how do i achieve behind blur and infront forcus??? without ps


Status
Not open for further replies.

compro_1975

Senior Member
Apr 24, 2005
1,983
0
0
#1
how do i do so??? the background is blur and the front is very forcus??? and is there a term for this effect?
 

ortega

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 2, 2004
23,694
10
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#3
actually there are a number of factors to consider

1. Focal lenght of lens (the longer the focal lenght the less DOF you get)
2. Aperture (the bigger the aperture (smaller f-stop) the less DOF you get)
3. Subject to camera distance (the higher the magnification the less DOF)
4. Subject to bg distance (the further the blurrer)
5. lens used (some lenses have better bokeh than others)

so for max. effect use all of the above
 

eng_keow

New Member
Oct 8, 2004
1,022
0
0
Mt Alvernia Hospital
www.pbase.com
#4
actually there are a number of factors to consider

1. Focal lenght of lens (the longer the focal lenght the less DOF you get)
2. Aperture (the bigger the aperture (smaller f-stop) the less DOF you get)
3. Subject to camera distance (the higher the magnification the less DOF)
4. Subject to bg distance (the further the blurrer)
5. lens used (some lenses have better bokeh than others)

so for max. effect use all of the above
Wow. So complete. Thanks for sharing.

In other words:

Use tele lenses. For those using macro lenses - like 100mm macro. Even closing the aperature down to f8 can't get the whole dragonfly in focus. I was taught to use f16. Therefore in your case, open the aperture, f2.8 if possible. However, some lenses do not give a sharp image if the aperture is opened wide. So you have to find out about the lens as ortega has mentioned.

Oh, btw, the blurring in the bg is called bokeh. Ppl always like a creamy bokeh. If there are lights in the bg, they will appear as round or octagonal bright spots on the screen. The number of sides that these round lights have depend on the number of blades you have in the lens.
 

hazta

New Member
Jul 17, 2005
1,036
0
0
SG,Northern
#6
Oh, btw, the blurring in the bg is called bokeh.

I think u hav misunderstood e term here. 'Bokeh' is not a term for blurring of BG but instead in simple term, it represents e degree of quality of e blur.

Do correct me if I'm wrong... :)
 

bwilly

New Member
Aug 28, 2004
1,841
0
0
45
Woodlands
www.markkhor.com
#7
I think u hav misunderstood e term here. 'Bokeh' is not a term for blurring of BG but instead in simple term, it represents e degree of quality of e blur.

Do correct me if I'm wrong... :)

There is no such word. I have never read such a word in books or magazine, except for here.
Its more of a local photography slang.

Correct me if I am wrong, then I must be reading all the "wrong" magazines/books.
 

#8
There is no such word. I have never read such a word in books or magazine, except for here.
Its more of a local photography slang.

Correct me if I am wrong, then I must be reading all the "wrong" magazines/books.
overseas websites also use the word "bokeh iirc...
 

G-man

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2006
2,295
6
38
My House
#9
Bokeh comes from the Japanese word boké, which means blur.
 

jbma

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2003
3,287
0
0
Tampines
#12
There is no such word. I have never read such a word in books or magazine, except for here.
Its more of a local photography slang.

Correct me if I am wrong, then I must be reading all the "wrong" magazines/books.
There is such word as bokeh and it is not a local slang.
 

zoossh

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2005
8,725
0
0
Singapore
#13
I think u hav misunderstood e term here. 'Bokeh' is not a term for blurring of BG but instead in simple term, it represents e degree of quality of e blur.

Do correct me if I'm wrong... :)
em, i'm wasn't sure if bokeh can be applied to means just blurring because blur can mean so many things, it can mean motion blur too, handshake blur or out of focus. softness of a lens at extremes of lens aperture can sometimes add on to that perception of blurriness. even if it means just the degree of blurriness, as in how a single light source diffuse into a blob, i wonder if a picture that is all out of focus without a foreground subject in focus, can be called a picture with bokeh.

sometimes jargons can help the same community communicate faster but can be alien to others and the newcomers. it helps to consolidate ideas and technique behind a concept.
 

hazta

New Member
Jul 17, 2005
1,036
0
0
SG,Northern
#14
em, i'm wasn't sure if bokeh can be applied to means just blurring because blur can mean so many things, it can mean motion blur too, handshake blur or out of focus. softness of a lens at extremes of lens aperture can sometimes add on to that perception of blurriness. even if it means just the degree of blurriness, as in how a single light source diffuse into a blob, i wonder if a picture that is all out of focus without a foreground subject in focus, can be called a picture with bokeh.

sometimes jargons can help the same community communicate faster but can be alien to others and the newcomers. it helps to consolidate ideas and technique behind a concept.

Yeah agreed!

However, if u read carefully, in my statement, (Bokeh' is not a term for blurring of BG but instead in simple term, it represents e degree of quality of e blur.), e last word "blur" here is complementing e former "blurring of BG". :)
 

zoossh

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2005
8,725
0
0
Singapore
#15
Yeah agreed!

However, if u read carefully, in my statement, (Bokeh' is not a term for blurring of BG but instead in simple term, it represents e degree of quality of e blur.), e last word "blur" here is complementing e former "blurring of BG". :)
i think it is the latter statement now that got me confused.

so is this considered bokeh?



it is done by deliberately manually off focus without nothing in focus.
 

hazta

New Member
Jul 17, 2005
1,036
0
0
SG,Northern
#16
i think it is the latter statement now that got me confused.

so is this considered bokeh?



it is done by deliberately manually off focus without nothing in focus.
No, as I said earlier 'Bokeh' in simple term is e degree of quality of a blur.

Wat u hav here is a blur pic. If u hav 2 of e same kind of diz pix taken say for example w diff lens, u then can compare which lens produces a better 'bokeh' (meaning in much simpler term, more pleasing/smooth blur).

R u still blur??? :bsmilie: Juz kidding.... :)
 

zoossh

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2005
8,725
0
0
Singapore
#17
No, as I said earlier 'Bokeh' in simple term is e degree of quality of a blur.

Wat u hav here is a blur pic. If u hav 2 of e same kind of diz pix taken say for example w diff lens, u then can compare which lens produces a better 'bokeh' (meaning in much simpler term, more pleasing/smooth blur).

R u still blur??? :bsmilie: Juz kidding.... :)
my question is still the same. do you need to have a subject in the foreground focused, such that the off focus background can be considered as having a degree of "bokeh"? if i manually focused at a focal plane (air) in front of the background objects, the entire picture will be blurred as above, but apart from not having a foreground subject in focus, it has bokeh and the bokeh is the same as having a subject in the foreground focused.

if it sounds technically confusing, let's compare two situation.

you put an apple 1m from you, and there is a tree 10m from you.
you focus on the apple, the tree would help to achieve the effect of bokeh behind in contrast to the apple.

now you take away the apple,
and you focus at the empty place where the apple used to be at 1m away (manually), the tree would be in the same degree of blurriness as above. the background looks virtually blurred as there is nothing in the foreground, like what i show in the picture above. now do you use consider that this picture has achieved the effect of bokeh?

if what i understand you so far, are you saying that bokeh is not the effect of blurriness created by juxtaposing appropriate relationship of the sensor, aperture, subject and background. it simply refers to the measurement of the degree of blurriness.

so in short, like "long" and "length" are different terminologies used in different ways, you are saying it is wrong to describe bokeh as the effect of being blurred, but rather bokeh is simply the degree of blurriness, or the amount of penumbra created? did i understand you correctly?
 

jdredd

New Member
Mar 30, 2006
1,266
0
0
#18
my question is still the same. do you need to have a subject in the foreground focused, such that the off focus background can be considered as having a degree of "bokeh"? if i manually focused at a focal plane (air) in front of the background objects, the entire picture will be blurred as above, but apart from not having a foreground subject in focus, it has bokeh and the bokeh is the same as having a subject in the foreground focused.

if it sounds technically confusing, let's compare two situation.

you put an apple 1m from you, and there is a tree 10m from you.
you focus on the apple, the tree would help to achieve the effect of bokeh behind in contrast to the apple.

now you take away the apple,
and you focus at the empty place where the apple used to be at 1m away (manually), the tree would be in the same degree of blurriness as above. the background looks virtually blurred as there is nothing in the foreground, like what i show in the picture above. now do you use consider that this picture has achieved the effect of bokeh?

if what i understand you so far, are you saying that bokeh is not the effect of blurriness created by juxtaposing appropriate relationship of the sensor, aperture, subject and background. it simply refers to the measurement of the degree of blurriness.

so in short, like "long" and "length" are different terminologies used in different ways, you are saying it is wrong to describe bokeh as the effect of being blurred, but rather bokeh is simply the degree of blurriness, or the amount of penumbra created? did i understand you correctly?
you are getting there... but not quite. its not so much the measurement of the DEGREE of blurriness, but the QUALITY of blurriness.
for example, if u take the canon 85mm 1.8... and compare to the 85 1.2... both will blur the background to more or less the same degree - say using the apple shot that u suggested.

but, the quality of the 1.2's will be better. because the background assumes a dreamy, smooth almost painted on quality. another way people use to compare bokeh, is the kind of circles that you get from lights in the background... good bokeh is where the circle are very ROUND and the edges diffuse into the background. bad bokeh is where u can actually make out the no. of shutter blades, and theres a very defined edge.
 

hazta

New Member
Jul 17, 2005
1,036
0
0
SG,Northern
#19
you put an apple 1m from you, and there is a tree 10m from you.
you focus on the apple, the tree would help to achieve the effect of bokeh behind in contrast to the apple.

now you take away the apple,
and you focus at the empty place where the apple used to be at 1m away (manually), the tree would be in the same degree of blurriness as above. the background looks virtually blurred as there is nothing in the foreground, like what i show in the picture above. now do you use consider that this picture has achieved the effect of bokeh?
Whether there is a focussed subject or not, n e BG looks blurred, there will b 'Bokeh'. I reiterate dat it is e quality of e blur.

When there is a focussed subject with a blur BG, it helps our eyes see e subject in focussed more clearly. Diz blur is caused by shallow DOF. It has got nothin to do with 'Bokeh'.

'Bokeh' is not talking abt DOF. It is a term used to describe how nice, smooth n pleasing a blur is. :)
 

Scaglietti

New Member
Jan 14, 2005
1,541
0
0
#20
Not just the depth of field and the roundness of the aperture blades (not shutter) affects the bokeh. There is another important characteristics of the lens that affects the quality of bokeh is spherical abberation. This is the charactistic that Nikkor DC lens adjust to give you the perfect bokeh.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom