Bokeh help?

[Droxium]

I'm a beginner in photography and recently purchased a Nikon D5300 with 15-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR II AF-S DX and wanted to know how to do bokeh photography. I managed to take a few good shots by putting objects close to the lense but wanted to know how to do it with objects farther away. Is there a lense I should buy or setting I should use? Thanks.

 

[tirediron]

There really is no such thing as "Bokeh photography". The term 'bokeh' refers to the appearance of the out-of-focus elements in an image. How much out of focus those elements are depend on: The aperture you use, the distance from the camera to the subject, and the distrance from the camera to the primary background. The appearance (soft/hard, etc) is a result primarily of the design of the lens and specifically the aperture blades.

In order to get the maximum "out of focusness" in an image, use the longest possible focal length, the largest possible aperture, place the subject as close as possible to the camera and as far from the background as possible.

 

[KmH]

I'm a beginner in photography and recently purchased a Nikon D5300 with 15-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR II AF-S DX and wanted to know how to do bokeh photography. I managed to take a few good shots by putting objects close to the lense but wanted to know how to do it with objects farther away. Is there a lense I should buy or setting I should use? Thanks.

What you want is to learn how to control of the depth-of-field, or DoF.
Bokeh is not adjustable, DoF is.

Understanding Depth of Field in Photography

Lens focal length determines point-of-focus (PoF) distance and subject scale in the image frame.

If you want a 8.5 inch total DoF and use a 50 mm lens at f/2.8 use a PoF distance of 7.5 feet. You can change to a 200 mm focal length, move back 4x the PoF distance (to 30 feet), also use f/2.8 and get the same 8.5 inches of total DoF AND have the same subject scale in the image frame.

 

[Designer]

Is there a lense I should buy or setting I should use?

I have not attempted this, but you might be able to get some lens reviews that show/rate the "bokeh".

To start your search, you should look for a higher-end longer focal length lens with rounded aperture blades. The glass must be of the highest quality, the design impeccable, and the construction flawless.

You also have to "luck out" with some lenses in that individual examples may or may not actually produce "bokeh", even though other examples of the same model could yield excellent bokeh.

You can narrow your search by trying to find the model of lens that ordinarily gives bokeh, but be careful of who is judging it, as some people just figure that any ol' blur is good enough to be called bokeh.

Start looking at the blur you see in photographs. Look very carefully at what the blur does, and how it renders certain shapes. If you look at enough of them, you will eventually learn to spot flaws, and then you can reject those lenses as not capable of bokeh.

Good luck!

 

[bratkinson]

I'm somewhat puzzled. In short, why would someone new to photography want to 'concentrate' their efforts on out-of-focus objects?

In the 50+ years or so I've been taking photographs, my goal has been to get a clean, sharp photograph. In those situations where I want only the subject in sharp focus, such as a single person in a group from a distance, shooting with the lens aperture wide open (lowest f-stop number) will produce that result. However, knowing the exposure triangle trade-offs is more important to get the correct exposure.

In short, I urge the OP to first learn the basics of photography. You'll learn soon enough that bokeh is in the eye of the beholder and is usually a side-effect of getting what you want in sharp focus. For me, as long as the subject(s) is(are) sharp, I really don't care how good or bad the out of focus portions of the image come out. I get what I get.

 

[Derrel]

As far as lenses....a "fast" lens that's 50 to 180mm in focal length will be a good start. Something like a 50mm lens with a fast maximum aperture value of f/1.4, or f/1.8 would be a good choice. Same with something like the 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G-series autofocusing telephoto lens....longer length, 85mm, and "fast" maximu aperture of f/1.8 will give that shallow depth of field/out of focus backdrop look. Moving toward longer lenses, a 90mm to 105mm f/2.8 macro lens will also create pretty out of focus backgrounds.

While Tirediron might be correct in stating that there is no such thing as bokeh photography, in the internet era of 2015, there does exist a multitude of web sites and web blogs that talk about "bokeh photography", and yeah, I know what you are interested in. I would start with a 50mm f/1.8 lens, and proceed from there. With a standard 50mm lens, the wider apertures like f/1.8, f/2, f/2./2, f/2.5, f/2.8, f/3.2 and f/3.5 will produce relatively shallow depth of field at close to moderately close distances, and will create plenty of out of focus stuff behind subjects photographed from a foot or so, out to about 10 or 12 feet.

 

[Designer]

I managed to take a few good shots by putting objects close to the lense but wanted to know how to do it with objects farther away.

Objects that are farther away can be made out of focus by focusing on something else, usually closer, but that kind of spoils your plan, because then something will be in focus, whereas you wanted the out of focus blur.

Good luck!

 

[Droxium]

As far as lenses....a "fast" lens that's 50 to 180mm in focal length will be a good start. Something like a 50mm lens with a fast maximum aperture value of f/1.4, or f/1.8 would be a good choice. Same with something like the 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G-series autofocusing telephoto lens....longer length, 85mm, and "fast" maximu aperture of f/1.8 will give that shallow depth of field/out of focus backdrop look. Moving toward longer lenses, a 90mm to 105mm f/2.8 macro lens will also create pretty out of focus backgrounds.

While Tirediron might be correct in stating that there is no such thing as bokeh photography, in the internet era of 2015, there does exist a multitude of web sites and web blogs that talk about "bokeh photography", and yeah, I know what you are interested in. I would start with a 50mm f/1.8 lens, and proceed from there. With a standard 50mm lens, the wider apertures like f/1.8, f/2, f/2./2, f/2.5, f/2.8, f/3.2 and f/3.5 will produce relatively shallow depth of field at close to moderately close distances, and will create plenty of out of focus stuff behind subjects photographed from a foot or so, out to about 10 or 12 feet.

Nikon AF NIKKOR 50mm f 1.8D Lens 2137 B H Photo Video this be a good purchase?

 

[Derrel]

The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF-D lens uses the camera's in-body focusing motor to achieve autofocus. If you have a smaller Nikon, like a D40,D40x,D60, or one of the D3000-series or D5000-series models, that lens will NOT autofocus on any of those camera models, but the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G series Nikkor lens WILL focus on all those models, and others as well.

But generally, yeah, a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens will allow you to achieve a sharp subject, and a nice, blurred background object on many scenes, as long as the subject is fairly close to the camera. On a 1.5x crop body Nikon, the 50mm lens acts pretty much like a short telephoto lens.

 

[Designer]

Just for the O.P.'s benefit, I will post (actually re-post) an image I captured using my 50mm 1.8 G:

The focus is on the tag (foreground) and the background is OOF. To be honest, I can't tell if the out-of-focus areas (background) are Bokeh or not. I guess you can tell me if you think they are.

Just so you don't have to check the EXIF yourself, I'll list a portion of it here:

EXIF Summary: 1/13s f/5.0 ISO800 50mm (35mm eq:75mm)

So now you can see what the 50mm 1.8 G does.

 

[bratkinson]

Derrel's response got me to thinking..."bokeh photography"??? So I Googled that exact phrase. I'm stunned at the number of sites that relate to it.

The first and only site I looked at provided lots and lots of bokeh-filled shots...
bokeh photography - Google Search

The pictures were quite interesting to look at. I, for one, got somewhat tired of looking at photograph after photograph of 'bokeh balls', or 'bokeh hexagons' in a couple of them. In particular, in my opinion, the all bokeh balls types of shots with no particular subject got old real quick. Other than the novelty of it, not having a definite subject in the photograph seems to defeat the whole purpose of the photograph in the first place. OK, a couple of all colored 'balls' shots make a good 'break' from a group of 25 or more other shots in a presentation, for example.

While I am no expert, I'm also of the belief that a number of the shots on the link are actually a combination of 2 or more separate photographs. The motor scooter with bokeh balls 'exhaust' shot looks to be an obvious example of combining multiple shots. So, to the OP, you'll have to learn how to combine shots in post processing to get some of the effects in these photos.

Also, to the bokeh photographer 'wannabes', it is important to note that not all lenses produce nice circular bokeh when taking pictures of Christmas tree lights, for example. A couple of pictures in that site show a distinct hexagonal shaped bokeh. My older EF 80-200 f2.8L 'magic drainpipe' lens produces football shaped Christmas light bokeh. I'm considering the purchase of longer focal length L lens that one of the 'negatives' listed in the reviews of the lens is 'donut shaped bokeh'. A picture or two in that review proved that to be the case. So, in deciding what lens or lenses one could purchase or rent for the purpose of 'great bokeh', be sure to do your homework by reading a number of reviews beforehand before plunking down your cash or credit card.

But I'm still of the mind "what I get is what I get" when it comes to bokeh. It's never been a consideration while I'm taking a picture.

 

[Droxium]

Derrel's response got me to thinking..."bokeh photography"??? So I Googled that exact phrase. I'm stunned at the number of sites that relate to it.

The first and only site I looked at provided lots and lots of bokeh-filled shots...
bokeh photography - Google Search

The pictures were quite interesting to look at. I, for one, got somewhat tired of looking at photograph after photograph of 'bokeh balls', or 'bokeh hexagons' in a couple of them. In particular, in my opinion, the all bokeh balls types of shots with no particular subject got old real quick. Other than the novelty of it, not having a definite subject in the photograph seems to defeat the whole purpose of the photograph in the first place. OK, a couple of all colored 'balls' shots make a good 'break' from a group of 25 or more other shots in a presentation, for example.

While I am no expert, I'm also of the belief that a number of the shots on the link are actually a combination of 2 or more separate photographs. The motor scooter with bokeh balls 'exhaust' shot looks to be an obvious example of combining multiple shots. So, to the OP, you'll have to learn how to combine shots in post processing to get some of the effects in these photos.

Also, to the bokeh photographer 'wannabes', it is important to note that not all lenses produce nice circular bokeh when taking pictures of Christmas tree lights, for example. A couple of pictures in that site show a distinct hexagonal shaped bokeh. My older EF 80-200 f2.8L 'magic drainpipe' lens produces football shaped Christmas light bokeh. I'm considering the purchase of longer focal length L lens that one of the 'negatives' listed in the reviews of the lens is 'donut shaped bokeh'. A picture or two in that review proved that to be the case. So, in deciding what lens or lenses one could purchase or rent for the purpose of 'great bokeh', be sure to do your homework by reading a number of reviews beforehand before plunking down your cash or credit card.

But I'm still of the mind "what I get is what I get" when it comes to bokeh. It's never been a consideration while I'm taking a picture.

Hmm speaking of the "bokeh balls," how does one achieve that effect? And thanks for the info.

 

[dennybeall]

The iris of the lens has a lot to do with the look of the spots of light. With fewer blades you get a distinct polygon shape. With more blades the shapes get more rounded. Most folks like more rounded hence certain lenses advertised as having better bokah.

 

[Derrel]

Hmm speaking of the "bokeh balls," how does one achieve that effect? And thanks for the info.

Shoot subjects where the background has bright points of light, such as Christmas lights, city lights, candles, or strong sunlight that is coming through trees or foliage like hedges or plants, or reflecting off of water. A long lens helps to make the bokeh balls larger, as you can see by these samples; the Christmas lights are older, mini-bulb lights, the older, dimmer ones, not the very-newest LED type, so the focal length comparisons will be helpful if you look at all of these and know they are from the same set of mini-lights we had for five years.

DSC0050 ccPROOF.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com
200mm lens at f/2.8 on Nikon D2x

IMG 2282 Christmas Draws Near.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com
24mm lens at f/4.5 on full-frame EOS 5D

Canon 70-200 at 2-8 at 200 on 5D.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 zoom at f/2.8 on 5D

bokeh balls Xmas2005 DSC0066.jpg23 lights sm.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com
60mm macro from fairly close range

DSC 5879-Xmas 2005 tree sm.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com
35mm f/2 lens at f/2

D3X 3399 PREVIEW.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com
155m zoom setting, against backlighted river surface[/QUOTE]

 

[bratkinson]

Great bokeh shots, Derrel!

I see your 70-200 produces football shaped bokeh like my 80-200 does. I just found one that my 135 f2 also produces footballs... Perhaps it's related to the long narrow Christmas lights found on most light strings these days?

80-200L @200 f2.8

135 f2L @f2.5