# Is this background blur fake or real?



## nerwin (Jul 11, 2017)

So I was looking at some car pictures and came across this one which I thought looked interesting because how blurred out the background is.

Joe's Bunny

It was taken with a D800 + 28 1.8G which I owned the 28 for a short time and I never recalled it blowing out the back THAT much when focusing on something that large.

I mean, doesn't it look fake? It's really hard to tell.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 11, 2017)

I say it's fake.  The _reflections_ of the trailers are in focus.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 11, 2017)

480sparky said:


> I say it's fake.  The _reflections_ of the trailers are in focus.



It actually kind of bugs me a little. I hate fake background blur! Its deceiving! Haha.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 11, 2017)

I looked at the shot earlier, but now it's been pulled...I thought the BG blur was done in software, but hey, who knows now, right! I dunno...there ARE some people who are very good at creating pretty realistic BG blur in software. Kirk Tuck is now shooting payed client work using a small-sensor digicam at times, and he mentioned he's learned how to do this type of blurring in software to a good standard of quality, so it's NOT just the cheezy old-fashioned type of blurring that we saw 10 years ago.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 11, 2017)

Derrel said:


> I looked at the shot earlier, but now it's been pulled...I thought the BG blur was done in software, but hey, who knows now, right! I dunno...there ARE some people who are very good at creating pretty realistic BG blur in software. Kirk Tuck is now shooting payed client work using a small-sensor digicam at times, and he mentioned he's learned how to do this type of blurring in software to a good standard of quality, so it's NOT just the cheezy old-fashioned type of blurring that we saw 10 years ago.



Yeah my bad. It was just an embed link. Here it is > Joe's Bunny


----------



## Braineack (Jul 12, 2017)

if it looks fake, it's probably fake.

this one has been faked.


(there was also major editing of the reflections if you were wondering about that too)


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 12, 2017)

Cheesy regardless. And here I thought at first, somebody named their car Bunny?? lol And why would someone set up a shot like this behind an industrial loading dock??

I think Sparky's on the right track... It's not exactly the greatest picture anyway.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 12, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> Cheesy regardless. And here I thought at first, somebody named their car Bunny?? lol And why would someone set up a shot like this behind an industrial loading dock??
> 
> I think Sparky's on the right track... It's not exactly the greatest picture anyway.



I was just looking at the "technical" aspects of the photo, just thought it looked weird. 

Kind of ruins the quality of the 28 1.8G lens.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 12, 2017)

someone on this forum, used to post car pics with his wide angle (cant remember, maybe the 24mm) 1.4G.  Those backgrounds looked great -- no software necessary.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 12, 2017)

Braineack said:


> someone on this forum, used to post car pics with his 35mm 1.4.  Those backgrounds looked great -- no software necessary.



I like using my 50 1.8, it blows out the background fairly decent. Not sure it would be worth investing in a 35 1.4 haha, those bad boys are expensive. 

I bet your 58 1.4 would be killer for car shows!!


----------



## nerwin (Jul 12, 2017)

I wish the hood was closed...but taken with my 50mm at f/2.5


----------



## Braineack (Jul 12, 2017)

oh, it's a mush machine.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 12, 2017)

Braineack said:


> oh, it's a mush machine.



You don't like it?


----------



## Braineack (Jul 12, 2017)

no, i quite like it.  im saying it makes backgrounds turn to mush.

I'd love to just own a 24, 58, and 105mm 1.4G.   I think I could make due with that. 

the 58mm is the softest lens I own, but the way it renders is something special... sometimes when i put my 70-200 back on and shoot, it's almost TOO sharp and perfect -- it's hard to explain, but the 58mm has a more "art" feel to it's rendering, where the Tamron is "true" and would be better suited to studio work and not artsy fartsy stuff.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 12, 2017)

Ahh gotcha. 

I'd probably skip the Nikon 58 1.4 because it's too pricy for me. 

But that Voigtlander 58 1.4...only $400!!


----------



## Braineack (Jul 12, 2017)

no AF no care.


i have an old Vivitar 25mm f/2.5 that's MF and while it has a neat render -- I can't MF worth crap and it becomes too much a chore.




DSC_8593 by The Braineack, on Flickr


----------



## nerwin (Jul 12, 2017)

Oh wow. I guess you are right. 

Maserati

Alfa Romeo Giulia

This is heavy Doc!

I kind of want one now...lol


----------



## fmw (Jul 14, 2017)

nerwin said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > I say it's fake.  The _reflections_ of the trailers are in focus.
> ...


 Blurred background is itself deceiving.  We don't see it when we look at a subject with our eyes.


----------

