Pedro Jimenez
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2016
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 1
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Please do not post images to which you do not have rights. You may post links.
Last edited:
Creating nice Bokeh
- Thread starter Pedro Jimenez
- Start date
Please do not post images to which you do not have rights. You may post links.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 25,157
- Reaction score
- 9,010
- Location
- Iowa
- Website
- pixels.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
Before anything else, you'll need to remove the images as forum rules don't allow you to post images you don't have rights to. You are allowed to post links to them, however.
'Bokeh' isn't really quantifiable in the sense that it can be measured. It's a lot like art, or one's taste in food. You either like it or your don't.
"Good" bokeh usually results from using longer focal-length lenses, large apertures and to some extent the number and shape of a lens' aperture blades.
'Bokeh' isn't really quantifiable in the sense that it can be measured. It's a lot like art, or one's taste in food. You either like it or your don't.
"Good" bokeh usually results from using longer focal-length lenses, large apertures and to some extent the number and shape of a lens' aperture blades.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Messages
- 45,747
- Reaction score
- 14,806
- Location
- Victoria, BC
- Website
- www.johnsphotography.ca
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
You need to understand how this works. "Bokeh" or the appearance of the out of focus elements of an image depends on several factors. The two main ones are the focal length of the lens and the distances between the camera and the subject and the subject and the background. Aperture also plays a key role, and to a lesser extent various design elements of the lens.
You will create much softer backgrounds with a longer focal length lens than a shorter one because there is less depth of field at longer focal lengths. Additionally, the closer the subject to the camera and the greater the distance between the subject and background, the more background softness you will have. Using your 85 with a subject say, 5' away and 20' in front of the background with a relatively large aperture, say, f4 will give you a nice soft background. Using a 200mm f2 at f2, with the subject 10' away and the background 50' away will give you a completely smooth background.
Spend some time experimenting with different lenses, apertures and distances. You will get the hang of it quickly.
You will create much softer backgrounds with a longer focal length lens than a shorter one because there is less depth of field at longer focal lengths. Additionally, the closer the subject to the camera and the greater the distance between the subject and background, the more background softness you will have. Using your 85 with a subject say, 5' away and 20' in front of the background with a relatively large aperture, say, f4 will give you a nice soft background. Using a 200mm f2 at f2, with the subject 10' away and the background 50' away will give you a completely smooth background.
Spend some time experimenting with different lenses, apertures and distances. You will get the hang of it quickly.
TCampbell
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,614
- Reaction score
- 1,556
- Location
- Dearborn, MI
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
You want LONG focal length and LOW focal ratio. Keep the subject CLOSE and put the background FAR (do not put a subject up against a wall, etc. where the background is right behind the subject.)
I have a 300mm f/2.8 which generates crazy amount of background blur on-demand, but those are expensive lenses... but I also use a 135mm f/2 which generates enough bokeh to send anyone into insulin shock from exposure to too much sweet creaminess.
I didn't see your original sample images. You can post a link to it -- you just can't include the image in the post unless you own the rights to that image.
But here are a couple of my own examples:
Iris Blooms by Tim Campbell, on Flickr
Soldier Resting by Tim Campbell, on Flickr
In both of these, I'm using a long focal length lens, a low focal ratio, and my subjects are somewhat close relative to the background which is much farther away - causing the background to quickly blur out.
These were taken with a 300mm f/2.8 lens (which is expensive) but you can do this with a shorter lens (say in the 100-200mm focal length range) as long as it offers a low focal ratio (say around f/2). E.g. a 135mm f/2 would do this quite nicely. Even an 85mm f/1.8 should be sufficient to generate lots of blur if the subject and background are placed well.
I have a 300mm f/2.8 which generates crazy amount of background blur on-demand, but those are expensive lenses... but I also use a 135mm f/2 which generates enough bokeh to send anyone into insulin shock from exposure to too much sweet creaminess.
I didn't see your original sample images. You can post a link to it -- you just can't include the image in the post unless you own the rights to that image.
But here are a couple of my own examples:
Iris Blooms by Tim Campbell, on Flickr
Soldier Resting by Tim Campbell, on Flickr
In both of these, I'm using a long focal length lens, a low focal ratio, and my subjects are somewhat close relative to the background which is much farther away - causing the background to quickly blur out.
These were taken with a 300mm f/2.8 lens (which is expensive) but you can do this with a shorter lens (say in the 100-200mm focal length range) as long as it offers a low focal ratio (say around f/2). E.g. a 135mm f/2 would do this quite nicely. Even an 85mm f/1.8 should be sufficient to generate lots of blur if the subject and background are placed well.
cherylynne1
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2015
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 254
- Website
- www.flickr.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
You should be able to get a very blurred background with the 85 on that camera. If you aren't, it's likely one of the reasons mentioned above.
Try moving close enough to your subject so that it's just their head and shoulders in the frame, and make sure they're about 50 feet from the background (like at a park or large backyard.) Is that the result you wanted? If not, you could always try a 105 or 135 lens. But I think the most likely problem has to do with understanding the relationship between space and the resulting blur.
Note that I'm referring to blur, and how blurry the background is, which is what I think you mean by "good bokeh." Bokeh is actually defined as the quality of the blur, and isn't a synonym for blur. If, however, you are looking for different quality of bokeh, then that's a different discussion. For me, good bokeh is very creamy, with smooth transitions and no harsh lines. I love big round circles as well, rather than any aspherical shapes. But that's my personal taste. Some prefer swirly bokeh or harsher bokeh. This is a quality of the lens and how the lens renders the bokeh. The Nikon 85 1.8 is generally regarded as having pleasing bokeh, however, so I imagine you aren't having any issues there.
Try moving close enough to your subject so that it's just their head and shoulders in the frame, and make sure they're about 50 feet from the background (like at a park or large backyard.) Is that the result you wanted? If not, you could always try a 105 or 135 lens. But I think the most likely problem has to do with understanding the relationship between space and the resulting blur.
Note that I'm referring to blur, and how blurry the background is, which is what I think you mean by "good bokeh." Bokeh is actually defined as the quality of the blur, and isn't a synonym for blur. If, however, you are looking for different quality of bokeh, then that's a different discussion. For me, good bokeh is very creamy, with smooth transitions and no harsh lines. I love big round circles as well, rather than any aspherical shapes. But that's my personal taste. Some prefer swirly bokeh or harsher bokeh. This is a quality of the lens and how the lens renders the bokeh. The Nikon 85 1.8 is generally regarded as having pleasing bokeh, however, so I imagine you aren't having any issues there.
OP
OP
Pedro Jimenez
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2016
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 1
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
You want LONG focal length and LOW focal ratio. Keep the subject CLOSE and put the background FAR (do not put a subject up against a wall, etc. where the background is right behind the subject.)
I have a 300mm f/2.8 which generates crazy amount of background blur on-demand, but those are expensive lenses... but I also use a 135mm f/2 which generates enough bokeh to send anyone into insulin shock from exposure to too much sweet creaminess.
I didn't see your original sample images. You can post a link to it -- you just can't include the image in the post unless you own the rights to that image.
But here are a couple of my own examples:
Iris Blooms by Tim Campbell, on Flickr
Soldier Resting by Tim Campbell, on Flickr
In both of these, I'm using a long focal length lens, a low focal ratio, and my subjects are somewhat close relative to the background which is much farther away - causing the background to quickly blur out.
These were taken with a 300mm f/2.8 lens (which is expensive) but you can do this with a shorter lens (say in the 100-200mm focal length range) as long as it offers a low focal ratio (say around f/2). E.g. a 135mm f/2 would do this quite nicely. Even an 85mm f/1.8 should be sufficient to generate lots of blur if the subject and background are placed well.
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
Dao
No longer a newbie, moving up!
If you take a photo with a bigger sensor camera, the camera is going to be closer to the subject than with a smaller sensor camera with the same framing.
Subject to camera distance is one of the factor affects the out of focus blur as mentioned above.
Subject to camera distance is one of the factor affects the out of focus blur as mentioned above.
cherylynne1
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2015
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 254
- Website
- www.flickr.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
A larger sensor will give you a more shallow depth of field, that's true. But if you can't get the type of photo like the one you linked to above with your current equipment, it's doubtful that a full frame sensor will help much.
Trever1t
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 9,331
- Reaction score
- 2,722
- Location
- San Jose, CA
- Website
- wsgphotography.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
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?
Why not just enjoy photography and learn along the way?
Solarflare
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,898
- Reaction score
- 395
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.
- 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.
Derrel
Mr. Rain Cloud
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 48,225
- Reaction score
- 18,941
- Location
- USA
- Website
- www.pbase.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
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
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
Last edited:
TCampbell
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,614
- Reaction score
- 1,556
- Location
- Dearborn, MI
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
When you use a crop sensor camera, you multiply the focal ratio of the lens by the crop-factor of the sensor to arrive at the apparent focal ratio for purposes of determining how much depth of field you'll have and how much out-of-focus blur it will create.
So yes... it's "easier" to get that blur with a full-frame camera.
If you use an APS-C sensor camera such as your Nikon D3200 (sensor crop factor = 1.5), at say, f/2.8... it's "as if" you took it with a full-frame sensor at f/4.2 (slightly more than one full stop worth of blur.) Note that this math does NOT apply to the exposure calculation... it only applies to the depth of field calculation (an f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens no matter what the sensor size is.)
This is why compact, point & shoot, and camera-phones just don't seem to generate much background blur at all (if any). They are very tiny sensors (huge crop-factor) and the lenses "true" focal ratios are actually VERY short (very broad depth of field). When you do the math, it's comparable to someone shooting with a full-frame sensor camera at around f/20 -- you don't get a shallow depth of field and you can't generate much background blur.
In the sports photo that you linked, I'm going to "guess" that the photographer may have been using a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens and probably at, or very near, the 200mm focal length and almost certainly at the f/2.8 focal ratio. 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms are VERY popular among sports photographers for indoor events.
So yes... it's "easier" to get that blur with a full-frame camera.
If you use an APS-C sensor camera such as your Nikon D3200 (sensor crop factor = 1.5), at say, f/2.8... it's "as if" you took it with a full-frame sensor at f/4.2 (slightly more than one full stop worth of blur.) Note that this math does NOT apply to the exposure calculation... it only applies to the depth of field calculation (an f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens no matter what the sensor size is.)
This is why compact, point & shoot, and camera-phones just don't seem to generate much background blur at all (if any). They are very tiny sensors (huge crop-factor) and the lenses "true" focal ratios are actually VERY short (very broad depth of field). When you do the math, it's comparable to someone shooting with a full-frame sensor camera at around f/20 -- you don't get a shallow depth of field and you can't generate much background blur.
In the sports photo that you linked, I'm going to "guess" that the photographer may have been using a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens and probably at, or very near, the 200mm focal length and almost certainly at the f/2.8 focal ratio. 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms are VERY popular among sports photographers for indoor events.
OP
OP
Pedro Jimenez
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2016
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 1
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Making $$$ doing this is for sure a goal but for the most part I am doing this because I love it and because I enjoy doing it. Yes it a very basic question however going to school is not an option fo me so I need to just keep working and practicing. No offense to anyone but I wouldn't be asking if I wasn't stumped, plus successful photographers have such big egos that you never know what kind of an answer you'll get. And I get it they're not teachers or mentors I'm not their responsibility. No matter how much people keep telling me I'm not going to make it, or that I'm gonna fail cos I can't grasp simple concepts I'm not going to stop or let it deter me from achieving my goal. Thank you for your advice tho I really appreciate any input.
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 demanding 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 later 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.
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.
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 later 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.
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.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2013
- Messages
- 13,695
- Reaction score
- 3,369
- Location
- SE Michigan
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
No one's really discouraging you ... just a shot of reality.
FYI, when shooting indoor you may find your kit lens and crop camera just fall short in being able to capture images properly. On reason, as a hobbyist shooting indoor and outdoor sports, I have several thousand invested in just one body and one lens ... and that's on the LOW end of cost. Sometimes the equipment does matter.
Most reactions
-
430 -
286 -
276 -
267 -
216 -
188 -
177 -
175 -
169 -
165 -
159 -
129 -
117 -
I
97
-
94
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/30/30875-d76f1fa085aee4334cb6b0cd62bb5e2d.jpg?1619734491)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/39/39193-6ebc8ca9478a68b5fe2120c2163f40d3.jpg?1619738908)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/30/30878-f33da8abe01acde1dcee7898f41310e1.jpg?1619734493)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/32/32178-010a47bfeb945bdafb02b0ee4888290c.jpg?1619735235)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/39/39289-c5ea6a611707fdd5786347f4a67d63ae.jpg?1619738957)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/39/39290-dfb3e819bd94a7f30797638ae1ae27cf.jpg?1619738958)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/39/39291-a89dc472765e04f66f617dd9acc8030d.jpg?1619738958)
