# Blurred background....?



## Natural_Disaster (Feb 5, 2010)

Trying to get the "blurred background-main subject in focus" effect...
Using a Nikon D500 and ive tried adjusting the settings according to what ive read on here, in the manual, as well as from other web searches and i just cant get it to work for me. (at all)
Was wondering if i can get some more suggestions so i can keep trying....before i get so frustrated i just give up!
(yes im very new to this)


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 5, 2010)

what lens?


----------



## redonyx (Feb 5, 2010)

What kind of lens are you using?
What you're trying to do is play with Depth of Field. This is made up of a combination of aperture and focal length.


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 5, 2010)

The effect you want is achieved with a shallow DOF.  
To control the DOF, you use the lens aperture.  A larger aperture (smaller F number) will give you a more shallow DOF, which is what you want.

Also, to be considered, is the focal length of the lens and the distances involved.  
The closer you are to your subject (your focus point) the shallower your DOF will be.  The farther away you are, the deeper the DOF will be.

Also, the farther away the background is, the more out of focus it will be.  

So to maximize this effect, get close to your subject and have your subject as far away from the background as you can.

Also, keep in mind that many of the photos you see, that have a shallow DOF, might have been shot with a 'fast' lens.  That is a lens with a large maximum aperture.  (low F number).  These lenses can give you a much more shallow DOF than a standard 'kit' lens.


----------



## Natural_Disaster (Feb 5, 2010)

Ive been using the standard 18-55mm lens.
Ive got the 55-200mm but havent even put it on the camara yet...


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 5, 2010)

like mike said, crank the fstop all the way down (low fstop = wide aperture) and minimize the distance from lens to subject, then maximize the distance from lens to background.  That should just about do it.


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 5, 2010)

Both of those lenses would be considered 'slow'...so they aren't idea for getting a shallow DOF.  
However, you can get a shallower DOF with a longer focal length, so try the 55-200mm lens and experiment with it at longer focal lengths.  
Remember that getting close will also help, so it's a balance between how close you can get and how wide/tight you need to zoom the lens.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 5, 2010)

I think I am going to do some experimenting this weekend.  Everyone is always talking about how longer focal lengths give you a shallower dof, but I'm not completely convinced.  Especially on the lenses with variable apertures.  I'll do some experimenting this weekend and post the results.


----------



## Dao (Feb 5, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> I think I am going to do some experimenting this weekend.  Everyone is always talking about how longer focal lengths give you a shallower dof, but I'm not completely convinced.  Especially on the lenses with variable apertures.  I'll do some experimenting this weekend and post the results.



Try it ...  you will be surprised. 



Example:  Taken with my telephoto zoom lens.  And this has a shadow DoF.


----------



## Natural_Disaster (Feb 5, 2010)

Thanks everyone!
It snowed all night and then rained all day so i may wait until i can actually go out to work on it some more. The "in house" shooting is getting a bit boring and i dont have that much space to work with!
Ill come post some results when i get them though!


----------



## KmH (Feb 5, 2010)

Natural_Disaster said:


> Ive been using the standard 18-55mm lens.
> Ive got the 55-200mm but havent even put it on the camara yet...


The widest aperture for the 18-55 can give you is f/3.5 but only at 18mm. At 55 mm the widest aperture you can get is f/5.6.

That means your lens has a variable aperture. If you set it to f/3.5 with it zoomed to 18mm, as you zoom towards 55mm the aperture will automatically change until it is at f/5.6 when you get zoomed all the way out to 55mm.

There are constant aperture lenses that don't change the aperture as you zoom. They cost more than variable aperture lenses and generally can open to wider apertures like f/1.4, f/1.8 or f/2.8.


----------



## AliasPros (Feb 5, 2010)

Natural_Disaster said:


> Trying to get the "blurred background-main subject in focus" effect...
> Using a Nikon D500 and ive tried adjusting the settings according to what ive read on here, in the manual, as well as from other web searches and i just cant get it to work for me. (at all)
> Was wondering if i can get some more suggestions so i can keep trying....before i get so frustrated i just give up!
> (yes im very new to this)




what lens I ask also because that really makes a difference, there is a lot that goes into it, focal length and f stops etc. Also its called Bokeh Effect 

Example





In photography, bokeh is the blur, or the aesthetic quality of the blur, in out-of-focus areas of an image, or "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light." Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting "good" or "bad" bokeh, respectively. Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions.

Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it often associated with such areas.[1] However, bokeh is not limited to highlights, as blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image. (flew wikipedia)


----------



## AliasPros (Feb 5, 2010)

KmH said:


> Natural_Disaster said:
> 
> 
> > Ive been using the standard 18-55mm lens.
> ...



I agree I love the bokeh I get from my 70-200 f/2.6 L at 2.6


----------



## inTempus (Feb 5, 2010)

It can be done with just about any lens.  Of course the wider the aperture (smaller the f/stop value) the easier it is.  But you don't need a super fast lens to get the effect.  You can do it with just about any aperture setting really.

Use your 200mm max focal length lens.  Set a target out there and get close enough to fill the frame up.  Set your aperture to your widest setting (smallest f/stop number).  Take a shot.

Here's a sample I did a while back.  This was shot at F/5.6 and 200mm.






Here's the same basic setup, this time at f/8 and 200mm:


----------



## kundalini (Feb 5, 2010)

I did a couple of quick test shots for someone before with the 18-55mm lens.  It can be done.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-gallery/184647-bokeh-issues.html#post1758811

I also think you'll be able to get decent results with the 55-200mm lens.  It's pissing down rain and getting dark right now or else I'd have a go with that one.


----------



## AliasPros (Feb 5, 2010)

get far away from your subject and zoom all the way in on them like a head shot, did this with my 70-300 cheapy kit lens and got Bokeh every time even in automatic mode...


----------



## KmH (Feb 5, 2010)

AliasPros said:


> get far away from your subject and zoom all the way in on them like a head shot, did this with my 70-300 cheapy kit lens and got Bokeh every time even in automatic mode...


What you keep calling bokeh is actually, "Depth-Of-Field."


----------



## AUS-10 (Feb 5, 2010)

Im pretty sure he knows dude....


----------



## Dominantly (Feb 5, 2010)

inTempus said:


> It can be done with just about any lens.  Of course the wider the aperture (smaller the f/stop value) the easier it is.  But you don't need a super fast lens to get the effect.  You can do it with just about any aperture setting really.
> 
> Use your 200mm max focal length lens.  Set a target out there and get close enough to fill the frame up.  Set your aperture to your widest setting (smallest f/stop number).  Take a shot.
> 
> ...


Exactly what I was going to say, and I was going to post a similar photo for comparison.


----------



## AliasPros (Feb 5, 2010)

Your right... In optics, particularly as relates to film and photography, the depth of field (DOF) is the portion of a scene that appears acceptably sharp in the image. Although a lens can precisely focus at only one distance, the decrease in sharpness is gradual on each side of the focused distance, so that within the DOF, the unsharpness is imperceptible under normal viewing conditions.

In some cases, it may be desirable to have the entire image sharp, and a large DOF is appropriate. In other cases, a small DOF may be more effective, emphasizing the subject while de-emphasizing the foreground and background. In cinematography, a large DOF is often called deep focus, and a small DOF is often called shallow focus.

The DOF is determined by the subject distance (that is, the distance to the plane that is perfectly in focus), the lens focal length, the lens f-number, and the format size or circle of confusion criterion.







(wikipedia)


----------



## AUS-10 (Feb 5, 2010)

Heres my leaf! Shot with the 18-55 Kit lens.


----------



## DScience (Feb 5, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> I think I am going to do some experimenting this weekend.  Everyone is always talking about how longer focal lengths give you a shallower dof, *but I'm not completely convinced*.  Especially on the lenses with variable apertures.  I'll do some experimenting this weekend and post the results.



I don't even think this point is arguable. More like a fact than an opinion.


----------



## KmH (Feb 5, 2010)

DScience said:


> robertwsimpson said:
> 
> 
> > I think I am going to do some experimenting this weekend. Everyone is always talking about how longer focal lengths give you a shallower dof, *but I'm not completely convinced*. Especially on the lenses with variable apertures. I'll do some experimenting this weekend and post the results.
> ...


It's even more pointed than that. It's a physical law of nature.

One of those dastardly, immutable, unbreakable, *Laws of Physics*.


----------



## Natural_Disaster (Feb 5, 2010)

Thanks again everyone! Below is a pic i took with a friends Nikon (?) about a year ago. I had no clue what i was doing, she already had it set up and was just letting me take some shots.
Feel free to give feedback on the photo, even though the settings had nothing to do with me!


----------



## Dominantly (Feb 5, 2010)

Should have moved it to the right a bit so you wouldnt have cut off her fingers.


----------



## Natural_Disaster (Feb 5, 2010)

Yeah i was a bit upset about the fingers


----------



## Alter_Ego (Feb 5, 2010)

So this effect can only be achieved with lens? 

I wont be able to do this with a superzoom camera?

If not theres always photoshop but id prefer the effect to be achieved with the camera.


----------



## Gaerek (Feb 5, 2010)

Alter_Ego said:


> So this effect can only be achieved with lens?
> 
> I wont be able to do this with a superzoom camera?
> 
> If not theres always photoshop but id prefer the effect to be achieved with the camera.



I'm guessing by superzoom, you mean a point and shoot, and not a DSLR? The problem with P&S's is that they have a very small sensor (look at your pinky nail, and that's about the size on most, give or take. Smaller sensors make it more difficult to do than with a larger sensor. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be far more difficult than even a DSLR with a cropped sensor.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 10, 2010)

DScience said:


> robertwsimpson said:
> 
> 
> > I think I am going to do some experimenting this weekend.  Everyone is always talking about how longer focal lengths give you a shallower dof, *but I'm not completely convinced*.  Especially on the lenses with variable apertures.  I'll do some experimenting this weekend and post the results.
> ...





KmH said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > robertwsimpson said:
> ...



Please read and comment.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 10, 2010)

What you want is a 300mmF2.8L on a 5D 
Shot at F3.2 ISO3200 thats what you call shallow DOF


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 10, 2010)

wow that is a cool picture!


----------



## gsgary (Feb 10, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> wow that is a cool picture!



Cheers we were shooting and printing onsite, down the other end of the hall i was only getting 1/320 F2.8 iso3200


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 10, 2010)

that's amazing detail at a high ISO setting fo sho.

shame that they didn't have more light... you could have stopped down and gotten more of the dogs in focus.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 10, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> that's amazing detail at a high ISO setting fo sho.
> 
> shame that they didn't have more light... you could have stopped down and gotten more of the dogs in focus.




We were also shooting in JPG no time for raw and they wouldn't let us use flash, plus they were so fast so 1\320 @ 300mm was pushing it


----------



## chris182 (Feb 10, 2010)

It can be done, I have the d3000 and have done it both with the kit lens and the 55-200 but found it easier with the 55-200. Everyone pretty much said the same thing so I wont repeat but def try it on the 55-200.


----------



## Natural_Disaster (Feb 10, 2010)

When the snow and ice stops...Ill go out and give it some tries...and post my results.
Thanks again everyone!


----------

