Help me with my kit lens and bokeh

[BXPhoto]

Theres nothing as nice as real bokeh IMO

via the 135L


The Signorelli's by BX | PHOTO by BX | PHOTO, on Flickr

 

[Stradawhovious]

JUST DO IT!

<Nike Swoosh>

If you two can see that, your eyes are much better than mine.

Sent from my iPhone 4S

If it makes you feel better, I can see it too. Very clearly photoshopped..... and I don't even know what I'm doing in the world of photography. Like you say in your sig.. perception is everything. My perception of that photo is that it was photoshopped, and poorly at that.

This raises a question.... Why would you want to spend hours getting a result that is mediocre at best in photoshop, when you can have the camera effortlessly do it for you naturally and correctly? Even with a Kit lens this effect can be had.

Doesn't make any sense. This is another example of "just becuase you can, doesn't mean you should."

 

[TCampbell]

If you want to see an example of Photoshop'd bokeh, I replied to another post a few days ago with an example:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...um/288390-bokeh-canon-24mm-f-1-4-l-lense.html

There are three images in the post. The first image is natural bokeh. The second and third images are the same except the 2nd image is the original (no photoshop bokeh) and the third image has the bokeh applied via photoshop.

In the post I describe the process used to add the bokeh.

I prefer natural bokeh -- it looks great and it's easy if you've got a low focal ratio lens -- especially one with a nice round aperture.

When using photoshop it isn't the blur that's the problem. Making the "blur" is the easy part. But creating an easy transition so that the bokeh looks natural can be quite a challenge. I've tried to use the technique with some images where the are no clear dividing lines between foreground and background... and I haven't found a way to make photoshop gently increase the level of blur to create a more natural appearance (it may be easy to do... I probably don't use photoshop enough to know all the tricks.)

 

[Chris R]

The Alien Skin Bokeh plugin does a very good job at faking Bokeh (if used properly) in Photoshop.

 

[Chris R]

Real or Photoshopped?

 

[KmH]

Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Bokeh is blur.

You quoted out of context. It's more involved than just blur and it actually says:

Japanese: [boke]) is the blur,[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] or the aesthetic quality of the blur,[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] in out-of-focus areas of an image.

It also notes on this page - Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -

The English spelling bokeh was popularized in 1997 in Photo Techniques magazine, when Mike Johnston, the editor at the time, commissioned three papers on the topic for the March/April 1997 issue; he altered the spelling to suggest the correct pronunciation to English speakers....

It goes on to make the distinctions-

Bokeh has been defined as "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light".[SUP][8][/SUP] However, 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" and "bad" bokeh, respectively.[SUP][3][/SUP] 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.

 

[enzodm]

I managed to do that with the shortest focal length. The results were good, thank you.
However I am thinking of getting some older adapted lens for better results. I am looking at some great m42 manual focus lens.

In Bulgaria you should be able to find a Helios 58/2 - decent bokeh, sharp, and cheap. You may find it attached to most Zenit cameras; if not, usually they come with Zenitar 50/1.9 or 1.7, good too. Another piece worth of buying and usually cheap is Jupiter 135/3.5 (copy of Zeiss Jena Sonnar: same sharpness, better build quality, sort of tank cannon). Their quality is not worst than economical modern lenses (to be conservative).

Usually is easier to blur with longer focal lengths - look here for calculated DoF: http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html (but of course, as all others explained to you, subject and background should be well separated in distance from you).

 

[greybeard]

I kind of look at Photo Shop blur with photos like autotune with audio. If it is done tastefully, it adds to the whatever you are doing. And, I can tell you that some pretty big stars would be dead in the water without autotune (Taylor Swift OOOH NOOOO :lmao. Some of the posts seem to be saying that PP blur is some sort of sin against the great camera god.....lol.

 

[greybeard]

Real or Photoshopped?

If this is PP blur then it is real good. I'm leaning toward PP because it is so uniform and the edges are soft in places. I'm probably wrong lol .