What to do about ugly background?

[ratssass]

....ever think they are all altered/unaltered??...I wouldn't know unless it was screamin' at me.I didn't think the OP's original shot was so "ugly" that it couldn't possibly be a keeper.The Op objected to the fence,looking for a way to make it more appealing in his/her eyes,and it escalated into "who's opinion has more credibility" argument.Leave your ego's out of it,sheezus.....

 

[Buckster]

Not sure about anyone else, but Buckster, I'm learning a lot from you --appreciate you taking the time to 'teach.'

Thank you kindly. Always glad to help if I can.

How about a WAG from the other Charlie? I'm going to guess #1 is the fake.

My reason is different than Pixmedics.

Much appreciated! Thanks for weighing in!

 

[HughGuessWho96 11]

Yall are so good! I'm still learning how to use photoshop....

ndancona- Your edit is probably closest to what I had in mind to distract from the background. Can you tell me how you did it? How did you extend the background/fence? And how did you add so much blur to the background?

Thanks everyone!

The blur background technique is called Bokeh.

Bokeh

Blurred background, is NOT Bokeh. The quality or characteristics of the out of focus area is the "Bokeh".

Even the link you reference states; "Bokeh describes the appearance, or "feel," of out-of-focus areas. Bokeh is not how far something is out-of-focus, bokeh is the character of whatever blur is there"

 

[Buckster]

I can pretty much guantee that I could tell, or at least confuse it for a crappy lens.

This will be child's play for you and a couple other purists with the keen eyes of a hawk, no doubt, but it's worth others having a look to see if they can easily spot the fake. Since a fake blur (ESPECIALLY a fake blur made in PS) sucks SO horribly bad, it should be obvious to all. So, let's have some fun.

One of these is a fake blur. Not only that, but it was faked in PS, which makes it especially suck. Which is the obvious fake blur, and what makes it obvious?

Well, I was hoping Charlie G. would show how easily he can point out the fake, but I guess that's not going to happen, and I don't see anyone else guessing, so I suppose it's time for the reveal.

#3 is the one with the fake blur.

To those who thought to peek under the covers at the EXIF for a clue, I switched that data between #1 and #3. So #3 was actually the one shot at f/22, and #1 was shot at f/4. To be perfectly clear, #1 and #2 are SOOC as it pertains to the blur and bokeh - no funny business at all.

Thanks to all who played along!

From my point of view (and I think fairly well confirmed by this little test), fake blur, even fake blur made in Photoshop, even fake blur made in Photoshop by a mere hobbyist (let alone a professional), is not as obvious as some might claim, and doesn't necessarily "suck", so the idea that it should "never" be used is without foundation.

My advice is: Don't limit yourself. Learn all you can, and feel free to use whatever tools and techniques you think are appropriate whenever you like.

 

[unpopular]

What lens did you use on #2? Bokeh looks amazing!

 

[Buckster]

What lens did you use on #2? Bokeh looks amazing!

Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM shot at 84mm @f/4 on Canon 5DMKII.

 

[snowbear114 46]

To those who thought to peek under the covers at the EXIF for a clue, I switched that data between #1 and #3.

Yep - this was my M.O.! I wondered about that.

My advice is: Don't limit yourself. Learn all you can, and feel free to use whatever tools and techniques you think are appropriate whenever you like.

Thank you for an interesting demonstration. :thumbsup:

 

[skieur]

Are you really too lazy to shoot at f/1.2, amolitor? I mean seriously, how much effort does it take to screw on an ND filter?

Interesting that you indicated in Confessions that you were too cheap to buy an ND filter and now you are advising someone else to use one.

 

[amolitor]

Are you really too lazy to shoot at f/1.2, amolitor? I mean seriously, how much effort does it take to screw on an ND filter?

Interesting that you indicated in Confessions that you were too cheap to buy an ND filter and now you are advising someone else to use one.

We were both joking. I'm too cheap to buy an ND filter too. And I didn't hire an identical kid and dog. And I didn't build an identical fence.

 

[AggieBecky]

Wow, this turned into quite the discussion! Obviously I agree with Buckster otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place. This was a 40 minute shoot done with a cousin who lives 6 hours away from me, in her backyard because she just had a c-section and was not up for going to an alternative location (I asked, she wasn't up for it). I had 30 minutes to shoot both the 2 1/2 year old and his 1 month old baby sister. I ended up taking the advice of one of the earliest responses to this thread and went with a picture where there was eye contact being made. I did follow the instructions on adding blur in photoshop but it never looked right because it then blurred even the grass around the boy, which didn't look natural to me. If I had more time I might play with it more but right now I need to edit another shoot. Thanks everyone for the opinions and insight!

 

[cgipson1]

Wow, this turned into quite the discussion! Obviously I agree with Buckster otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place. This was a 40 minute shoot done with a cousin who lives 6 hours away from me, in her backyard because she just had a c-section and was not up for going to an alternative location (I asked, she wasn't up for it). I had 30 minutes to shoot both the 2 1/2 year old and his 1 month old baby sister. I ended up taking the advice of one of the earliest responses to this thread and went with a picture where there was eye contact being made. I did follow the instructions on adding blur in photoshop but it never looked right because it then blurred even the grass around the boy, which didn't look natural to me. If I had more time I might play with it more but right now I need to edit another shoot. Thanks everyone for the opinions and insight!

View attachment 47971

This shot is fine as it is... does not need blur! It is a little unconventional, but that is not a bad thing! It shows off the boy and his dog very well! It is a memory.. and that tongue, wow! lol!

 

[kundalini]

Awesome discussions about pre-conceived ideals. It seems the proof is in the pudding. And it seems that Bill Cosby was not harmed in any way, but there might be a few less crows flying about.

 

[unpopular]

Are you really too lazy to shoot at f/1.2, amolitor? I mean seriously, how much effort does it take to screw on an ND filter?

Interesting that you indicated in Confessions that you were too cheap to buy an ND filter and now you are advising someone else to use one.

derrrp.

What lens did you use on #2? Bokeh looks amazing!

Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM shot at 84mm @f/4 on Canon 5DMKII.

And a zoom nonetheless! That is impressive.

 

[kundalini]

And a zoom nonetheless! That is impressive.

os·ten·ta·tious

/ˌɒs

tɛnˈteɪ

ʃəs, -tən-/ Show Spelled [os-ten-tey-shuh

s, -tuh

n-] Show IPA
adjective

1. characterized by or given to pretentious or conspicuous show in an attempt to impress others: an ostentatious dresser.

2.(of actions, manner, qualities exhibited, etc.) intended to attract notice: Lady Bountiful's ostentatious charity.







You really went out on a limb with that comment. Often times it is a better judgement call to just shut the hell up.

 

[ShooterJ]

*munches popcorn* Please don't stop now! This has been such a fun thread to follow.

EDIT: Totally not relevant to this thread at all, but I kicked my desk with my shin and EVERYTHING became blurry. (Well ok, as far as blur, maybe it was a little relevant?)

Ok, so JUST to clarify... we shouldn't use post processing for blur? (You know I couldn't resist stirring up the hornet's nest again.)

I'm done now...