Newbie bokeh question - picture included

tvtt · Jun 14, 2009

I was out trying to practice getting some bokeh... I got this... what is wrong with it? The background looks strange. Any insight as to what I'm doing wrong would be much appreciated. Thanks!!

I have a Nikon d50, was using a 50mm at 1.8, shutter 1/800, ISO 200.

Jaszek · Jun 14, 2009

I'm guessing some object were a bit closer to the dog (branches etc.) or can be the cause of the amount of aperture blades the lens has (I have no idea how many the Nikon nifty fifty has). Also check if there are no smudges on the lens, even though you wouldn't probably see it at such a low aperture, but you can check anyway.

ANDS! · Jun 14, 2009

Theres nothing wrong with that photo.

artoledo · Jun 14, 2009

The photo is a little blurry. I am not one to be pointing out things that I have done but it is a great start!

Bitter Jeweler · Jun 14, 2009

What did you expect to get, exactly?

Jaszek · Jun 14, 2009

I based my comment on the things circled here:

tvtt · Jun 14, 2009

i expected to get something along these lines, but it looks to me like there is some strange swirling going on above the dogs head

Crosby · Jun 14, 2009

Really there's nothing wrong with it as stated before but my two cents says the two dark blurry trees in the back ground draw attention away from the dog. Bokeh should complement the subject. Also, it often thought that Bokeh should be like a painting background.

tvtt · Jun 14, 2009

here's another one (and my other dog) again to me it looks goofy around her head

f1.8, shutter 1/500, ISO 200

Bitter Jeweler · Jun 14, 2009

Ah, I see what you saw now that it was pointed out.

And it would be the areas around the ears in the second pic.
It definately looks busier there than in the rest of the image, except a small area by the stick to the right.

I guess it would be hard to figure out the cause without knowing what is actually in the background though. At least, I am clueless, but see what you mean.

musicaleCA · Jun 14, 2009

That just seems like it's uneven bokeh. I believe it's simply a result of the 7-blade aperture. Stop down a little with the aperture, to say, 2.8 or 3.0 and you should get better blending of background colours. The quality of bokeh is the major drawback, I find, of the nifty-fifties of both Nikon and Canon; 'tis the real reason I sprung for the f/1.4.

It's just a limitation of the lens that you'll have to work around a little by stopping-down the aperture.

tvtt · Jun 14, 2009

another question - does the distance from the object in focus to the background make a difference in bokeh? For example, could my swirly be due to varying distances of the background from the focus?

kundalini · Jun 14, 2009

musicaleCA hit it on the head. While Nikkor's 50mm f/1.8 is optically sharp, it doesn't render very smooth bokeh wide open. You'll want a 9 blade aperture for the cream.

musicaleCA · Jun 14, 2009

tvtt said:
another question - does the distance from the object in focus to the background make a difference in bokeh? For example, could my swirly be due to varying distances of the background from the focus?

It could be, and the oddities caused by the lens could be lessened by using a smooth background, but your best option really is just to stop down a little. Things further away from the focal plane will create larger and larger circles of confusion, which take the shape of the aperture; hence why for higher quality bokeh, more blades in the aperture (thus making it closer to a circle in shape) is a must. It also has partly to do with how well the blades are aligned in the first place so that they stay in roughly the shape of a circle.

Unfortunately with uneven rendering of bokeh like this, if you were to say, hold a stick near the dogs head about half a foot behind, the brown contrast against the green which is much farther away from the focal plane would indeed be harsh and not as, well, silky and creamy are probably the best words for it.