How to achieve this look?

[bdavison]

The shot above of the little girl was shot completely in focus. I later felt that it would look better with a little depth of field adjustment. So I did it.

I completely 100% know how to get that effect without post processing.

I was just stating that if you want to do it post processing, the option IS there, and the results can be just as rewarding as the standard practice of shooting the DOF.

 

[JerryPH]

It does come down to the lens. The wider the focal length, the less selective focus. Telephoto lenses give you that narrow DOF.

In referencing focal LENGTHS, it is either longer or shorter... not wider or narrower. This is the factor that affects blur, not width.

Then explain how I can do this with a 30mm lens, something NOT a telephoto?

You do not understand how controlled DOF works. No, it doesn't *just* come down to the lens... I proved that. I gave you a shot of a super blur free shot taken at F/1.4 and a very extremely blurred shot at F/7.1, both totally against what you stated.

I now provide for you a 30mm BLURRED shot. 30mm is hardly telephoto.

DOF is affected by a couple of very important factors you never mentioned and have a GREATER effect on background blur than aperture *or* focal length.

It is the combination of all *5* factors:
- Aperture
- Focal length

... and more importantly, the ratios of:

- Distance of lens to subject
- Distance of lens to background
- Distance of subject to background

As I said... give me ANY lens, I can blur or not by choice, given the right circumstances, I can give you a blurry picture at F/16 or a 100% blur free shot at F/1.0. The lens itself has very little to do with it... again, as long as you understand how it works.

 

[inTempus]

I guess that's why they have DoF calculators.

Online Depth of Field Calculator

 

[inTempus]

... and more importantly, the ratios of:

- Distance of lens to subject
- Distance of lens to background
- Distance of subject to background

As I said... give me ANY lens, I can blur or not by choice, given the right circumstances, I can give you a blurry picture at F/16 or a 100% blur free shot at F/1.0. The lens itself has very little to do with it... again, as long as you understand how it works.

Let's say you can't control any of the 3 variables above for your shot. Then what do you do to blur your background?

 

[Double H]

In referencing focal LENGTHS, it is either longer or shorter... not wider or narrower. This is the factor that affects blur, not width.
You do not understand how controlled DOF works. No, it doesn't *just* come down to the lens... I proved that. I gave you a shot of a super blur free shot taken at F/1.4 and a very extremely blurred shot at F/7.1, both totally against what you stated. The lens itself has very little to do with it... again, as long as you understand how it works.

Ok, you are right. I should have said length instead of width. :meh:

 

[JerryPH]

Let's say you can't control any of the 3 variables above for your shot. Then what do you do to blur your background?

Then you use the other 2 (focal length and aperture) and if you are limited there too (ie: slow short lens in a tight location), you accept what you can get, but the amount of control that you have is much more limited.

For most people, though, it is a heck of a lot easier to move back, move closer or move a subject to a better location than spend $3500 on a 300mm F.2,8 lens just so they can get a little extra bokeh, but if you can do it... I'm all for it. :mrgreen:

 

[JerryPH]

Ok, you are right. I should have said length instead of width. :meh:

You're not quite getting it, are you?

 

[Mtalicarox]

We are not, if we were, we would have modified, deleted or moved your post. We as responsible users who care about this forum just tapped you on the shoulder and set you straight on something so that YOU could fix it. The mods have enough on their plates without needing to police every new users on things that they should know about before posting.

;-) i didn't post any pictures ;-). I know the rules and abide by them ;-).

 

[inTempus]

Let's say you can't control any of the 3 variables above for your shot. Then what do you do to blur your background?

Then you use the other 2 (focal length and aperture) and if you are limited there too (ie: slow short lens in a tight location), you accept what you can get, but the amount of control that you have is much more limited.

For most people, though, it is a heck of a lot easier to move back, move closer or move a subject to a better location than spend $3500 on a 300mm F.2,8 lens just so they can get a little extra bokeh, but if you can do it... I'm all for it. :mrgreen:

My point is, having fast glass does make a difference. We can't always move our subjects away from their backgrounds, or even move ourselves closer or further away quickly from our subjects. Often we have to make quick decisions to get a shot... and me rotating a bezel on my lens or clicking a dial under my index finger is often much faster than running forward or back trying to get that bird sailing across the sky.

I understand your point. In a studio setting where you have absolute control, or even in non-studio settings like the street shot example you gave where you have time to position yourself to get what you want, the other variables certainly can be used to your favor. It's prudent to understand how to accomplish this, I agree.

 

[JerryPH]

My point is, having fast glass does make a difference.It's prudent to understand how to accomplish this, I agree.

That's all I was trying to say, that there is more to it than just the lens and when you know that, can use it to your advantage. Not knowing it means you could struggle with it and not understand why things are not doing what you want.

The discussion was centered around just the lens (aperture), which as we now know, is not the definitive factor, just one factor in five which all have an affect on the end result.

Hopefully now the OP better understands and can get better results becuase of this.

 

[Big]

With all due respect and I hate to detract from a valid thread (sans posted photos). Are you on glue? As photographers we MUST respect each others work. Photography is a tough racket. Credit where credit is due is an unwritten law. It is the responsibility of every individual and not the mods.

Love & Bass

I totally agree, even though I am not a professional I would hope that people wouldn't take my pictures and give themselves the credit. My pics may not be the best but they mean something to me.

 

[William Petruzzo]

For whatever it's worth, it also looks like these were taken at higher ISO ratings. That is, unless the subtle grain was added later.

 

[Mtalicarox]

With all due respect and I hate to detract from a valid thread (sans posted photos). Are you on glue? As photographers we MUST respect each others work. Photography is a tough racket. Credit where credit is due is an unwritten law. It is the responsibility of every individual and not the mods.

Love & Bass

I totally agree, even though I am not a professional I would hope that people wouldn't take my pictures and give themselves the credit. My pics may not be the best but they mean something to me.

the OP clearly was not taking credit for the pictures since he did not know how to create the look within them....

 

[craig]

Clearly you are correct. Credit is due and needs to given to the photographer who shot the photos used for illustration purposes. This concept is basic courtesy. Why are we still talking about this?

Love & Bass