How to blur a background naturally.

[ILoveChildren]

Does anyone know how to blur the background with the camera instead of using a fake blur in photoshop or some sort of program. I sometimes manage to get a blurred background while taking a photo, but it does not always work. Need some help please.

[That_Fox]

Get closer to the subject and use a faster aperture.

[iadubber]

Larger aperture (ie. a smaller number), closer to subject, and subject as far from the background as possible.

[asysin2leads]

Does anyone know how to blur the background with the camera instead of using a fake blur in photoshop or some sort of program. I sometimes manage to get a blurred background while taking a photo, but it does not always work. Need some help please.

You need to get a firm grasp on depth of field (DoF). A wider aperture (f/1.8-f/2.8) will give you much better DoF (blurred background) than a smaller aperture (f/5.6-f/8). That is only a small piece of the pie. Distance from you to your subject and the subject to the background is also key in getting better DoF. There are DoF calculators out there that are a great tool to use. Google depth of field calculator and you'll see all sorts of resources. Also, the iPhone and Android offers a DoF calculator for your device.

Blurring the background properly in camera looks much more realistic than what is done in PS. Besides, that eliminates one step in post you have to do.

[Octowl]

ND filters

[egordon99]

ND filters

All that would do is cut down the light entering your lens. Doesn't affect the background blur/focus/composition/distance from subject/distance from subject to background....

IF you are shooting in BRIGHT light and need to shoot at f/1.2-2, you MIGHT need an ND filter, but I don't think we're at that point yet ;)

[BlindGuyTakingPictures]

Yes, play around with the recommendation above but be careful because once you start getting more people in the picture there is a balance between using a wider aperture the subjects staying in focus.

[asysin2leads]

Yes, play around with the recommendation above but be careful because once you start getting more people in the picture there is a balance between using a wider aperture the subjects staying in focus.

Correct. Shooting a group of 8 people w/ an aperture of f/2 will no doubt leave several OOF. As a VERY GENERAL rule of thumb, use a 1:1 ratio of people to aperture (ie. a group of 8 gets an f/8 and so on). Again, this is a general rule of thumb and will not work in every instance.

[bobbyz]

You can also use longer focal length to isolate the subject.

[tkbslc]

Correct. Shooting a group of 8 people w/ an aperture of f/2 will no doubt leave several OOF. As a VERY GENERAL rule of thumb, use a 1:1 ratio of people to aperture (ie. a group of 8 gets an f/8 and so on). Again, this is a general rule of thumb and will not work in every instance.

I know you said "very general" rule, but honestly I don't think it is a good rule in about 90% of instances. I agree with f8 for 8 people, but I would probably want f8 for 4 people too. I can't see shots of 2 and 3 people working well at f2 and f2.8, either, unless they are all cheek to cheek. And who wants to use f22 for a large group? That would be way softer than using f8-11.

I might say use f8 for any size group is a more general guideline

[Jay1204]

I would like to tag along in this post and ask further question... Then what would be a good lense for this purpose (blur background)? what would be your first, second, and third choice? (order of more expensive to less expensive lense)

[sf1]

I know you said "very general" rule, but honestly I don't think it is a good rule in about 90% of instances. I agree with f8 for 8 people, but I would probably want f8 for 4 people too. I can't see shots of 2 and 3 people working well at f2 and f2.8, either, unless they are all cheek to cheek. And who wants to use f22 for a large group? That would be way softer than using f8-11.

I might say use f8 for any size group is a more general guideline

Sometimes rules are meant to be broken :) . You can shoot a lens wide open if you know your distance and what the DOF will be at that distance.

To get a blurred background shoot the lens wide opened or close to it (say f2.8, 1.8. 1.4, etc.) and get closer to the subject.

Check out the DOF calculator: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

For me, I used a 50 mm f1.2 lens wide open for this shot - the subjects were about 20 feet away, so I have a DOF of 2.66 feet.
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u198/shanef1/10091138.jpg

Now, here is the same lens at f2.0 from 3 feet - the DOF for this was only 0.1 feet - you can actually see his hair is not in focus.
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u198/shanef1/11091885-Version2-Version21.jpg

[asysin2leads]

I know you said "very general" rule, but honestly I don't think it is a good rule in about 90% of instances. I agree with f8 for 8 people, but I would probably want f8 for 4 people too. I can't see shots of 2 and 3 people working well at f2 and f2.8, either, unless they are all cheek to cheek. And who wants to use f22 for a large group? That would be way softer than using f8-11.

I might say use f8 for any size group is a more general guideline

I would agree.

Sometimes rules are meant to be broken :) . You can shoot a lens wide open if you know your distance and what the DOF will be at that distance.

To get a blurred background shoot the lens wide opened or close to it (say f2.8, 1.8. 1.4, etc.) and get closer to the subject.

Check out the DOF calculator: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

For me, I used a 50 mm f1.2 lens wide open for this shot - the subjects were about 20 feet away, so I have a DOF of 2.66 feet.


Now, here is the same lens at f2.0 from 3 feet - the DOF for this was only 0.1 feet - you can actually see his hair is not in focus.


This is where the aperture is only 1 small part of the equation. The subject in relation to lens and background would apply more here.

[aaron.dunlap]

I would like to tag along in this post and ask further question... Then what would be a good lense for this purpose (blur background)? what would be your first, second, and third choice? (order of more expensive to less expensive lense)

any fast lens. For general purposes, a good fast 50mm lens will give you superb portaits with nice bokeh (background blur). The standard Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and Canon 50mm f/1.8 are both great lenses for around $100. The downside to them is their build quality and number/shape of the aperture blades (6 straight blades yields hexagonal shapes in the bokeh... very hard looking depending on the shot). For a bit more ($300) you can have the 50mm f/1.4 which has more aperture blades which are curved, leading to more pleasing bokeh.

I own the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and my only complaint is its inaccurate auto-focus. But manually focusing it leads to sharp sharp SHARP pictures.

[ssmanak]

Too many new terms for me. Can some one help to what does terms like 'bokeh', 'IQ' etc mean. Regards SSM

[leadwiper]

Too many new terms for me. Can some one help to what does terms like 'bokeh', 'IQ' etc mean. Regards SSM

It's what this topic is about, the background blur......

Read about it at Wikipedia: LINK HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh)

IQ, I believe is Image Quality.

Good luck!!

Scott

[ssmanak]

Thanks for directing to WIKIpedia. Regards SSM

[Joe Ravenstein]

I use very wide aperatures(small numbers) when I want to blur the background and sometimes the foreground. I know bokeh can be added in photoshop but it saves time if you create the desired effect in the camera. I try to use the widest aperatures when I am shooting flowers to draw the eye to what I am trying to make the main subject.

[sctbiggs]

\As a VERY GENERAL rule of thumb, use a 1:1 ratio of people to aperture (ie. a group of 8 gets an f/8 and so on). Again, this is a general rule of thumb and will not work in every instance.

amount of people has nothing to do with it. Depth of the group of people has everything to do with it. I could have 15 people lined up in a single line perpendicular to the lens and shoot at 1.4 and have them all in focus...

i see you posted your disclaimer about how it will not work in every instance but I find fault with that too. It should work in any and every traditional group photo. Unless your group of 8 people are positioned to drastically different depths, an aperture of 8 should be way more than enough.

never heard that rule before... but if it exist, it needs to be tossed out the window. :)

[sctbiggs]

I would like to tag along in this post and ask further question... Then what would be a good lense for this purpose (blur background)? what would be your first, second, and third choice? (order of more expensive to less expensive lense)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423691-USA/Canon_1056B002AA_EF_85mm_f_1_2L_II.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12140-USA/Canon_2515A003_50mm_f_1_4_USM_Autofocus.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html

[asysin2leads]

amount of people has nothing to do with it. Depth of the group of people has everything to do with it. I could have 15 people lined up in a single line perpendicular to the lens and shoot at 1.4 and have them all in focus...

i see you posted your disclaimer about how it will not work in every instance but I find fault with that too. It should work in any and every traditional group photo. Unless your group of 8 people are positioned to drastically different depths, an aperture of 8 should be way more than enough.

never heard that rule before... but if it exist, it needs to be tossed out the window. :)

Yeah, but what schmuck lines 15 people up in a single line and takes a picture on a regular basis? If you want to line people up in straight lines and have ABSOLUTELY no depth to the image, by all means your far more superior way will reign supreme. However, if you want to take a proper picture with people at various heights, angles and depths, then by all means shoot it at f/1.4 and see what kind of crap you put out. I would certainly hope that someone would have enough common sense NOT to stand them in a line and snap a shot.

OP: Don't listen to anything I have to say. Apparently, these guys are so much smarter than I am. I apologize that I have given you such bad advice. Make sure you listen to every word that sctbiggs dishes out and you'll be raking in the money in no time.

[FlyingPhotog]

Too many new terms for me. Can some one help to what does terms like 'bokeh', 'IQ' etc mean. Regards SSM

Bokeh = The pleasing or not pleasing quality of the area that is out of focus (not the amount.) Some lenses render a smoother background blur than others.

IQ = Image Quality

[sctbiggs]

Yeah, but what schmuck lines 15 people up in a single line and takes a picture on a regular basis? If you want to line people up in straight lines and have ABSOLUTELY no depth to the image, by all means your far more superior way will reign supreme. However, if you want to take a proper picture with people at various heights, angles and depths, then by all means shoot it at f/1.4 and see what kind of crap you put out. I would certainly hope that someone would have enough common sense NOT to stand them in a line and snap a shot.

OP: Don't listen to anything I have to say. Apparently, these guys are so much smarter than I am. I apologize that I have given you such bad advice. Make sure you listen to every word that sctbiggs dishes out and you'll be raking in the money in no time.

whoa there killer...

nobody said your advice was bad... You just mentioned some silly general rule of thumb which takes into account absolutely nothing at all. I wasn't attacking you... but the "rule" you mentioned. It is a rule that wouldn't help the OP at all. So, take a breath and relax.

Here's what I was saying... the rule... sure, it would work for moderately decent depth. But that wasn't explained. You just said 8 people, aperature 8. That's great! But to the OP who obviously doesn't understand the first thing about how that works, it's pretty useless info. So the OP goes out and lines those 8 people up because she's going for the generic boring family photo, counts 8 people, uses f8 and doesn't get that blurred background she wanted... for the next shot she staggers them... gives them that depth. She takes the photo and realizes that people are out of focus... little did she know that f8 only reached a certain distance... she had too much depth between her subjects...

that rule worked great the first time but didn't give desired results. The rule which was supposed to work so well for the second shot didn't work at all...

my point, the rule is garbage. you still gotta know how much depth that f8 @ your focal length will give you.

OP just needs a little more knowledge and not some silly rule.

breathe....

[egordon99]

Agree with sctbiggs regarding the f/# of people rule. So for 22 people, you're going to shoot at f/22?
1 person - f/1? Better start saving for that 50mm f/1.0 L :lol:

I've shot ~20 people at f/2 because I needed the light. Standing far enough back to frame everyone at 30mm yielded decent DOF for the shot. It's not perfect, but I needed all the light I could get. I would have needed a thermonuclear powered strobe for f/20 (ok, maybe just ONE AB1600 ;) )

[asysin2leads]

whoa there killer...

breathe....

My apologies. I didn't mean to jump down yours or anyone else's throat. Chalk it up to chasing 5 kids and a wife around Disney in 96 degree heat w/ a extremely painful broken foot. Vicodin was my friend.:D

I have heard several pros use the same "rule of thumb." I was merely passing it on. Proper DoF, as in my earlier posts, bring several factors into the equation.

Agree with sctbiggs regarding the f/# of people rule. So for 22 people, you're going to shoot at f/22?
1 person - f/1? Better start saving for that 50mm f/1.0 L :lol:

I've shot ~20 people at f/2 because I needed the light. Standing far enough back to frame everyone at 30mm yielded decent DOF for the shot. It's not perfect, but I needed all the light I could get. I would have needed a thermonuclear powered strobe for f/20 (ok, maybe just ONE AB1600 ;) )

Granted, some common sense would have to factor in. Therefore, my ex-wife is out of the question. I think the concept they, and therefore, I, was trying to convey is don't try to shoot a group of 10 arranged people at 1.4 from 10' and wonder why most are out of focus. It was a very overly simplified concept.

[misssassylassy]

Bokeh is the blur you get in the background
like this i find it best to stand as far away as you can and zoom in to the max
change your aperture to as wide open as your lens will allow this was using F2.8 which is as wide open as i could get it (lens used Tamron 17-50mm 2.8)

http://i49.tinypic.com/2nm39ch.jpg

[FlyingPhotog]

Bokeh is the blur you get in the background

This is not correct...

"Bokeh" is the (subjective) quality of the area that is OOF. It is strictly qualitative and not quantitative.

[misssassylassy]

This is not correct...

"Bokeh" is the (subjective) quality of the area that is OOF. It is strictly qualitative and not quantitative.

sorry i meant quality of the blur

[sctbiggs]

like this i find it best to stand as far away as you can and zoom in to the max


hmmm...

you want to be as close to the subect as possible. If you're using a 70-200 you need to be further back to fit the subject in the frame but you don't want to just keep backing up because you have enough space to do so. The more you back up, the more depth of focus increases. You want the zoom at 200 but you also want to be as close as you can to your subject for the greatest "blur" effect.

[tkbslc]

I think she meant that stepping back and using a longer lens is better than standing closer and using a wider lens. Given the same framing, going 100mm f4 is going to have lots more blur than 20mm f2.8, but you will be 5x farther back.

[othomas]

To SSMANAK and the original poster,

I suggest you read a book called "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. It will give you a very good grounding in photography.


Here is a review of the book. (http://digital-photography-school.com/understanding-exposure-by-brian-peterson-a-reader-review)

[misssassylassy]

I think she meant that stepping back and using a longer lens is better than standing closer and using a wider lens. Given the same framing, going 100mm f4 is going to have lots more blur than 20mm f2.8, but you will be 5x farther back.


Thanks all i know is i get the most brokeh when i use the zoom to the max

[sctbiggs]

Thanks all i know is i get the most brokeh when i use the zoom to the max

use the zoom to the max but get as close as you can. obviously, if you can't fit the subject in the frame... too close. :)

[tkbslc]

use the zoom to the max but get as close as you can. obviously, if you can't fit the subject in the frame... too close. :)

I don't know. If you don't leave any background, what's the point in blurring it?

[sctbiggs]

I don't know. If you don't leave any background, what's the point in blurring it?

okay... leave subject and as much background as you want. My point is, don't back up if not needed. Stay as close as possible to get as much as you need in the photo while zoomed to the max.