Selective focus (Blurred background)

[KmH]

Here is a blog post that demonstrates why it's often better to use a 200 mm focal length, and the perspective compression a 200 mm focal length can provide, to get a nice blurred background that helps make a subject 'pop'.

Eye Shutter 2 Think: Photography Lesson 3

 

[Trever1t]

Thanks! Always eager for good info.

 

[robb01]

Great bokeh in those photos!

 

[mwcfarms]

Nice tip KmH thats why lenses with longer focal lengths are so good for portraits correct?

 

[Robin Usagani]

It's all about angle of view I think. For example lets say you have 100 christmas lights. If you use a wide angle you will see lets say all 100 lights on the background. Then the bokeh will be tiny almost like small dots of lights. If you use longer zoom you will see only a fraction of these ligths so your bokeh are much bigger.

 

[Derrel]

The author was doing well until he created a new photographic term out of thin air: "Perspective Compression". A nice try, but not a recognized term...yet another self-taught shooter trying to tackle a technical subject he's unqualified to handle writing about. Still, the examples are nicely shot and shown. He did however, manage to get the difference between shallow depth of field and "bokeh" correct, so that was nice.
It would have been nice if he had addressed the term background blur, and how background blur is greater with telephoto lenses, due to their larger ACTUAL apertures, even when shot at the same f/stop as shorter lenses. But, those kinds of accurate, technical discussions are more the province of folks like Bob Atkins.

 

[PhotoWrangler]

The author was doing well until he created a new photographic term out of thin air: "Perspective Compression". A nice try, but not a recognized term...yet another self-taught shooter trying to tackle a technical subject he's unqualified to handle writing about. Still, the examples are nicely shot and shown. He did however, manage to get the difference between shallow depth of field and "bokeh" correct, so that was nice.
It would have been nice if he had addressed the term background blur, and how background blur is greater with telephoto lenses, due to their larger ACTUAL apertures, even when shot at the same f/stop as shorter lenses. But, those kinds of accurate, technical discussions are more the province of folks like Bob Atkins.

He got the point across though... correct term or not.

 

[mwcfarms]

Its great to see actual variations of the focal lengths so people will understand why shooting at longer lengths can be so effective.

 

[Derrel]

The author was doing well until he created a new photographic term out of thin air: "Perspective Compression". A nice try, but not a recognized term...yet another self-taught shooter trying to tackle a technical subject he's unqualified to handle writing about. Still, the examples are nicely shot and shown. He did however, manage to get the difference between shallow depth of field and "bokeh" correct, so that was nice.
It would have been nice if he had addressed the term background blur, and how background blur is greater with telephoto lenses, due to their larger ACTUAL apertures, even when shot at the same f/stop as shorter lenses. But, those kinds of accurate, technical discussions are more the province of folks like Bob Atkins.

He got the point across though... correct term or not.

Actually, no, he muffed the examples pretty badly in my book, in one manner.
He perpetuated incorrect AND incomplete information, using terminology that has been made up by newbies in recent years. It might have been nice had he used correct terms AND had he been scientifically accurate in his article, but that is expecting a lot of untrained bloggers who have never studied photography. The blog post illustrates quite well that the world wide web is full of half-truths, incomplete information, and unwittingly or accidentally distributed misinformation. Often the people who write blog posts like this are people whose intentions are noble, but they have not actually studied the subject at hand, and they will "make up" terminology, or pass along as fact dubious information and tips.

http://scubageek.com/articles/compression.pdf

These are the same types of people who often will say things like "open up the aperture from f/4 to f/11", or refer to f/11 as a "big aperture" and f/2.8 as a small or even "low" aperture...

 

[thierry]

I read this on Ken Rockwell's site a while ago.. :thumbdown: hahaha but thus the reason I bought my zoom lens works great!

 

[tirediron]

These are the same types of people who often will say things like "open up the aperture from f/4 to f/11", or refer to f/11 as a "big aperture" and f/2.8 as a small or even "low" aperture...

Or the ever famous "Let out the clutch" when they really mean "engage the clutch".

 

[Robin Usagani]

Yay! I am noble!

 

[Josh66]

These are the same types of people who often will say things like "open up the aperture from f/4 to f/11", or refer to f/11 as a "big aperture" and f/2.8 as a small or even "low" aperture...

You forgot to spell aperture wrong...

 

[KmH]

Great bokeh in those photos!

From that link.

I would also like to address one thing, I Hear photographers talking about an image having a shallow depth of field and calling it Bokeh. That is NOT Bokeh, that is just a shallow depth of field. Bokeh is a descriptor used to describe the QUALITY of the out of Focus areas of an image. And is used to describe the quality of a lens. "That lens has a very smooth and creamy Bokeh" But you cannot use it as: "I decreased my aperture to give the image more Bokeh"

 

[KmH]

The author was doing well until he created a new photographic term out of thin air: "Perspective Compression". A nice try, but not a recognized term....

Not recognized by who?

perspective compression - Bing

From 2002: http://scubageek.com/articles/compression.pdf (Don't look at the link if you don't like math.)

Perspective compression happens, but the lens doesn’t do it --- you do!