Qn:How to blur background.

[redmonsoon]

Qn:
This was shot at 1/4000, f2.8, 11mm, ISO200.
Keeping it at 11mm, may I know how could I have added more bokeh and blurred the buildings behind the vehicle? Thks.

 

[ortega]

photoshop

 

[Kit]

Its a wide angle. You won't achieve depth of field that significant to throw the building in the background out of focus.

 

[photatographer]

Everything to infinity seems clear. You're probably at the hyperfocal (HFF) distance, note that wider the lens the shorter the HFF. To have even a bit of blur on the background you have to move really close to your subject and Manually set the focus at the shortest possible distance.

refer to http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html for HFF distance

 

[Reportage]

up to what level?

not as good as the real thing.

usually the cheap way is to use maximum zoom at as low a aperture as you can. Usually it means manual focusing.

 

[lenrek]

Why blur it? The picture looks just fine by this way. It give some depth in the picture, and I wanted to try such shot in the street a few months back, but can't find the background like you have there.

If you really want to make "blur" (bokeh?) background for wide angle, try focus on something nearer, set f to maximum and make sure to take the position as close as possible to the object.

Something like this:



Taken using Sigma 10mm FE, f2.8.

The distant between the flower and the camera, is about 10cm only.

 

[photatographer]

up to what level?

Actually the photo look kinda nicer with everything clear

 

[redmonsoon]

Ahhh, I get it, thks for the tips.

If I wish to separate the foreground more, what would u suggest..throw a flash perhaps, to get some glint or shine?

 

[night86mare]

If I wish to separate the foreground more, what would u suggest..throw a flash perhaps, to get some glint or shine?

you need to find something with min focusing distance, and focus on it. that's about the best you can do. you can make it even shallower with close up lenses, if you so wish, or extension tubes, but that's getting a bit extreme i suppose.

anyways, with uwa, it is going to be harder to achieve shallow dof, that's about it

 

[bubbagump]

up to what level?

not as good as the real thing.

usually the cheap way is to use maximum zoom at as low a aperture as you can. Usually it means manual focusing.

Eh, depth of field manipulation result in the blurring of PLANE! not the surrounding area on the photograph itself. Your blur should only be of the background plane.

 

[tammyt]

haiz,
becos of the angle,this is the best that i can do..
select the area and lens blur it, to make it more real, i usually mask it with the orginal file, and highlight/darken bit by bit...
of cos it is the best is to use the right lens, photoshop is just a back up...

 

[lenrek]

Ahhh, I get it, thks for the tips.

If I wish to separate the foreground more, what would u suggest..throw a flash perhaps, to get some glint or shine?

For a reflective surface like a car? Your picture may overexpose. From what I leaned, flash is not very usable when it comes to landscape.

 

[calebk]

For a reflective surface like a car? Your picture may overexpose. From what I leaned, flash is not very usable when it comes to landscape.

Contrary to that, with a reflective surface, flash may actually add more vibrance to your image.

 

[lenrek]

Contrary to that, with a reflective surface, flash may actually add more vibrance to your image.

Err... He is going to or suppose to set F to the maximum or as big as possible for blurring the background... From my experience, if I set my F to the max on a reflective surface plus flash, very difficult for me to get a properly exposed image.

Maybe use ND filter? :think:

Maybe I did not set my flash properly... :think:

:dunno:

 

[calebk]

Err... He is going to or suppose to set F to the maximum or as big as possible for blurring the background... From my experience, if I set my F to the max on a reflective surface plus flash, very difficult for me to get a properly exposed image.

Maybe use ND filter? :think:

Maybe I did not set my flash properly... :think:

:dunno:

Yes, I guess you didn't.

 

[lenrek]

Yes, I guess you didn't.

Can elaborate more on how to do it?

 

[calebk]

Can elaborate more on how to do it?

When you set a wider aperture, you have to compensate accordingly with shutter speed. Now that you are adding flash into the mix, you have to underexpose slightly so that the flash can still fill the image without blowing out the exposure.

 

[Xiao_shin]

Use wide angle TS.

 

[giantcanopy]

Wider angle lenses have a seemingly greater dof. U can try shooting with faster wide angle lenses like 24mm f1.4 but u will probably not be anywhere near that of shooting at wide apertures with lenses of longer focal lengths.

T/S can potentially throw any oof areas into a deeper blur , but will need to position the angle of tilt to see what u are intending to focus on.

Agree that the pic posted looks better without any blur actually :bsmilie:

Ryan

 

[lenrek]

When you set a wider aperture, you have to compensate accordingly with shutter speed. Now that you are adding flash into the mix, you have to underexpose slightly so that the flash can still fill the image without blowing out the exposure.

OK... This seems fully manual. :think:

The last time I had such problem was taking a picture of a dragonfly that sit on a leaf in a pond. The area is covered by trees, so is a bit dark. When I on the flash, the water reflect much of the light that it over-expose the picture. I tried adjust EV, ISO, push F to as far as 16 but I did not play with the shutter speed. Maybe next time I can try again.

Anyway, think we OT too far liao.