# How to get a blurry romantic landscape background?



## k.udhay (Apr 30, 2016)

Hello,

I saw this pic (attachment) and was amazed by the feel it gave. How can one achieve such a blurry landscape other than the subject. Would it have been done by two layers of one short and the other long exposure? Any way of capturing this in a single shot and process in photoshop to get a similar effect? Thanks.

*Please do not post images to which you do not hold rights.  You may post links.*


----------



## Designer (Apr 30, 2016)

I am not familiar with how one would accomplish this in Photoshop, but I have done that in one exposure.

The effect can range from a very subtle blurring to full-blown blur, depending on a few things.  The out of focus (OOF) background (and foreground, BTW) can be maximized by the use of one or more of the following:

A lens with a wider aperture. (in the range of f/2.8 to f/ 1.4 for instance)
Adequate distance from the lens to the background. (close to the subject, but with the background farther away)
Larger sensor. (as in; a camera with a larger sensor)


----------



## Watchful (Apr 30, 2016)

You can combine photos taken with a tripod, or you can select the element(s) you don't want to blur and promote them to a new layer and then (Gaussian) blur the background layer. Or you can use a number of other techniques to accomplish the same thing. There are as many ways to reach the same end as there are people to do it. Everyone will have a favorite way and none is the only correct way to get there.


----------



## KmH (May 1, 2016)

Understanding Depth of Field in Photography


----------



## Watchful (May 1, 2016)

KmH said:


> Understanding Depth of Field in Photography


The question was how to do it in Photoshop: 





> Any way of capturing this in a single shot and process in photoshop to get a similar effect? Thanks.


The answer you gave doesn't address the question, but explains DOF in a photograph. I am sure it will be useful to someone though.


----------



## KmH (May 1, 2016)

Watchful said:


> The question was how to do it in Photoshop:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That wasn't the only question in post #1.


----------



## table1349 (May 1, 2016)

How to blur the background for a focal point in Adobe Photoshop | Adobe Photoshop CC tutorials


----------



## k.udhay (May 2, 2016)

Thanks all...
KmH - I wanted to understand how an image of this type can be achieved:

Studio 31 by Pranesh Photography

This doesn't look to have been achieved by aperture. My guess is the photographer has used a long exposure shot as a background and a regular shot for subject. But the tough challenge would have been to get both subject and background to be of same exposure level. Else, post processing would have been very weird-looking. My core part of the question was to understand how he had come across this problem.


----------



## 480sparky (May 2, 2016)

That image is most likely a composite.  The scenery is a long exposure with a separate exposure of the couple cloned into it.  The blur you see is actually motion blur caused by a long shutter speed.


----------



## Watchful (May 3, 2016)

Its just what you said 2 pics put together. Its easy to do as you can get proper exposure on each individually then layer them.


----------



## Derrel (May 3, 2016)

YES....SParky has it right. Looking at that photog's other images, it's pretty clear he or she is very good at composite images; the one with the newlyweds with the flock of geese flying by at the exact right height, distance, and flight direction...yeah, prettttttty sure that one was two images! (Unless he is a goose-whisperer.)

The beach shot is almost assuredly as sparky describes it: The clouds and water are definitely the result ,of a long, slow exposure, most often achieved with the now popular 10-stop Neutral Density filters (creativity in every filter diameter).


----------



## Watchful (May 3, 2016)

Derrel said:


> YES....SParky has it right. Looking at that photog's other images, it's pretty clear he or she is very good at composite images; the one with the newlyweds with the flock of geese flying by at the exact right height, distance, and flight direction...yeah, prettttttty sure that one was two images! (Unless he is a goose-whisperer.)
> 
> The beach shot is almost assuredly as sparky describes it: The clouds and water are definitely the result ,of a long, slow exposure, most often achieved with the now popular 10-stop Neutral Density filters (creativity in every filter diameter).


The op said the same thing in the question. Lol


----------



## smoke665 (May 3, 2016)

Derrel said:


> YES....SParky has it right. Looking at that photog's other images, it's pretty clear he or she is very good at composite images; the one with the newlyweds with the flock of geese flying by at the exact right height, distance, and flight direction...yeah, prettttttty sure that one was two images! (Unless he is a goose-whisperer.)
> 
> The beach shot is almost assuredly as sparky describes it: The clouds and water are definitely the result ,of a long, slow exposure, most often achieved with the now popular 10-stop Neutral Density filters (creativity in every filter diameter).



So, you're saying this was a composite of two shots or was it likely more than that???   Currently at the beach, and would like to try something similar, while I'm here.


----------



## Watchful (May 3, 2016)

Yes, 2 shots, one long for the time blur and one fast to freeze the subjects.


----------



## smoke665 (May 4, 2016)

Sorry didn't ask question correctly. I've always struggled with beach shots, getting both sky and water/sand correct.  Using horizon as the dividing line I'm thinking using three shots. One of subject, one sand/water and one sky. As long as I was relatively close to the same location I'm  thinking I could also use different times of day for the sand/water and sky. Am I correct in my thoughts?


----------



## Watchful (May 4, 2016)

Of course you can combine any number of shots you like as long as you don't move the camera. In focus stacking as many as 30 shots or even more are combined.


----------



## 480sparky (May 4, 2016)

Watchful said:


> Of course you can combine any number of shots you like as long as you don't move the camera..............



Why does the camera required to be stationary?  I've made composites from images taken hundreds of miles apart.  And in some cases, decades apart as well.


----------



## smoke665 (May 4, 2016)

The biggest issue with me is the light on a beach. I guess if I were more knowledgeable I'd be able to make corrections, but in looking back at previous shots, I've had some good sky, some good sand/water, some good subject, but I've never had all three at the same time. The hour of the day, even different days, all make a difference. Previously I've had problems with blended images looking like they've been blended, but using this approach looks like it would be easier to blend the sky, and subject with the sand and surf.


----------



## waday (May 4, 2016)

I remember someone on here posting an image similar to that, but I can't remember who. It was done in one image with a shorter exposure time than in the composite from the FB site. I liked it much better, because it had more motion in the image.

I want to say @Vtec44 ? Was it your image?


----------



## Derrel (May 4, 2016)

Watchful said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > YES....SParky has it right. Looking at that photog's other images, it's pretty clear he or she is very good at composite images; the one with the newlyweds with the flock of geese flying by at the exact right height, distance, and flight direction...yeah, prettttttty sure that one was two images! (Unless he is a goose-whisperer.)
> ...





Watchful said:


> Of course *you can combine any number of shots you like as long as you don't move the camera*. In focus stacking as many as 30 shots or even more are combined.





480sparky said:


> Watchful said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you can combine any number of shots you like as long as you don't move the camera..............
> ...



Seems like our new guy here really doesn't REALLY understand how composites work, or doesn't pause to think for very long before he replies to every post on the board in an effort to get that Top Poster of Month "award" with smart-alceky, incomplete, and just dumb replies, one after another after another after another.


----------



## Designer (May 4, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> Sorry didn't ask question correctly. I've always struggled with beach shots, getting both sky and water/sand correct.  Using horizon as the dividing line I'm thinking using three shots. One of subject, one sand/water and one sky. As long as I was relatively close to the same location I'm  thinking I could also use different times of day for the sand/water and sky. Am I correct in my thoughts?


I understand about having a wide dynamic range in lighting, and trying to get it all right.  I don't have any experience with a graduated ND filter (GND filter) so I can't help you there.  As I understand it, you want to try to composite a varied background and a well-exposed subject from two or three separate shots to make it look like one frame.  

I've seen some poorly-done composites that have missed something obvious, such as the angle and intensity of the sun, for instance.  Nothing spells PSfail like a shadow going the wrong way or something like that.  

Something that might help is to consider the entire composition, and expose for the beach, let the sky be slightly overexposed, and illuminate your subject(s) with a flash.  This seems a lot easier than the cut and paste method.


----------



## smoke665 (May 4, 2016)

Excuse the post. Have no interest in "top anything" but apparently I misunderstood the purpose of the forum as place to learn, and ask questions. While I've found help on occasion that I greatly appreciated, I've also seen snarky comments by several on many posts of others as well. If this is the way of the group then I've also erred in asking to join, and suggest the moderator kindly remove me..


----------



## Derrel (May 4, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> Excuse the post. Have no interest in "top anything" but apparently I misunderstood the purpose of the forum as place to learn, and ask questions. While I've found help on occasion that I greatly appreciated, I've also seen snarky comments by several on many posts of others as well. If this is the way of the group then I've also erred in asking to join, and suggest the moderator kindly remove me..



Smoke--I was not addressing you, in any way whatsoever, but instead, a newish member who seems like all he;s here for is to make smart-a&& jabs at others, and who offers basically, no real help to posters who've come here, asking really good questions!

As far as needing ND filtration to gewt a decent sky rendering and a decent beach rendering---uhhhhh, I live near the Pacific coastline, and there are MANY hours a day when the beach sand and the surf and the sky are easily rendered fine with one, single exposure that's pretty much Sunny 16. Much of the day, there's no need to make two exposures to get the beach and the sky well within the histogram's two ends.


----------



## Vtec44 (May 4, 2016)

waday said:


> I remember someone on here posting an image similar to that, but I can't remember who. It was done in one image with a shorter exposure time than in the composite from the FB site. I liked it much better, because it had more motion in the image.
> 
> I want to say @Vtec44 ? Was it your image?



It wasn't me.  I'm too lazy to do any composite images.  LOL   I'd probably go with slow exposure and balance flash to freeze motion.


----------



## waday (May 4, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > I remember someone on here posting an image similar to that, but I can't remember who. It was done in one image with a shorter exposure time than in the composite from the FB site. I liked it much better, because it had more motion in the image.
> ...


Agh! I can't remember who or when it was... maybe I dreamt it, haha.


----------



## waday (May 4, 2016)

Aha.. found it.. It was @Austin Greene .. #6 from here: Tyler + Adriena | Engagement :)


----------



## Tim Tucker (May 5, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> Sorry didn't ask question correctly. I've always struggled with beach shots, getting both sky and water/sand correct.  Using horizon as the dividing line I'm thinking using three shots. One of subject, one sand/water and one sky. As long as I was relatively close to the same location I'm  thinking I could also use different times of day for the sand/water and sky. Am I correct in my thoughts?



Don't think in absolute terms as in one exposure for the sky and the horizon as a dividing line. There's a whole world of blending options available to digital editing. For instance with the shot "Warm Tones" I recently posted. The effect I wanted was transparency, and transparency itself is characterised by the lighter elements only in the background showing through. So I used a basic luminosity mask that separates the highlights and set it to around 50% density the layer for the "inside" actually looked like this, filtered for the highlights with the shadows only showing at 50% opacity:






Doesn't look like it'd work does it? To understand the effect better I've simply put a black background behind it just to show how it works in combination. The black fills in the shadow values and everything lighter in the original layer is added on top:





When the first image (without the black background as i only add that to show you the effect) is placed on top of the photo of the radio what happens is the lighter pixels on either image show through and the darker pixels on the radio fill in the shadows of the "inside". Exactly how transparency appears:





Now I didn't see the original image but what if you used luminosity masks to layer over the mid and brighter tones of the long exposure in much the same way as above? You would be adding blur with the real advantage that the darker tones the original image are still behind it making a much smoother and seamless transition. You're not putting a complete mask around your subject only masking some of the tones, the transition becomes far more transparent.

And this is just scratching the surface of what's possible.


----------



## Designer (May 5, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> Excuse the post. Have no interest in "top anything" but apparently I misunderstood the purpose of the forum as place to learn, and ask questions. While I've found help on occasion that I greatly appreciated, I've also seen snarky comments by several on many posts of others as well. If this is the way of the group then I've also erred in asking to join, and suggest the moderator kindly remove me..


Don't be so touchy.  Even if the post was aimed at you, *which it wasn't*  just let it roll off.


----------

