Capturing sun flares with a shallow depth of field?

I want to shoot with a 5DM3 and a 70-200mm f/2.8L at around golden hour to get some soft warm light and some sun flares. From what I have read you need use a narrow aperture around f/22, and a wide focal length of around 18mm to get the sun flares. I'd like to shoot around around f5 to keep my subjects (kids) in focus but blur the background, though if I do this I will not be able to capture sun flares. How do you both blur the background and capture sun flares?

Thanks.

southwestform wrote in post #18440719
I want to shoot with a 5DM3 and a 70-200mm f/2.8L at around golden hour to get some soft warm light and some sun flares. From what I have read you need use a narrow aperture around f/22, and a wide focal length of around 18mm to get the sun flares. I'd like to shoot around around f5 to keep my subjects (kids) in focus but blur the background, though if I do this I will not be able to capture sun flares. How do you both blur the background and capture sun flares?

Thanks.

As you close down aperture, the blades effect the light sources and how they appear when they flare up. Be it the sun or a street light or even a star/planet/moon in the sky. Wide open will be round, so no spikes. As the blades close, spikes form. Number of blades influences number of spikes. And different configurations produce different spikes too. If you like the multi-point stars, some lens's blades do that better, while others produce less spikes and larger fatter spikes.

You won't get spikes at F5.

By the way, focal length has nothing to do with the spikes. You can get spikes at 200mm. Heck, I can get spikes at 3,000mm on a scope stopped down to F20 when I shoot stars.

If you want to shoot fast focal-ratio for shallow depth of field and get spikes on the sun, that requires post processing.

I use StarSpikes Pro (plugin for PS) when I want to apply different spikes to light sources. Or you can just make a brush type yourself and apply it (youtube videos on how to make brush presets to create your own star spikes).

Very best,

You don't necessarily need to stop down very far, this is f/5.6, and I think you will agree that I have plenty of star spikes in this one. Given that aperture is relative to the focal length, what really matters most is how many stops you have stopped down from maximum. This was shot on a constant f/2.8 lens, so I was stopped down by two stops. Just about where the OP wants to be. The number of blades and things like curved blades do make a difference. I know that this lens has straight blades, but I forget the number off the top of my head.

Photo from BigAl007's gallery.

Couldn't you go back to old-school and just use star filters?

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …R8_77mm_8_Point​_Star.html

Or won't this work at wider apertures?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18440812
Couldn't you go back to old-school and just use star filters?

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …R8_77mm_8_Point​_Star.html

Or won't this work at wider apertures?

I still have my old Cokin A Series one from my film days. They do work at any aperture, actually you don't even need to mount it to a lens to see the effect. The biggest issue really is that even the 4 point one I have makes everything quite soft too. If you hold it to the light right you can actually see the lines that are scored into it.

I have to go out for a while now, I'll post some shots of it when I get back.

Alan

Anything in front of the aperture of the lens will have an effect like this. Introducing something that physically blocks the aperture stops it down a little and lowers overall resolution and will produce the flare on light points. The same thing is super common in astrophotography with a telescope with a central obstruction due to a 2nd mirror, suspended. The veins give the 4 point flare on light sources. And focusing masks like bahtinov masks produce a 6 point flare and odd shape, but also stop down the scope. It also reduces contrast and resolution. Many have forgotten to take the mask off and then shoot a photo and get a lower contrast, lower resolution, softer, but full of flare spikes image.

Size of light source matters. Pin point light sources will produce flare while a large light source can often not produce flare. Lens design plays a huge role. Some lenses hardly flare at all. Some flare with huge spikes. It comes down to coatings, element design and blade design. Some lenses are desirable for their ability to get 14+ sharp spikes and have a massive blade count (9+). Some lenses are not desirable because they flare so awful and you can see the element design in the flare (Tokina!).

While the ability to produce the flare is relative; wide angle will do it easier, than a telephoto with shallow depth of field.

Try and find an image of star spikes from the sun (a large greater than 2 degree object light source) with a long focal length that is not shot at extremely small aperture or something in front of the aperture.

++++++++++++

Since you're shooting the sun, here's some example of how lens design and blade count and shape greatly influence how spikes can look.

And these are all bad, in my opinion, as far as spike quality looks:

Canon 22mm F2 STM @ F16 (bad flare)

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ojZf​EK

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pad2​aK

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qyZX​4s

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/q2HQ​w6

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oqV1​jQ

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/EoAY​GN

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/FzQe​UR