How do you get the blurry background effect?

[smoke665]

Is it manual aperture and shutter settings? So if a camera has manual aperture and shutter settings it would be able to do that?

Thank you @SquarePeg for your guidance. In reading through the posts, I didn't see any followup by the OP. I mean no disrespect to those that responded because they do for the most part know what they're talking about, but I fear the collective flexing of technical muscle might have scared off the OP, as I've seen no follow up by the OP. I don't want to assume the skill level of the OP but based on the wording I would assume limited.

So as a simple answer to the question you posed - Yes you can set your camera to manual and achieve an OOF background. My suggestion is that, if you have a tripod, great if not, try to stay in the same spot. Set the camera to full manual, and take a series of shots adjusting your aperture from about f/8 down to as open as it will go. It's important to maintain the same distance and focus between shots, adjusting the shutter, only to obtain the proper exposure. Once you have this series of shots, you'll have a much better understanding of what all the above posters have been trying to explain.

 

[fmw]

View attachment 146746

The fact then that the photo from the smaller format camera has deeper DOF is right there plain to see. The standard industry definition for DOF and the formulae used to calculate DOF are consistent with what the above images show and since we have over 100 years of industry acceptance and reliance on those formulae, I for one vote we continue to use them and rely on them: they're proven. In examining those formulae we find that one of the required variables used in the calculations is a value that is in part predicated on the size of the sensor.



Joe

Were the images made at the same focal length? Obviously the lenses were different.

 

[astroNikon]

What do you need in a digital camera to get that effect where you see the object in focus and the background is blurry?
Is it manual aperture and shutter settings? So if a camera has manual aperture and shutter settings it would be able to do that?

There's a lot of *extreme* detail here.

But to learn about the "blurry" effect it's best to get a 50mm/1.8 lens and start learning about it. I really did not see any blurry changes with my kit lens. When I first started using a 50/1.8 then I started seeing the differences in aperture settings.

Here's 3 quick images of different Apertures on the same subject, same distance, etc. The Blurry effect is much more comparative whn you have a f/1.8 lens or similar. ==> Struggling with Focus

 

[Ysarex]

View attachment 146746

The fact then that the photo from the smaller format camera has deeper DOF is right there plain to see. The standard industry definition for DOF and the formulae used to calculate DOF are consistent with what the above images show and since we have over 100 years of industry acceptance and reliance on those formulae, I for one vote we continue to use them and rely on them: they're proven. In examining those formulae we find that one of the required variables used in the calculations is a value that is in part predicated on the size of the sensor.



Joe

Were the images made at the same focal length? Obviously the lenses were different.

Of course the lenses were different and the focal length change is of course a factor. The lens change alone however is not sufficient to explain the DOF variation and is not the only factor. In order to run standard DOF formulae that properly calculate what's being seen a value that accounts for the change in sensor size is required. No standard DOF calculation is possible that does not include a value for the sensor size. That makes sensor size one of the determinant factors.

Joe

 

[Dragster3]

No one has really answered the question.

What do you need to get the desired blur in a DSLR.

Answer... You need to put it in aperture priority, take a picture the aperture in the lowest #, focus on what you want focused.

Then keep taking the same picture (at least 3 more) with different aperture (higher #)

Then go and download the pictures and pick the one that has the right amount of blur.

If you use a vintage lens or some fancy new ones, look at the scale and it will tell you in meters what is in focus. AKA "Scale"

Chime in. I think this answers the question about "is rap really music", "is your photograph really art" LMFAO

 

[larry909]

Thanks everyone for the answers! [emoji2] Definitely alot of content here to learn more about. interesting to see the debates going on.

@Dragster3
I wasn't asking about a DSLR here, just a point and shoot, but I guess the same rules still apply.

*

So technically an AF p&s could possibly get a 'pleasing' [emoji6] bokeh if in the right condition, but most likely won't?

 

[Dragster3]

Your question is really not a debate. It's pretty cut and dry. The "scale" is the answer you are looking for.

The scale determines what is in focus.

I'm the layman.

 

[Dragster3]

Thanks everyone for the answers! [emoji2] Definitely alot of content here to learn more about. interesting to see the debates going on.

@Dragster3
I wasn't asking about a DSLR here, just a point and shoot, but I guess the same rules still apply.

*

So technically an AF p&s could possibly get a 'pleasing' [emoji6] bokeh if in the right condition, but most likely won't?

If the point and shoot has aperture priority, you can do it. Set the aperture number low and shoot away.

 

[zombiesniper]

To answer the OP correctly...........I just don't focus on the background

 

[Designer]

So technically an AF p&s could possibly get a 'pleasing' [emoji6] bokeh if in the right condition, but most likely won't?

Breaking it down for you; in post #2 there is a list of factors that, if optimized, would produce a blurred background.

In the average point & shoot camera, the lens is wide, the aperture is small, and the sensor is small. Those are three strikes against you, but I suppose if conditions were right, you might be able to get some blur.

Get your subject fairly close to your camera, (see zoom comment below) and the background pretty far away. Try a head-and-shoulders portrait of someone with a distant row of trees in the far-away background. Set the aperture to its widest setting. If your lens will zoom, zoom all the way to the longest focal length. This might force you to back up a bit to get your subject's head all in the shot, but stay as close as you can.

Try this and let us see how it turned out.

 

[larry909]

Ok thanks

 

[photo1x1.com]

I don't want to start a new debate, but since to me your post reads rather unpolite, let me tell you that I'm afraid you neither read the question carefully, nor all the answers.
Here is the OP again:

What do you need in a digital camera to get that effect where you see the object in focus and the background is blurry?
Is it manual aperture and shutter settings? So if a camera has manual aperture and shutter settings it would be able to do that?

While your illustration shows one factor for a blurry background, there are a few more that have been mentioned, so I think the question has been answered before.

No one has really answered the question.

What do you need to get the desired blur in a DSLR.

Answer... You need to put it in aperture priority, take a picture the aperture in the lowest #, focus on what you want focused.

Then keep taking the same picture (at least 3 more) with different aperture (higher #)

Then go and download the pictures and pick the one that has the right amount of blur.

If you use a vintage lens or some fancy new ones, look at the scale and it will tell you in meters what is in focus. AKA "Scale"

View attachment 146761 View attachment 146762

Chime in. I think this answers the question about "is rap really music", "is your photograph really art" LMFAO

 

[rosh4u]

Hi and welcome to the forum!
You need to set the aperture. You can do that in aperture priority. How blurry it is going to get depends on a few factors like

• Maximum aperture of your lens (the lower the number the better)
• Focal length: the longer the better
• Distance background - subject: the further the better
• Distance camera - subject: the closer the better
• Sensor size of your camera - the bigger the better

If you are interested, I deal with some of the factors in my "effects of aperture" series:

Helpful. Thank you!

 

[TCampbell]

Thanks everyone for the answers! [emoji2] Definitely alot of content here to learn more about. interesting to see the debates going on.

@Dragster3
I wasn't asking about a DSLR here, just a point and shoot, but I guess the same rules still apply.

*

So technically an AF p&s could possibly get a 'pleasing' [emoji6] bokeh if in the right condition, but most likely won't?

Correct - Joe (Ysarex) added an equation earlier in this thread that mentioned that sensor size (or film size) is also a factor. We usually don't think to include that because we're often thinking of changing camera settings or even the lens... but not thinking of changing the camera itself and using a different camera.

Every camera has a "crop factor". A digital camera with a sensor that is the same size as the negative on a 35mm film camera is typically referred to as a "full frame" camera and has a "crop factor" of 1.0 (we use it as a baseline camera even though there are much larger film and sensors sizes).

Most DSLR cameras have a smaller sensor (the most expensive DSLRs do have "full frame" sensors). Those smaller sensors are usually the "APS-C" size (named this because it's nearly the same as as a film negative from APS-C film (APS-C = "Advanced Photo System - Classic" size). Those cameras have a crop-factor of about 1.5 (or a1.6 for Canon).

The reason I mention this is because if you multiply the focal ratio of your camera by it's crop factor, you'll arrive at the "equivalent" focal ratio w.r.t. how much out of focus blur you'd get with using a full-frame camera.

An example might make it easier:

That shot I posted with the flowers (Iris) was shot using a "full frame" sensor camera. But if I had used the same lens with a Canon DSLR that has an APS-C size sensor (1.6 for Canon) then I'd have to multiply my f/2.8 focal ratio by 1.6 to arrive at 4.48 (we'll round that to f/4.5). In other words if I use a Canon DLSR with an APS-C camera using the same 300mm f/2.8 lens, then I'd get about the same amount of blur that I'd have with a full-frame camera but had stopped down the aperture to f/4.5 instead of shooting f/2.8. It would be less extreme blur that you saw in the image.

Most point & shoots and smart-phone cameras take this to an extreme because their crop factors are rather large. Let's pick on Apple...

An Apple iPhone 7 has a camera with an f/2.2 focal ratio (widest possible aperture) and that sounds impressive, but the crop factor is 7.21.

If we multiply 2.2 by 7.21 we get 15.86 (we could round that and just call it "f/16").

In other words, every photo taken with an iPhone 7 will resemble what a full-frame camera might get with an equivalent focal length ... but shooting at f/16. And speaking of focal length... it's a very short lens (remember it's longer lenses that contribute to out-of-focus blur... not shorter lenses). An iPhone 7 camera is only 4mm (the rear camera). By the math... it's extremely hard to develop much out of focus blur.

This is why photos taken with smart phones tend to have everything in focus and you never see photos with out-of-focus blur. Apple knows a lot of people want that out of focus blur, so their iPhone 7 Plus camera (and now the iPhone 8 plus and iPhone X) have two cameras... one takes a focused shot, the other takes a deliberately de-focused shot, and it composites the two images together to create background blur. It's a bit of a clever trick to do it -- but it would otherwise not be possible at all with such a short focal length lens and such a high focal ratio.

 

[Dragster3]

Crop factor has always existed... Even in film. Everyone thinks that 35mm is only film that ever existed. LOL

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app