Help me with my kit lens and bokeh

[BXPhoto]

It's actually not easier, really. Producing natural OOF blur in camera is technically easier (but likely more costly due to the high price of fast lenses).

PP blur will undoubtedly look worse than what the lens can render.

+1 with this... Now motion blur can sometimes look cool with automotive work.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

PP blur will undoubtedly look worse than what the lens can render.

Out of a kit lens I don't think you would be able to tell the difference between PP and lens produced bokeh. Especially if using good software, such as Photoshop and the smart blur filter.

The simplicity of lens created bokeh is automatic. So, of course with knowledge of setup, it is simpler than PP.However, you have to understand bokeh, what it is, and how DoF will affect bokeh before you can get good results from your camera alone.

I come from a graphic design background. I have only been doing Photography for about 5 years now, but I have been in the graphic design field for 14 years. So, there are many times I will snap a fast photo and make up the difference in photoshop simply because I'm fluent enough with the software to create what I'm looking for, easier than taking 2 minutes to setup the camera to get a certain desired result.

However, if you are just now starting to learn photography and how each element of the trade works, I would advise spending long hard hours learning your camera and taking experimental photos.

-----------------------------------
edit 6/20/2012

To give you an example of what I'm talking about, take the attached image for example. Please note that I am not the photographer of this image. The model is a close friend of mine, and this was taken when she first got into modeling about 3 years ago. The photographer wasn't a very experienced photographer as well. I had to use the dodge tool on the majority of the photo, because the lighting was very harsh and the majority of her body was underexposed. Anyway, that's beside the point. The point here is that this image was taken with a very large DoF, and there wasn't hardly any naturally occuring bokeh at all. So, I pulled this image into Photoshop, applied the smart blur, and sent it back.

Now, you cannot tell me that if you did not know that I added it, that you would know this bokeh was PP added and not naturally occuring:

 

[jake337]

Here is some discussion on M42 mount lens.

Flickr: Discussing Best M42 Lenses in M42

 

[BXPhoto]

Out of a kit lens I don't think you would be able to tell the difference between PP and lens produced bokeh. Especially if using good software, such as Photoshop and the smart blur filter.

However, the simplicity of lens created bokeh is automatic. However, you have to understand bokeh, what it is, and how DoF will affect bokeh before you can get good results from your camera alone.

I come from a graphic design background. I have only been doing Photography for about 5 years now, but I have been in the graphic design field for 14 years. So, there are many times I will snap a fast photo and make up the difference in photoshop simply because I'm fluent enough with the software to create what I'm looking for, easier than taking 2 minutes to setup the camera to get a certain desired result.

However, if you are just now starting to learn photography and how each element of the trade works, I would advise spending long hard hours learning your camera and taking experimental photos.

This always why I recommend a fast cheap prime as the next lens purchase for most new photographers. Teaches them more creative composition and allows them to play more control of depth of field.

 

[o hey tyler]

PP blur will undoubtedly look worse than what the lens can render.

Out of a kit lens I don't think you would be able to tell the difference between PP and lens produced bokeh. Especially if using good software, such as Photoshop and the smart blur filter.

The simplicity of lens created bokeh is automatic. So, of course with knowledge of setup, it is simpler than PP.However, you have to understand bokeh, what it is, and how DoF will affect bokeh before you can get good results from your camera alone.

I come from a graphic design background. I have only been doing Photography for about 5 years now, but I have been in the graphic design field for 14 years. So, there are many times I will snap a fast photo and make up the difference in photoshop simply because I'm fluent enough with the software to create what I'm looking for, easier than taking 2 minutes to setup the camera to get a certain desired result.

However, if you are just now starting to learn photography and how each element of the trade works, I would advise spending long hard hours learning your camera and taking experimental photos.

If it takes you two minutes to take a photo with a desired shallow DoF, you're doing something wrong, or do not have the proper equipment to produce an image with the DoF you desire.

And yes, commonly it's quite easy to tell if blur has been digitally inserted. It is always, always, always better to get it right in camera rather than use PS as a crutch. Of course, I am not advocating that one not digitally enhance their images... But when taking a photo, it's best not to have the mentality of putting minimal effort into the photo, and then polishing the turd in post processing.

 

[o hey tyler]

edit 6/20/2012

To give you an example of what I'm talking about, take the attached image for example. Please note that I am not the photographer of this image. The model is a close friend of mine, and this was taken when she first got into modeling about 3 years ago. The photographer wasn't a very experienced photographer as well. I had to use the dodge tool on the majority of the photo, because the lighting was very harsh and the majority of her body was underexposed. Anyway, that's beside the point. The point here is that this image was taken with a very large DoF, and there wasn't hardly any naturally occuring bokeh at all. So, I pulled this image into Photoshop, applied the smart blur, and sent it back.

Now, you cannot tell me that if you did not know that I added it, that you would know this bokeh was PP added and not naturally occuring:
View attachment 11839

Yes, I can tell you that it was added blur. It's not "bokeh," it's just an artificially blurred background. I've been into photography for long enough, used enough wide aperture prime lenses, and experienced some extreme lack of DOF to know what out of focus areas should look like for the most part. The area directly around her head would be my first red flag. The second would be the softness on the post she's leaning on. It takes a REALLY good edit to make faux DoF look realistic.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Yes, I can tell you that it was added blur. It's not "bokeh," it's just an artificially blurred background. I've been into photography for long enough, used enough wide aperture prime lenses, and experienced some extreme lack of DOF to know what out of focus areas should look like for the most part. The area directly around her head would be my first red flag. The second would be the softness on the post she's leaning on. It takes a REALLY good edit to make faux DoF look realistic.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

1. Bokeh is blur.

2. I fibbed. Not only is that image not mine, I did not photoshop it. It's just a random chick from the internet. However, you just validated my point. You cannot tell added blur from natural blur. The only reason you said you could tell is because I told you I did, when in reality, I actually did not.



Also, I'm not trying to insult or discredit your knowledge in any way. I don't even know 1/3 of what you do about photography.

 

[o hey tyler]

Yes, I can tell you that it was added blur. It's not "bokeh," it's just an artificially blurred background. I've been into photography for long enough, used enough wide aperture prime lenses, and experienced some extreme lack of DOF to know what out of focus areas should look like for the most part. The area directly around her head would be my first red flag. The second would be the softness on the post she's leaning on. It takes a REALLY good edit to make faux DoF look realistic.

Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Bokeh is blur.

2. I fibbed. Not only is that image not mine, I did not photoshop it. It's just a random chick from the internet. However, you just validated my point. You cannot tell added blur from natural blur. The only reason you said you could tell is because I told you I did, when in reality, I actually did not.

Sent from my iPhone 4S

It doesn't change the fact that the blur is clearly photshopped in. You can SEE where the image has been photoshopped, so I guess you chose a great image to demonstrate your point. Not only did you choose a great image to demonstrate your point, you also broke TPF's forum guidelines/rules by posting an image that you do not own the copyrights to. I think 9/10 people on this forum would tell you that the image you posted had been digitally manipulated in terms of DoF.

Furthermore, bokeh is blur, but bokeh is NOT fake blur (which is what I stated). It's a product of the lens design, it's non-adjustable, and it is commonly used to describe the aesthetic quality of the OOF areas.

Why don't you lecture me on more photographic terminology I already know about?

You can start with focal length, and next you can go on to aperture... Because really, I haven't been at this whole "photography" thing very long, and I have no idea what I'm doing.

 

[e.rose]

Ok... Since I had to log in for this sh*t to see the image, ima go ahead and post... Tyler randomly messaged me and asked me what I thought about the image and the first thing I told him was that the blur was fake. There is a clear outline of the woman's body caused by fake PP blur. And I'm on a cellphone and could see that. Do it right in camera. Just do it.

 

[o hey tyler]

Ok... Since I had to log in for this sh*t to see the image, ima go ahead and post... Tyler randomly messaged me and asked me what I thought about the image and the first thing I told him was that the blur was fake. There is a clear outline of the woman's body caused by fake PP blur. And I'm on a cellphone and could see that. Do it right in camera. Just do it.

JUST DO IT!

<Nike Swoosh>

 

[AaronLLockhart]

JUST DO IT!

<Nike Swoosh>

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

Sent from my iPhone 4S

 

[paigew]

yup fake blur...fake boobs too

to the op to get blur/bokeh/DEPTH you need depth between your subject and what you want blurred. So if your subject (mask) is virtually on the same plane (or the same depth of field) as the background you won't notice any bokeh.

I get the best bokeh when I am close to the subject and the subject is far away from the background. This creates a lot of depth in the image. aka bokeh!

 

[TCampbell]

Here's an exercise you can do to help understand depth of field and "bokeh".

You'll need 10 objects -- grab 10 bottles, cans, whatever you have laying around.

Line them up out in the yard (or in a long room) front to back (so that the first bottle is close to you and the last bottle is far away -- not side by side). Separate them by about 1 or 2' between each bottle.

Frame them up so that you can see the entire row through you camera, but focus carefully on the 3rd bottle (use a tripod if you must). Set the aperture to f/16. Snap a photo. Back the aperture down to f/11, snap another photo. Back it down to f/8 snap another. Repeat f/5.6, then f/4, then f/2.8, then f/2 (if the lens can do f/2), and lastly... if the lens can support it, snap a photo at f/1.4.

Now inspect your photos. At f/16 the entire row of bottles will be in focus. At f/11 most of them will be in focus... you might feel the last bottle is a tiny bit soft. By f/4 (I've skipped over f/8) you'll notice your focused bottle is totally sharp, but the end bottles are definitely showing bokeh - possibly not strong bokeh, but certainly enough that there's no mistaking you've got bokeh. At the f/2.8 shot... probably just the bottle you focused on will be sharp, the rest will be noticeably soft, and the the bottles in the rear will be extremely soft with fairly strong bokeh. If you can get to f/1.4, the bottle you focused on might not actually be completely sharp -- we're getting to the point where we have paper-thin DoF -- but the blur on the rest of the bottles will be extreme. There would be absolutely no chance that you could read the text if the bottle had a label on it.

Keith posted a great visual to understand Depth of Field. The only thing not quite correct in that image is that it shows the focus point being in the exact center of the Depth of Field. In reality, the focus point is about 1/3 of the way into the DoF -- or about 1/3 of your DoF will be in FRONT of your focused target and 2/3 of your DoF will be BEHIND your focused target. If you play with the bottle exercise you'll see this -- this is why I said to focus on the 3rd bottle... instead of the middle bottle.

 

[greybeard]

To the OP, is this what you are after? Since the subject and the background are only a few inches apart, creating a natural lens Bokeh is pretty much impossible. You can do this in PP with PhotoShop by selecting the part you want blurred and then adding lens blur. Not perfect but if done tastefully it can be effective. I did notice that your camera uses a pretty small sensor which translate to a shorter focal length which intern translates to a deep DoF at even f/3.5. I have the same problem with my Sony F828. Everything is always in focus. Good for snap shots, not so good for what you are wanting to do.

 

[Patrice]

Even with the excellent effort demonstrated in the post immediately above, a critical examination reveals that the blur was created in post. The rendering of out of focus elements is not that 'linear' when real.