Creating nice Bokeh

[astroNikon]

Thank you so much for that information ok I totally understand what you're talking about ok this is the kind of image I was going for, sharp focus on the people and background blurred like that, maybe I'm just being too hard on myself. Also would a full sensor give me better images?

Wrestling: Mat Classic XXVIII Championship Round

If you look at that wrestling image, if you look at other objects, such as the ref to the far right, the man to the left of the winner, the man in the blue shirt between the winner & ref, then the viewers in the background. You'll see as the object gets further away that object gets more blur to it. This is related to what was mentioned as the further away you get from the subject the more blur that object will have.

That is called Depth of Field ==> Understanding Depth of Field in Photography

 

[Pedro Jimenez]

I shoot sports, lots of sport at the NCAA Division I level. First and foremost you need to know that this endeavor is not going to be cheap. I don't own a lens for sports shooting that is under $1,000.00 and my 400mm f2.8 is a $10,000.00 lens. My main bodies are 1Dx's. Sports photography is very demeaning on the photographer and the equipment. That equals $$$$$$ for equipment just to compete.

Secondly, everyone loves to shoot sports, because they have a kid and it is exciting to take photos of their kid. The excitement wanes a bit when you have to get up at 3:00 a.m. to get ready, get to the venue, check out the venue or check for changes since the last time you were there because latter in the day the venue will be busy and you won't have the access to do so. Add to that not one of those people on the field means a damn thing to you. In October and November you freeze your ass off in a stadium and in summer you burn your ass off on a field. To baseballs, footballs, soccer balls and players you are just another thing to bounce off of and most of the time they win. Nothing like getting a $8000.00 300mm f2.8 hit by ball.
View attachment 116372

Next, the market is saturated. Sports photographers are a dime a dozen. Photographers in general are a penny a dozen these days.

Finally these days you have to be talented and know somebody. Freelancing isn't all it's cracked up to be and the rags don't hire photographers like they used to. I'm 61 and been doing this for years. I know a person or two around the country at the Division I schools. It helps.

This isn't to try and discourage you or lead you astray. These days I do it because 1. I have the skill, 2 I have the equipment, 3 I have the contacts and 4. I want to. Not for money so the thought of competition doesn't bother me. This is so you have some realistic idea of what is out there.

Thank you for that information, to be honest that's exactly the kind of information I'm looking for, yes I know it won't be cheap and yeah know it's gonna take some time and effort and most of all money and I'm ok with that. I have a full time job photography is something I love doing on my days off and I love it. Thank you again, not at all discouraged

 

[Ihatemymoney]

DO me a BIG FAVOR. FORGET about making $$$ with your camera until you no longer need to ask basic questions.

Why not just enjoy photography and learn along the way?

LOL
I am spewing coffee all over my key board .

 

[table1349]

DO me a BIG FAVOR. FORGET about making $$$ with your camera until you no longer need to ask basic questions.

Why not just enjoy photography and learn along the way?

LOL
I am spewing coffee all over my key board .

Yuck.............

 

[Pedro Jimenez]

What you're also looking for is a thinner depth of field (DoF). Depth of field is determined by:

- focal length - the longer the focal length, the more shallow the depth of field
- aperture - the more open the aperture, or the smaller the f-number, the more shallow the depth of field
- focus distance - the closer the subject or focus plane, the more shallow the depth of field

Bokeh however is the quality (not amount/quantity) of the out of focus areas. This quality usually cannot be determined by the photographer. Its a lens property, a result of the optical formula.

Its also a matter of taste. Many view gaussian Bokeh as the ideal: the light of the out of focus area is most intense at the center, where it would be if it was in focus, and then gently falls off to the areas around it. This creates a so-called "creamy" Bokeh, meaning all details of the background are lost and the background turns into a pleasant paste of colors that doesnt distract from the subject.

Thus better Bokeh needs better lenses. The 85mm f1.8 is already pretty good in this respect, though. Except its a full frame lens and you use the lowest chain of all Nikon cameras, which is half frame. Nikon calls full frame / small format / 36x24mm "FX" and half frame / APS-C / 24x16mm "DX". The effect of using a full frame lens on a half frame camera is such that you only see the center of the image. This means for the same framing on the 85mm f1.8 you have to keep a lot more distance. This means you'll get a lot more depth of field - and a lot less blurr in the background.

Thank you so much for exhaling that. I appreciate you taking time to answer my question especially regarding the dx vs fx formats. I will take your input and applie it to my work. I'm in the process of getting a Nikon d750 I can't wait to try it out.

 

[Designer]

No offense to anyone but I wouldn't be asking if I wasn't stumped, ..

I see that you've got your answer, but it should not have been so traumatic for you to get it. The "formula" for backgrounds (and foregrounds) out of focus is all over the internet. That can be learned on nearly any good teaching website if you're a careful reader.

Now to my unsolicited comment: Throwing the background out of focus can a nice technique, but is hardly the thing upon which to build a photography business.

Get good at the entire range of photography, and you'll go much farther in the profession, and the OOF backgrounds will come as they will.

 

[Derrel]

Now to my unsolicited comment: Throwing the background out of focus can a nice technique, but is hardly the thing upon which to build a photography business.

Yes, but that being said, to many people, shallow DOF pictures are one of ***the*** single most obvious pieces of evidence that leads them to think "professionally done pictures".

For people who've come of age in the compact digicam era, and now the smartphone era, photographs that have shallow depth of field really stand out from the huge deluge of snaps that dominate today's media channels. Even in the 1980's, people would ask for, "Sharp pictures,nice and clear faces, but with a nice blurry background."

For many people, that one characteristic, sharp and clear foreground with blurred background, is the most easily observed thing about "professionally done pictures".

 

[Pedro Jimenez]

No offense to anyone but I wouldn't be asking if I wasn't stumped, ..

I see that you've got your answer, but it should not have been so traumatic for you to get it. The "formula" for backgrounds (and foregrounds) out of focus is all over the internet. That can be learned on nearly any good teaching website if you're a careful reader.

Now to my unsolicited comment: Throwing the background out of focus can a nice technique, but is hardly the thing upon which to build a photography business.

Get good at the entire range of photography, and you'll go much farther in the profession, and the OOF backgrounds will come as they will.

It wasn't traumatic and I wasn't looking for a formula I was basically looking for poiters and some advice maybe I didnt word my question correctly, I understand the basic formula of a blurred background and sharp subject in front my question had more to do with focal length and the capability of my camera and now I get it. Thanks you though for your comments and snide remarks.

 

[Pedro Jimenez]

Yes, a larger-sensor camera is a lot easier to get the sharp people/blurred backdrop that you want to achieve. A medium-format, 120 rollfilm camera shooting 6x6 cm negs is dead-easy to get shallow DOF images with a 110 to 150mm f/2.8 lens--but you're not shooting that kind of a rig.

The main reason the 85mm f/1.8 lens does not throw the backgrounds as out of focus as you would LIKE them to be is because you're using it on a crop-frame camera, with a small sensor, and you're almost assuredly finding the need to physically move the camera back, far away, to fit your people into the frame.

Depth of field increases (becomes deeper) not in a linear way, but at a terrifically increased rate as the lens is focused closer and closer to the hyperfocal distance. Bob Atkins has the best article on the web to help understand how DOF increases VERY rapidly on APS-C sensor sized cameras; the gist of it is that once you move into the 10,11,12 foot range, and APS-C sensor camera begins to build DOF rapidly; by 30 feet, depth of field increases at a staggering rate with most normal lens focal lengths.

THe lens length, in relation to format size, and the focused distance are factors. Beyond just a few feet, FOCUS DISTANCE is a huuuuuge factor; it is the primary factor with a lens like an 85mm lens. With APS-C and FX cameras, the camera-to-subject focus distance is the primary variable on longer lenses.

The human brain is remarkably proficient at recognizing and identifying things in the background of photos. The classic prime lens lengths are all optimized, and were developed, for 24x36mm capture, since the 1930's. To shoot a 2-person portrait, full length,a man and wife side by side, with an 85mm lens on an APS-C Nikon you're at 34.5 feet. With a Full-Frame or FX Nikon or Canon, same exact 85mm lens, the SAME field height and width is from only 20.0 feet away. Bottom line...at f/4 or so, the APS-C camera's background is quite clearly "decodable" by the human brain--because the smaller sensor camera made you stand muuuuuch farther away, and with the size of the sensor, it already has moved into the zone where DOF behind the 34.5 foot focused distance is quite deep. I've been relating this example here for half a decade because the 85mm f/1.8 is the first prime lens most people buy...and it really does NOT work the same way on FX as it does on DX.
*******
This is the article that explains so,so much about DOF and bokeh. Be careful of 'learning' from web articles, many of which have erroneous or misleading info. Depth of Field, Digital Photography and Crop Sensor Cameras - Bob Atkins Photography[/QUOTE



Thank you that was very informative abs helpful

 

[OGsPhotography]

deleted.

 

[craigfrag]

You seem to know a lot about photography I'm sure you can work it out for yourself,experiment and see how you do

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

[Pedro Jimenez]

Wow thank you to everyone who took the time to answer my questio and talked to my like I'm a person! With all your advice and everything I've read online about this I have gotten my answer and will implement all your advice and suggestions.

 

[Ihatemymoney]

Wow thank you to everyone who took the time to answer my questio and talked to my like I'm a person! With all your advice and everything I've read online about this I have gotten my answer and will implement all your advice and suggestions.

Bokeh
I don't know if I would be led to think the best or most advance or the best selling photos use the Bokeh technics.

Its a style in most cases, in other cases its used to cover things up in the back ground.

In another forum I post pictures of some of my machinery, and use the Bokeh technic to cover up cluttered shop.


Both these photos were done using a TSE 17mm f4 L lens free hand

 

[thereyougo!]

Before you go about getting bokeh you need to get composition right. It's not the bokeh that makes the shot a professional one, it is how it is applied. You have to communicate with it as you would with any other photographic tool. Which bit do you want to be in focus, which not? Even using a f/0.95 lens won't make a messy background look anything other than messy.