Is this background blur fake or real?

[nerwin]

So I was looking at some car pictures and came across this one which I thought looked interesting because how blurred out the background is.

Joe's Bunny

It was taken with a D800 + 28 1.8G which I owned the 28 for a short time and I never recalled it blowing out the back THAT much when focusing on something that large.

I mean, doesn't it look fake? It's really hard to tell.

 

[480sparky]

I say it's fake. The reflections of the trailers are in focus.

 

[nerwin]

I say it's fake. The reflections of the trailers are in focus.

It actually kind of bugs me a little. I hate fake background blur! Its deceiving! Haha.

 

[Derrel]

I looked at the shot earlier, but now it's been pulled...I thought the BG blur was done in software, but hey, who knows now, right! I dunno...there ARE some people who are very good at creating pretty realistic BG blur in software. Kirk Tuck is now shooting payed client work using a small-sensor digicam at times, and he mentioned he's learned how to do this type of blurring in software to a good standard of quality, so it's NOT just the cheezy old-fashioned type of blurring that we saw 10 years ago.

 

[nerwin]

I looked at the shot earlier, but now it's been pulled...I thought the BG blur was done in software, but hey, who knows now, right! I dunno...there ARE some people who are very good at creating pretty realistic BG blur in software. Kirk Tuck is now shooting payed client work using a small-sensor digicam at times, and he mentioned he's learned how to do this type of blurring in software to a good standard of quality, so it's NOT just the cheezy old-fashioned type of blurring that we saw 10 years ago.

Yeah my bad. It was just an embed link. Here it is > Joe's Bunny

 

[Braineack]

if it looks fake, it's probably fake.

this one has been faked.


(there was also major editing of the reflections if you were wondering about that too)

 

[vintagesnaps]

Cheesy regardless. And here I thought at first, somebody named their car Bunny?? lol And why would someone set up a shot like this behind an industrial loading dock??

I think Sparky's on the right track... It's not exactly the greatest picture anyway.

 

[nerwin]

Cheesy regardless. And here I thought at first, somebody named their car Bunny?? lol And why would someone set up a shot like this behind an industrial loading dock??

I think Sparky's on the right track... It's not exactly the greatest picture anyway.

I was just looking at the "technical" aspects of the photo, just thought it looked weird.

Kind of ruins the quality of the 28 1.8G lens.

 

[Braineack]

someone on this forum, used to post car pics with his wide angle (cant remember, maybe the 24mm) 1.4G. Those backgrounds looked great -- no software necessary.

 

[nerwin]

someone on this forum, used to post car pics with his 35mm 1.4. Those backgrounds looked great -- no software necessary.

I like using my 50 1.8, it blows out the background fairly decent. Not sure it would be worth investing in a 35 1.4 haha, those bad boys are expensive.

I bet your 58 1.4 would be killer for car shows!!

 

[nerwin]

I wish the hood was closed...but taken with my 50mm at f/2.5

 

[Braineack]

oh, it's a mush machine.

 

[nerwin]

oh, it's a mush machine.

You don't like it?

 

[Braineack]

no, i quite like it. im saying it makes backgrounds turn to mush.

I'd love to just own a 24, 58, and 105mm 1.4G. I think I could make due with that.

the 58mm is the softest lens I own, but the way it renders is something special... sometimes when i put my 70-200 back on and shoot, it's almost TOO sharp and perfect -- it's hard to explain, but the 58mm has a more "art" feel to it's rendering, where the Tamron is "true" and would be better suited to studio work and not artsy fartsy stuff.

 

[nerwin]

Ahh gotcha.

I'd probably skip the Nikon 58 1.4 because it's too pricy for me.

But that Voigtlander 58 1.4...only $400!!