So this is where i'm at ... tired "/

[JesyG]

Hello everyone, i joined this form in March of 2009 and this is my first post... I got my Canon Rebel Xsi back in christmas of 2008 and i am to the point where i'm about to sell it... i feel like i read and read and i'm not doing something right...

I want to take pictures of people, portraits etc and the effect that i'm looking for is not happening. I keep reading about depth of field and i'm starting to think that it might be the kit lens. What i'm trying to do is take pictures of people from a reasonable distance (whole body) and get the milky background... i also what to get a lens with the capability of the fish eye effect... what do i do? I need help!!! :(:o

[mike_d]

How far are you from the subject and how far is the subject from the background? The smaller the first relative to the second, the more background blur you'll get. Are you using your lens's widest aperture? Post some examples with the exif data intact.

Canon makes a 15mm fisheye for about $500.

[JesyG]

here is a pic, where do i get the info from? "/

[Mastamarek]

well, thats not a bad pic it just has couple small issues.

1)First, the rock is covering her foot, so you need to move around until you get her all in frame.

2)You said you wanted to get shallow DOF. you can do that by moving back and zooming in to 55mm and then opening the lens as wide as you can. Then the background will be nicely blurred. portrait photographers use lens like 85L II 1.2 or 135L, where the dof is basically paper thin.

[mike_d]

here is a pic, where do i get the info from? "/

Right click, properties, on any picture and go to the details tab. I just dragged this one to my desktop and checked. The data is:

f/5.6
1/500'
ISO 100
47mm
Program mode - portrait mode

What's the max aperture of your lens? Put the dial in Av mode and dial in the biggest aperture you can (smallest number) and see how the background blurs out more. Also, is it just my eyes or the rotation or does she look really stretched out? Did the aspect ratio get changed in the computer because 47mm shouldn't distort like that?

[JesyG]

i had to resize to be able to upload
the smallest f/4.0

[JesyG]

well, thats not a bad pic it just has couple small issues.

1)First, the rock is covering her foot, so you need to move around until you get her all in frame.

2)You said you wanted to get shallow DOF. you can do that by moving back and zooming in to 55mm and then opening the lens as wide as you can. Then the background will be nicely blurred. portrait photographers use lens like 85L II 1.2 or 135L, where the dof is basically paper thin.

when you say "85L II 1.2 or 135L" what does all of that mean? is there a name for it, or a brand? this is part of my frustration, not with you (thank you for your info) in general, i dont seem to get the 'lingo'

[JeffreyG]

For a full body portrait with the lens you have, that is about as blurry a background as you can get. You were at 47mm and you had your lens 'wide open' at f/5.6, which is as large an aperture as that lens has on the long end of the zoom range (the appropriate focal lengths for portraits).

If you want to be able to reduce your depth of field you need a lens that has a larger maximum aperture. A few reasonable possibles that would work are:

1) A fast 50mm prime lens such as the very cheap EF 50/1.8 or the somewhat nicer EF 50/1.4. These lenses are very close in focal length to what you used in that shot (50mm vs. 47mm) and they both are more than three stops faster.

2) A faster zoom lens in the same range to replace your 18-55. A possibility would be something like the Tamron 17-50/2.8. This is a flexible option as you have the zoom range but it won't get the background quite as blurry as it is only 2 stops faster than your current lens.

[SOK]

this is part of my frustration...i dont seem to get the 'lingo'

Have you read Ben's Newbie Guide? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=414088)

Have you checked out the camera simulator? (http://www.photonhead.com/simcam/)

If not, these are two good starting points for a beginner who is struggling with the concepts and terminology.

This site (http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm) is great for explaining some of the strange numbers and terms.

The Depth of Field Calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) is a good tool for quantifying the benefit of a 'faster' lens such as the 50 F/1.8 over the kit lens.

Don't give up on it yet - if this caper was easy everyone would be doing it.

You've taken a good first step by putting your hand up for help. Have a read of the links, and keep the questions coming.

[Wilt]

OK have to estimate your shooting distance but assuming you were 14' from your subject, with an APS-C camera and 47mm FL, you would see an area 6.5' long for the long dimension of the frame...go enough to capture your subject standing. At 14' with f/5.6 you would have a DOF zone that is almost 5' deep, 12-17'. But a DOF zone defines where your eye is fooled into thinking 'in focus' and has nothing to do with Background Blur. Background blur is made greater only by use of a longer FL, changing to f/2.8 will not change things in the same way as using f/4 with a longer FL in terms of the background being thrown out of focus.

Here is a series set up with 75mm f/4 vs. f/2.8 to illustrate change to DOF with aperture change, vs. change to background blur with FL (160mm f/4)

75mm f/4 http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/IMG_3060-1.jpg

75mm f/2.8 http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/IMG_3061-2.jpg

160mm f/4 http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/IMG_3063-3.jpg

[ryant35]

when you say "85L II 1.2 or 135L" what does all of that mean? is there a name for it, or a brand? this is part of my frustration, not with you (thank you for your info) in general, i dont seem to get the 'lingo'

Any lens info without a brand name here are usually Canon. If you want more info on a lens try Google searching for it. "85L II 1.2" in searched will take you to reviews & websites where you can see the price & buy it.


Example:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=85L+II+1.2&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3MOZA_enUS344US345&ie=UTF-8
Gives you:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022112canonef85f12l.asp

[DreDaze]

get a canon 50mm f1.8 before you sell your XSI http://www.adorama.com/CA5018AFU.html the larger aperture(smaller f#) will allow you to isolate your subject much better than 50mm @f5.6

and don't be afraid to post in here...everyone had questions they needed answered at some point

[DStanic]

The kit lens is nice but it probably doesn't have a large enough aperture to blur the background to the extent that you want it to.

If you are able to, try renting a 70-200 f/2.8 lens and do some portraits with that, I love the results I get with mine (and it's only an f/4). Or as others mentioned buying the 50mm f/1.8 lens will show you what shallow depth of field is all about. :)


You've been shooting for less then a year, it takes a while to learn the basics of photography especially if you are not so interested in the science and gear part of photography.

[JesyG]

thank you all for the info, i fell a little better now that i've let it all out and have gotten some help =]]

btw SOK i have read bens newbie guide, i go back to it all the time, thnx!

i would like to rent a lens to see if i can get the results i'm looking for before i go out and buy a $2000 lens! Any sites that are recommended, i dont want to get scammed! "/

thanks again to all of you, i am bookmarking this thread lol

[ryant35]

The 50mm f/1.8 opens the door for a lot more creatvity.

www.lensrentals.com
www.rentglass.com

If you have a local camera store you can get a lens over the weekend for a little less than the online companies. I don't really use my rented lenses during the week, so I don't rent them for a week online. I get them Friday -Monday for 1 day rate at my local Calumet Photographic store.

[JesyG]

Another question... what kind of flash and or lighting do you recommend, please rememeber i'm on a budget... thnx ;]

[Roy G. Biv]

50mm 1.8 ($90-$100) Shot at 1.8
Your kit lens is only capable of 5.6 at 50mm so if you shot this with your lens the background would be way more in focus.

http://molan.smugmug.com/Other/Animals-and-Bugs/IMG8441/690424787_5eHgd-M.jpg

[HappySnapper90]

What i'm trying to do is take pictures of people from a reasonable distance (whole body) and get the milky background... i also what to get a lens with the capability of the fish eye effect... what do i do? I need help!!! :(:o

That's not gonna happen with the kit lens, and not likely for any lens. Standing a reasonable distance to your subject and have a blurred background while getting the whole person in the frame.

You're likely going to need to buy a 85 f1.8 and that means you'll have to back up a bit since your example was 47mm and f5.6 you'll need to be at 85mm and f1.8 to f2.8

[mrfixitx]

For an on Camera flash I would recommend the Canon 430EX. Its a lot less expensive than the 580 EX, it has a swivel and tilt head to let you bounce the flash for a much more natural looking photo.

[chauncey]

Another question... what kind of flash and or lighting do you recommend, please rememeber i'm on a budget... thnx ;
Why would want another piece of gear before you've mastered what you have? You're asking the basic questions and you want to add another variable into the equation?

Read/learn all the technical sticky's in the pertinent sections before adding more gear and...when you add gear, start with better glass.

[golfecho]

Here is a series set up with 75mm f/4 vs. f/2.8 to illustrate change to DOF with aperture change, vs. change to background blur with FL (160mm f/4)

75mm f/2.8 http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/IMG_3061-2.jpg

160mm f/4 http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/IMG_3063-3.jpg
Jess,

Wilt did a really good job of showing you some of the levels of background blur between different apertures. But in the final two examples, look closely. You may be looking at the levels of background blur, but do you see something else? Look at photo content. In both 75mm shots you see the sidewalk and the grass (blurred of course), but in the 160mm shot, there is no sidewalk and grass (blurred or not). Where did it go?

This is another good lesson, although not directly to DOF question. It is in perspective. In order to get the bear (subject) approximately the same size, Wilt had to back up a ways with the longer lens. When he did this, the window in the background was further from his camera, and thus a narrower view of the outside was visible. This is why the grass is not showing. It is still out there, but it is now blocked by the lower part of the window sill. Same subject, slightly blurier background, but a different background PERSPECTIVE.

Many folks when they first start out want the largest zoom range they can find because they think they won't have to "move in closer or move further out" to get the shot they want. Perhaps so with the subject, but you must remember that the scene's composition (the relative perspective to background content, etc) will change due to perspective change.

I know this is off-topic a bit, but Wilt did such a good job with his examples that this other phenomonon was also very clear, so I though I would borrow Wilt's work to make a good point that beginners often misunderstand . . .

[JWright]

Jesy,
One of the best resources I have ever seen for beginning photographers is the Canon Photography Workshop. Even though it is designed primarily for film shooting and has no information on digital photography, it is excellent for learning the basic principles of photography, such as DOF, perspective, exposure and composition.

The DVD can be found at Amazon...

http://www.amazon.com/M2K-Canon-Photography-Workshop/dp/B0007XQ9VE/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1256434916&sr=8-7

I highly recommend it.