about it earlier in the thread, I was hoping you'd weigh in with your thoughts on the 3 examples posted.



cgipson1 said:


> The OP states she didn't pay attention to the background, etc... so it is basically a snapshot. Trying to edit and improve something like that is usually a waste of time...


I think from the standpoint of learning some post-processing techniques and using shots like that to try those kinds of techniques out on, it's not really a waste of time at all.  Learning is never a waste of time, IMHO.



cgipson1 said:


> a reshoot would be a much better option (especially since there is no eye contact with the subject).


To get a great shot of that kid and that dog, yes - a pre-planned, well-arranged, light-controlled, background-managed photoshoot would deliver a much better result, or possibly help teach those aspects of photography to the OP.  

But that's not what they asked for.  To learn post-processing techniques that might help THIS SHOT, which is specifically what the OP asked for, recommending a reshoot is like recommending ordering a whole 'nuther pizza to someone who asks which toppings they should remove from the pizza with everything that was delivered by mistake in order to make it taste better. 



cgipson1 said:


> Some photographers apparently do more photoshop than others... (some badly, some not) that is a given. But is it worth five pages? lol!


It's worth as many pages and threads as people care to write in order to chat and learn more about it, I think.  After all, that's the purpose of this forum's very existence.

Do you have a limit in mind that should not be exceeded?  Perhaps you could post it in the suggestions forum, where it will gain the full attention of the staff and, who knows, you may get your wish.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 16, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > As for your age, I was just telling the truth about when I learned that bit of photographic knowledge. I can't help it that you weren't born yet when that happened, and I'm sorry that it didn't occur to me that it might burst your self-importance bubble to find out that I didn't learn it from you. It's not like I said your short career as an "Art Director" was probably a stint in your early 20's working with the large format photo printer at Kinko's or something like that.
> ...


Ooookaaay...  I don't recall asking for any of that, so... um...  yeah... Maybe it's time to switch to decaf?


----------



## tirediron (Jun 16, 2013)

:waiting:


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 16, 2013)

Perhaps this thread should be retitled 'what to do about ugly background chatter'?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 16, 2013)

Yeah. Maybe another thread could have been started about processing backgrounds since the OP might be long gone and never coming back... I don't think the OP was posting this as being an aspiring pro or even necessarily a hobbyist but like many people, maybe someone who likes taking pictures of friends and family etc. and just wanted some suggestions on a relatively simple edit/adjustment. (And as a number of us mentioned, the fence doesn't look bad at all, and it's a fun picture that I think the OP did a nice job getting that might just benefit from a basic crop or other minor adjustment).

ShooterJ, the information you got from your instructor is the type thing I do  - moving your feet can be as good a tool in composing images as any sometimes. I think it's typical for the eye to be drawn to the subject and it takes some learning and practice to make your eye move around the entire rectangle of the viewfinder/screen and make sure everything there is what you want in your photo. I've done sports and events and I think it takes sheer practice to get good at efficiently framing and composing shots to capture a split second of time, and to learn how to get your camera and yourself ready for whatever might come next. I think too that a little can go a long way with post processing and it would be preferable for editing to be used to do something creative rather than to have to rely on it for a lot of corrections.

#1 - The best I can describe it is that the depth doesn't seem to look as I'd expect it would for the distance from the porch to the tree and sidewalk(?) in the background; that the blur makes it seem as if it's in the same plane when it actually isn't.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 16, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:


> #1 - The best I can describe it is that the depth doesn't seem to look as I'd expect it would for the distance from the porch to the tree and sidewalk(?) in the background; that the blur makes it seem as if it's in the same plane when it actually isn't.


Thanks for contributing your thoughts on this.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jun 16, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:


> ShooterJ, the information you got from your instructor is the type thing I do  - moving your feet can be as good a tool in composing images as any sometimes. I think it's typical for the eye to be drawn to the subject and it takes some learning and practice to make your eye move around the entire rectangle of the viewfinder/screen and make sure everything there is what you want in your photo. I've done sports and events and I think it takes sheer practice to get good at efficiently framing and composing shots to capture a split second of time, and to learn how to get your camera and yourself ready for whatever might come next. I think too that a little can go a long way with post processing and it would be preferable for editing to be used to do something creative rather than to have to rely on it for a lot of corrections.



I agree. Photoshop can be a lot of fun and the possibilities for effects and/or composites are endless .. but generally, I'm trying to capture something "honest" when I shoot. So I use photoshop for the basic/subtle touchup and finishing .. I don't like to alter too much.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 16, 2013)

Buckster said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



I do not wish to pontificate on the skills debate here, but i DO want to try my luck at the "guess the Bokeh" game! (do i win a fish in a bowel if i guess right?)
I am certainly no PS expert, but i am going to go with #1. and I will even give a brief reason as to why I think its the fake one. 
the background seems to be fairly consistent in 2 and 3, but in #1, if you use the tree as "center point", and you look at the "bokeh", it appears to radiate outwards, and a few inches on either side of the tree, it kinda looks to me like the pattern changes, almost as if the cloning tool brushstrokes changed ever so slightly. hopefully i am not just imagining this....anyway, that's my input. I cant wait to hear the official answer and see who was right!


----------



## Buckster (Jun 16, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> I do not wish to pontificate on the skills debate here, but i DO want to try my luck at the "guess the Bokeh" game! (do i win a fish in a bowel if i guess right?)
> I am certainly no PS expert, but i am going to go with #1. and I will even give a brief reason as to why I think its the fake one.
> the background seems to be fairly consistent in 2 and 3, but in #1, if you use the tree as "center point", and you look at the "bokeh", it appears to radiate outwards, and a few inches on either side of the tree, it kinda looks to me like the pattern changes, almost as if the cloning tool brushstrokes changed ever so slightly. hopefully i am not just imagining this....anyway, that's my input. I cant wait to hear the official answer and see who was right!


Thanks for playing!

Still hoping Charlie will share his thoughts on it.


----------



## esselle (Jun 16, 2013)

Not sure about anyone else, but Buckster, I'm learning a lot from you --appreciate you taking the time to 'teach.'


----------



## snowbear (Jun 16, 2013)

How about a WAG from the other Charlie?  I'm going to guess #1 is the fake.

My reason is different than Pixmedics.


----------



## ratssass (Jun 16, 2013)

....ever think they are all altered/unaltered??...I wouldn't know unless it was screamin' at me.I didn't think the OP's original shot was so "ugly" that it couldn't possibly be a keeper.The Op objected to the fence,looking for a way to make it more appealing in his/her eyes,and it escalated into "who's opinion has more credibility" argument.Leave your ego's out of it,sheezus.....


----------



## Buckster (Jun 16, 2013)

esselle said:


> Not sure about anyone else, but Buckster, I'm  learning a lot from you --appreciate you taking the time to 'teach.'


Thank you kindly.  Always glad to help if I can.  



snowbear said:


> How about a WAG from the other Charlie?  I'm going to guess #1 is the fake.
> 
> My reason is different than Pixmedics.


Much appreciated!  Thanks for weighing in!


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jun 16, 2013)

Tailgunner said:


> AggieBecky said:
> 
> 
> > Yall are so good! I'm still learning how to use photoshop....
> ...


Blurred background, is NOT Bokeh. The quality or characteristics of the out of focus area is the "Bokeh".

Even the link you reference states; "Bokeh describes the *appearance*, or "*fee*l," of out-of-focus areas. Bokeh is _not_ how far something is out-of-focus, *bokeh is the character *of whatever blur is there"


----------



## Buckster (Jun 17, 2013)

Buckster said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > I can pretty much guantee that I could tell, or at least confuse it for a crappy lens.
> ...


Well, I was hoping Charlie G. would show how easily he can point out the fake, but I guess that's not going to happen, and I don't see anyone else guessing, so I suppose it's time for the reveal.

#3 is the one with the fake blur. 

To those who thought to peek under the covers at the EXIF for a clue, I switched that data between #1 and #3.  So #3 was actually the one shot at f/22, and #1 was shot at f/4.  To be perfectly clear, #1 and #2 are SOOC as it pertains to the blur and bokeh - no funny business at all.

Thanks to all who played along!

From my point of view (and I think fairly well confirmed by this little test), fake blur, even fake blur made in Photoshop, even fake blur made in Photoshop by a mere hobbyist (let alone a professional), is not as obvious as some might claim, and doesn't necessarily "suck", so the idea that it should "never" be used is without foundation.

My advice is: Don't limit yourself.  Learn all you can, and feel free to use whatever tools and techniques you think are appropriate whenever you like.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 17, 2013)

What lens did you use on #2? Bokeh looks amazing!


----------



## Buckster (Jun 17, 2013)

unpopular said:


> What lens did you use on #2? Bokeh looks amazing!


Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM shot at 84mm @f/4 on Canon 5DMKII.


----------



## snowbear (Jun 17, 2013)

Buckster said:


> To those who thought to peek under the covers at the EXIF for a clue, I switched that data between #1 and #3.


Yep - this was my M.O.!  I wondered about that.



Buckster said:


> My advice is: Don't limit yourself.  Learn all you can, and feel free to use whatever tools and techniques you think are appropriate whenever you like.


Thank you for an interesting demonstration. :thumbsup:


----------



## skieur (Jun 17, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Are you really too lazy to shoot at f/1.2, amolitor? I mean seriously, how much effort does it take to screw on an ND filter?



Interesting that you indicated in Confessions that you were too cheap to buy an ND filter and now you are advising someone else to use one.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 17, 2013)

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Are you really too lazy to shoot at f/1.2, amolitor? I mean seriously, how much effort does it take to screw on an ND filter?
> ...



We were both joking. I'm too cheap to buy an ND filter too. And I didn't hire an identical kid and dog. And I didn't build an identical fence.


----------



## AggieBecky (Jun 17, 2013)

Wow, this turned into quite the discussion!  Obviously I agree with Buckster otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.  This was a 40 minute shoot done with a cousin who lives 6 hours away from me, in her backyard because she just had a c-section and was not up for going to an alternative location (I asked, she wasn't up for it).  I had 30 minutes to shoot both the 2 1/2 year old and his 1 month old baby sister.  I ended up taking the advice of one of the earliest responses to this thread and went with a picture where there was eye contact being made.  I did follow the instructions on adding blur in photoshop but it never looked right because it then blurred even the grass around the boy, which didn't look natural to me.  If I had more time I might play with it more but right now I need to edit another shoot.  Thanks everyone for the opinions and insight!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 17, 2013)

AggieBecky said:


> Wow, this turned into quite the discussion!  Obviously I agree with Buckster otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.  This was a 40 minute shoot done with a cousin who lives 6 hours away from me, in her backyard because she just had a c-section and was not up for going to an alternative location (I asked, she wasn't up for it).  I had 30 minutes to shoot both the 2 1/2 year old and his 1 month old baby sister.  I ended up taking the advice of one of the earliest responses to this thread and went with a picture where there was eye contact being made.  I did follow the instructions on adding blur in photoshop but it never looked right because it then blurred even the grass around the boy, which didn't look natural to me.  If I had more time I might play with it more but right now I need to edit another shoot.  Thanks everyone for the opinions and insight!
> 
> View attachment 47971



This shot is fine as it is... does not need blur! It is a little unconventional, but that is not a bad thing! It shows off the boy and his dog very well! It is a memory.. and that tongue, wow!  lol!


----------



## kundalini (Jun 17, 2013)

Awesome discussions about pre-conceived ideals. It seems the proof is in the pudding. And it seems that Bill Cosby was not harmed in any way, but there might be a few less crows flying about.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 17, 2013)

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Are you really too lazy to shoot at f/1.2, amolitor? I mean seriously, how much effort does it take to screw on an ND filter?
> ...



derrrp.



Buckster said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > What lens did you use on #2? Bokeh looks amazing!
> ...



And a zoom nonetheless! That is impressive.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 17, 2013)

unpopular said:


> And a zoom nonetheless! That is impressive.



*os·ten·ta·tious*

/&#716;&#594;s
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




t&#603;n&#712;te&#618;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




&#643;&#601;s, -t&#601;n-/ Show Spelled [os-ten-tey-shuh
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







s, -tuh
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







n-] Show IPA 
adjective 

1. characterized by or given to pretentious or conspicuous show in an attempt to impress others: an ostentatious dresser. 

2.(of actions, manner, qualities exhibited, etc.) intended to attract notice: Lady Bountiful's ostentatious charity. 







You really went out on a limb with that comment. Often times it is a better judgement call to just shut the hell up.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jun 18, 2013)

*munches popcorn*  Please don't stop now! This has been such a fun thread to follow.

EDIT:  Totally not relevant to this thread at all, but I kicked my desk with my shin and EVERYTHING became blurry.    (Well ok, as far as blur, maybe it was a little relevant?)  

Ok, so JUST to clarify... we shouldn't use post processing for blur? (You know I couldn't resist stirring up the hornet's nest again.)  

I'm done now...


----------



## unpopular (Jun 18, 2013)

kundalini said:


> You really went out on a limb with that comment. Often times it is a better judgement call to just shut the hell up.





Excuse me? Exactly what do you mean. As a strict generalization, zooms are not exactly known for their outstanding bokeh quality. Obviously some break this generalization, as this one does, at least at this focal length. That is all I meant by that comment.

I wasn't being sarcastic at all. My suspicion was that this image was too "clean" and with too few imperfections, so yeah, I was genuinely impressed. Maybe you misread?


----------



## Buckster (Jun 18, 2013)

unpopular said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> > You really went out on  a limb with that comment. Often times it is a better judgement call to  just shut the hell up.
> ...


In my experience, most lenses exhibit pretty good bokeh when shot wide open, regardless of the focal length, because when the aperture is wide open, the blades are fully retracted, producing the round iris that is the key ingredient to "good" bokeh.  That's true even for zooms. 

As an example, here's a shot I recently made with one of the cheapest zooms out there that's "not exactly known for their outstanding bokeh quality", the infamous "kit" lens, the Canon 18-55 EF-S f3.5-5.6 IS II, shot at 37mm @ f/5 on a Canon 7D:







That's a pretty "buttery" bokeh in the background.  Look in particular at the specular highlights of the stove knobs just to the left of the word "POP", and on the left burner and on the front right of the stove near the very bottom middle of the shot.  Note how round they are - not jittery as you might expect with the 6 sides that the blades in that lens _can_ produce "bad" bokeh with.  That's because at 37mm on that cheap kit lens, f/5 is wide open, making the iris round.  Look close and you'll see that nice round bokeh throughout the background - it's just easier to spot on the more pronounced specular highlights.

You might want to back off on your generalizations.


----------

