Talk to me about this bokeh...

[CThomas817]

Having zero information on the lens, distance to the subject, etc... do you think bokeh in the attached photos is real? Or enhanced in post? (These are not mine, found them on Google).

Edited: Please do not post images that are not yours or for which you do not have permission. You may post a link.

Even shooting wide open (f/1.8) with my 85mm (Nikon) and my background plenty far away from my subject, my bokeh is not even close to this creamy. Would a 135 f/1.4 or a 200 f/2 produce these results? I am trying to eliminate my time in post and get closer results SOOC.

 

[RyanLilly]

The size of the bokeh is all wrong in these. The flowers in the background, for example, would be very oof but they would also be much larger if it were just the effect of the lens. The first one is not at all the same lighting from the subject to the background, the foreground flowers look like some kid vomited cotton candy onto the bottom of the frame. I don't think that is just the lens doing that.

 

[markjwyatt]

I see a lot of photographers using full frame digital with very long lenses from a distance to shoot portraits. I wonder if that could do this. Also medium or large format might give this effect (but these look digital).


pspsp'd by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[zulu42]

First one looks to me like a studio shot with a "OOF" backdrop, and maybe the third as well. The BG in the second at least looks like bokeh. I don't know, seems attainable...

Don't know what body you use but the 85mm 1.8 ought to blow out the background nicely with adequate subject to background separation and, just as important, getting the camera as close to the subject as possible.

 

[markjwyatt]

First one looks to me like a studio shot with a "OOF" backdrop, and maybe the third as well. The BG in the second at least looks like bokeh. I don't know, seems attainable...

Don't know what body you use but the 85mm 1.8 ought to blow out the background nicely with adequate subject to background separation and, just as important, getting the camera as close to the subject as possible.

Agree, the middle one looks the most plausible.

 

[Derrel]

200mm f/2 and 105mm f/1.4 lenses can produce this type of bokeh. The 200mm f/2 lenses (Canon and Nikon) give this type of look pretty easily. As you mentioned, the 135mm f/2 is another lens that can produce some of this type of dreamy background out of focus rendering. Similarly, a 300/2.8 can also do this type of stuff.

85mm is too short to magnify the background as much as does the 200/2. The last shot, the Lisa Holloway shot...she's famous for using the 200mm f/2 lens for this type of background rendering.

 

[CThomas817]

First one looks to me like a studio shot with a "OOF" backdrop, and maybe the third as well. The BG in the second at least looks like bokeh. I don't know, seems attainable...

Don't know what body you use but the 85mm 1.8 ought to blow out the background nicely with adequate subject to background separation and, just as important, getting the camera as close to the subject as possible.

Hi - I'm on a D800. Close range to my subject (ie. Head and shoulders) the bokeh is what I want, its full body shots that leaves something to be desired. I was thinking about investing in a 135mm or 200mm prime.

Thanks for your insight!

 

[CThomas817]

200mm f/2 and 105mm f/1.4 lenses can produce this type of bokeh. The 200mm f/2 lenses (Canon and Nikon) give this type of look pretty easily. As you mentioned, the 135mm f/2 is another lens that can produce some of this type of dreamy background out of focus rendering. Similarly, a 300/2.8 can also do this type of stuff.

85mm is too short to magnify the background as much as does the 200/2. The last shot, the Lisa Holloway shot...she's famous for using the 200mm f/2 lens for this type of background rendering.

Thanks so much, I figured these (or at least some) were longer lenses whether or not enhancements were done in post. Now I just have to sell a kidney.

 

[Designer]

Hi - I'm on a D800. Close range to my subject (ie. Head and shoulders) the bokeh is what I want, its full body shots that leaves something to be desired. I was thinking about investing in a 135mm or 200mm prime.

Make sure you're figuring ALL the parameters correctly. This is all a proportional relationship, so the BG will have to be somewhat farther behind your subject in order to maximize the blur.

If you use a DOF calculator (and you should) plug in all the variables to see how the blur will change when you change/adjust only one of the variables. By doing this consistently, you will get a feel for the various ranges even before you open the DOF calculator.

My guess is that you're not allowing enough space behind your subjects when you want a full-body portrait.

 

[Derrel]

First one looks to me like a studio shot with a "OOF" backdrop, and maybe the third as well. The BG in the second at least looks like bokeh. I don't know, seems attainable...

Don't know what body you use but the 85mm 1.8 ought to blow out the background nicely with adequate subject to background separation and, just as important, getting the camera as close to the subject as possible.

Hi - I'm on a D800. Close range to my subject (ie. Head and shoulders) the bokeh is what I want, its full body shots that leaves something to be desired. I was thinking about investing in a 135mm or 200mm prime.

Thanks for your insight!

And that is the problem, when you have to back up far enough to get a full body shot on the full frame camera you have a lot more depth of field and that is why the 85 mm does not blow out the background nearly as much when using a longer lens--which has a physically wider aperture at each F value. Physical aperture width, not the F value per se,is what determines background blur. Background blur and depth of field are two subtly different things. If you want more background blur,you need to go to a longer lens,which has a physically wider opening at each F value. This is why the 200mm f/2 lens is so good at totally blurring out backgrounds. just as a difraction is affected by true aperture width, and not F value, so is background blur!

 

[CThomas817]

Hi - I'm on a D800. Close range to my subject (ie. Head and shoulders) the bokeh is what I want, its full body shots that leaves something to be desired. I was thinking about investing in a 135mm or 200mm prime.

Make sure you're figuring ALL the parameters correctly. This is all a proportional relationship, so the BG will have to be somewhat farther behind your subject in order to maximize the blur.

If you use a DOF calculator (and you should) plug in all the variables to see how the blur will change when you change/adjust only one of the variables. By doing this consistently, you will get a feel for the various ranges even before you open the DOF calculator.

My guess is that you're not allowing enough space behind your subjects when you want a full-body portrait.

Thank you!

 

[zulu42]

First one looks to me like a studio shot with a "OOF" backdrop, and maybe the third as well. The BG in the second at least looks like bokeh. I don't know, seems attainable...

Don't know what body you use but the 85mm 1.8 ought to blow out the background nicely with adequate subject to background separation and, just as important, getting the camera as close to the subject as possible.

Hi - I'm on a D800. Close range to my subject (ie. Head and shoulders) the bokeh is what I want, its full body shots that leaves something to be desired. I was thinking about investing in a 135mm or 200mm prime.

Thanks for your insight!

And that is the problem, when you have to back up far enough to get a full body shot on the full frame camera you have a lot more depth of field and that is why the 85 mm does not blow out the background nearly as much as there's a higher magnification lens which has a wider aperture at each F value. Physical aperture width, not the F value per se,is what determines background blur. Background blur and depth of field are two subtly different things. If you want more background blur,you need to go to a longer lens,which has a physically wider opening at each F value.

Interesting because I was wondering about the longer focal lengths and how it would require increased camera to subject distance - thereby increasing DOF. But, if I understand correctly, the larger physical aperture size will more than make up for the increased distance to subject - as far as DOF is concerned. edit- as far as background blur is concerned

 

[CThomas817]

First one looks to me like a studio shot with a "OOF" backdrop, and maybe the third as well. The BG in the second at least looks like bokeh. I don't know, seems attainable...

Don't know what body you use but the 85mm 1.8 ought to blow out the background nicely with adequate subject to background separation and, just as important, getting the camera as close to the subject as possible.

Hi - I'm on a D800. Close range to my subject (ie. Head and shoulders) the bokeh is what I want, its full body shots that leaves something to be desired. I was thinking about investing in a 135mm or 200mm prime.

Thanks for your insight!

And that is the problem, when you have to back up far enough to get a full body shot on the full frame camera you have a lot more depth of field and that is why the 85 mm does not blow out the background nearly as much as there's a higher magnification lens which has a wider aperture at each F value. Physical aperture width, not the F value per se,is what determines background blur. Background blur and depth of field are two subtly different things. If you want more background blur,you need to go to a longer lens,which has a physically wider opening at each F value.

Is this also how the entire subject is in focus even if shot wide open? Hands, which look to be slightly in front of the focal plane, top of the hair which appears to be behind the the eye, are sharp. I assume this is because 1. The photographer is much further back and 2. The lens is longer and allows for a wider depth in the focal plane?

 

[Braineack]

all three were real. #1 may have had help. but all three were more than likely shooting long glass that costs at least $2000 new.

purely guessing, i'd say the first was a 105-135. second 70-200, and third maybe the 200mm f/2.




her flickr exif confirmed my guess on #3: Sylvie

but i already knew of this photographer and that she shot with that lens...

 

[Designer]

2. The lens is longer and allows for a wider depth in the focal plane?

Longer focal length lenses will produce a more shallow DOF, not wider.

If you think of DOF in space, then the term "wide" is practically meaningless.

DOF is figured as being a range of acceptable focus beginning at some distance from the lens and extending back toward the background. The concept of width does not apply, but thickness does.

Please obtain a DOF calculator that you can have with you (on your phone) at all times, and start using it. Its regular use will help clear up any confusion you may have.