Background blur on auto setting help?

I am working with my new XSI. I was taking pictures outside in the full AUTO mode using a 55-250 Canon IS lens in this case. Attached (hopefully) you will see a fairly nice picture of a little girl in bright light but clear. Behind her you will notice the slight BLUR of the trees and background.

How should I have shot this picture to avoid the blur yet have the nice clear subject? Is this an AF issue? I know AE will blur the background but what should I do in AUTO mode about this?

Thanks for any suggestions.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

With full Auto and with no EXIF data we have no way of knowing ISO setting, aperture or shutter speed. Without knowing aperture setting, focus distance and focal length we cannot determine depth of field (DoF).

However, if you get those values from your camera or from the EXIF in the image file and go to http://www.dofmaster.c​om, you can come up with the DoF.

Anyway, the root cause of the lack of sharpness in the background is that the DoF is too shallow. However, these are not defects in the system - they are the symptoms of the physics of the situation. In order to get a sharper background (if that is what you really want), you need more DoF, which can be attained by moving to Tv mode, using a shutter speed of about 1/focal length (Ex. with focal length = 125, use 1/125" shutter speed).

The result will be an aperture that is more stopped down, giving a greater DoF. If that is still not good enough, you can bone up on hyperfocal distance and find out how to set up the shot using the hyperfocal distance in order to get the best compromise between near and far items of interest.

If, after all that, you still need a greater DoF, you will have to set the ISO higher and shoot it one more time.

Most photographers try very hard to get that shallow depth of field to blur the background. It helps highlight the main subject in clear focus.

mike62 wrote in post #6133672
How should I have shot this picture to avoid the blur yet have the nice clear subject? Is this an AF issue? I know AE will blur the background but what should I do in AUTO mode about this?

Thanks for any suggestions.

Your first question, how to avoid the blur yet have a nice clear subject. Well you have a nice clear subject. In fact the blur'd background helps the subject in your foreground stand out. This is good

This is not an AF issue. It looks like the girl was a good distance from the trees. Just like your eyes the camera can't focus on 2 different points at once, you either focus on the girl or the trees. The other on will be blurry if they are far enough apart. Also as you where probably using the 55-250 the distance would have been more exagerated the more you zoom in.

AE does not blur anything. AE is to do with setting the exposure which is to do with the brightness of the image (very simplified)

What should you do in AUTO mode? Well Rob explained very well how moving to the more manual modes will help. If you must use auto mode you have a few options.

If the camera is on portrait mode it will try to get this narrow depth of field (small part of image in focus the rest blurred out, usually what you want when a person is the subject). If the camera is on landscape mode it will try to keep a huge area of the image in focus. You can also stick the camera on A-DEP. In A-Dep mode the camera tries to keep everything in focus.

Those are the answers to your questions but really if you want more control you will need to venture into the creative modes on the camera, its not as hard as you'd think

The blur is what makes the photo nice. Why on earth would you want that to be sharp?

If you put it on landscape mode, the one with the picture of a mountain and a cloud, then it will help. You can also use the wider end of the lens and try to keep the subject as close to the background that you want in focus as possible.


If you decide to venture into the Av mode then pick an aperture of 11 of higher, and adjust your ISO so you have a decent shutter speed. If the shutter speed gets to be over about 1/2000 then lower the ISO to 100 or 200 and if it gets down below about 1/100 then increase the ISO. You should be able to raise it to 400 or 800 with out any real problems. Then use the same advice about a wide angle and a subject close to the background.
The semi-auto modes aren't that bad, and this is the right time to try that out.

Titus213 wrote in post #6135487
Most photographers try very hard to get that shallow depth of field to blur the background. It helps highlight the main subject in clear focus.

I agree! However, when I started off I tried to use an aperture that either put everything in focus or was the lens' sharpest setting, usually around f/8. Now that I've been doing it longer my priorities have changed and that "issue" with blurred backgrounds has become something I want to achieve in many photos.

The two ways to sharpen up the background is to use a shorter focal length and get closer, or use a smaller aperture. You might find that you're a bit dissatisfied with more of the photos when the whole scene is in focus, though you can't quite put your finger on the cause. That will probably be part of the reason.

I'm going to add my $.02 to this for what it's worth. Please don't take any offense to any of this as these are strictly my opinions.

It seems to me that a lot of "newbies" try to get as much DOF as they can regardless of what they're shooting. Maybe it's just because I've been shooting for so long, but I really just don't understand this. DOF is a very powerful tool for photographers as it can be used to put emphasis on the central subject in the image (in this case the little girl). As far as the DOF with this shot goes, I think it's good and in fact, I would actually like to see the background blurred a little more. As Bob said, it's hard to make a specific evaluation without all of the technical details as there are many things that can effect this, but in either case, I don't think the DOF was really a problem at all with this shot.

To me, the problems with this shot (not to get away from the op's question) are in other areas. The two biggest things that draw my attention here are that 1.) The child is dead center in the image (another common newbie mistake) and 2.) The color is off. For shooting this landscape, I would have most definitely followed the rule of thirds here and put the girl in the right third of the image. I also think I would have cropped this in just a little more to the girls waist instead of framing at her knees. I would also add that the "pose" here is a little static...a much more dynamic shot would have been to catch the girl in mid-swing (maybe as she hit the ball). As far as the color goes, it really looks to yellow to me...I would really go back and reprocess the colors here.

My suggestions to the OP would be to not worry so much about getting EVERYTHING in focus and maybe just get a book with a good introduction to photography so as to learn how to use these things to one's best advantage .

Again, just my thoughts...
Jim

Walczak Photo wrote in post #6145220
I'm going to add my $.02 to this for what it's worth. Please don't take any offense to any of this as these are strictly my opinions.

It seems to me that a lot of "newbies" try to get as much DOF as they can regardless of what they're shooting. Maybe it's just because I've been shooting for so long, but I really just don't understand this. DOF is a very powerful tool for photographers as it can be used to put emphasis on the central subject in the image (in this case the little girl). As far as the DOF with this shot goes, I think it's good and in fact, I would actually like to see the background blurred a little more. As Bob said, it's hard to make a specific evaluation without all of the technical details as there are many things that can effect this, but in either case, I don't think the DOF was really a problem at all with this shot.

To me, the problems with this shot (not to get away from the op's question) are in other areas. The two biggest things that draw my attention here are that 1.) The child is dead center in the image (another common newbie mistake) and 2.) The color is off. For shooting this landscape, I would have most definitely followed the rule of thirds here and put the girl in the right third of the image. I also think I would have cropped this in just a little more to the girls waist instead of framing at her knees. I would also add that the "pose" here is a little static...a much more dynamic shot would have been to catch the girl in mid-swing (maybe as she hit the ball). As far as the color goes, it really looks to yellow to me...I would really go back and reprocess the colors here.

My suggestions to the OP would be to not worry so much about getting EVERYTHING in focus and maybe just get a book with a good introduction to photography so as to learn how to use these things to one's best advantage .

Again, just my thoughts...
Jim

Hear, hear!
Well put, Jim.

OP: Your first post suggests that you haven't come across the Depth of Field (DOF) concept yet, or if you have, you didn't understand it.

You've been given some good advice thus far, but can I suggest a little research before you blindly start plugging values into your XSi? It will make what everyone has discussed here make much more sense!

Bob kindly provided the link to www.dofmaster.com . This site is certainly handy, but might be a little bewildering for someone who doesn't fully 'get' what DOF is.

Have a read of this; http://www.ephotozine.​com …/Depth-of-field-explained. It might help clear things up. (As an aside, to find this site I just Googled "Depth of Field Explained"...it was the first search result!)

Once you've got your head around the concept, jump onto http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html to see the individual factors at play. Plug in some values and see what the resultant DOF will be.

Once you've done this, experimenting with your camera will be much easier, and will make more sense because you'll have a grasp of the physical properties of the piece of glass that you're using!

[Aside - shooting on AUTO won't actually let you adjust the aperture...a crucial factor in DOF. You'll have to venture to some of the creative modes to do that. It'll involve more learning, but will open up the full capabilities of your camera. I knocked up this listyesterday for someone who was after some help in getting out of the AUTO setting.]

Walczak Photo wrote in post #6145220
It seems to me that a lot of "newbies" try to get as much DOF as they can regardless of what they're shooting...

Agreed Jim, but it's hardly surprising.

Shallow DOF is possibly the most immediatly accessable novelty when starting out with a dSLR. If a newbie has previously only used a P&S, being able to now get a nice blurred background is a thrill. It makes pictures suddenly look more 'professional'! And better yet - the camera does it all for you!

I should know; I was exactly the same starting out.

It's like the teenager who saves up and buys a fast sports car....they're not going to park it in the garage and read up on the theory behind the combustion engine, they're going to do something they couldn't do before; jump in, start up, and go fast!

Whether you want a sharp or blurred background, the best way to learn what the settings will do for you is to play with this:
Virtual Camera
Notice the background change when you use his "Shutter and Aperture" settings, & should clarify what the DOF utility is telling you.

Then, since the light in that situation is not changing, try manual. For a good starting point, first set the f-stop & shutter speed you need. Then adjust the ISO.
Need an exposure crutch?

This shows how the subject can affect the exposure & why manual keeps me worry free:
Post #47

Since the technical stuff has already been well covered with plenty of recommendations, I would like to just comment on the image itself. Personally, I like the blurred background because it adds depth perception to the image. It also clarifies the point of interest and prevents different areas from competing for attention. Without the blurred background, things would look somewhat flat and lead to being harder to separate background and foreground details. In some situations, that might make the image look to busy or cluttered. In this particular image, there is enough blur to make the girl in the foreground be clearly visible and the background is ... well ... background.

bill boehme wrote in post #6158313
In this particular image, there is enough blur to make the girl in the foreground be clearly visible and the background is ... well ... background.

Except for the logo of the bat (the oval). I'm not convinced that there is enough blur to ensure that the bat doesn't look warped because the inside of the oval almost blends in with the background. If the image were entirely in focus, I think my eye would make me think the bat was somewhat off. Increasing the blur would prevent this.

Reign wrote in post #6160469
Except for the logo of the bat (the oval). I'm not convinced that there is enough blur to ensure that the bat doesn't look warped because the inside of the oval almost blends in with the background. If the image were entirely in focus, I think my eye would make me think the bat was somewhat off. Increasing the blur would prevent this.

Either that, or a little Photoshopping if it is after the fact ... But for future reference, that is a good example of what might happen if the background is not too far OOF. Without doing some pixel peeping, it is possible that it is a contrast issue at that particular point. However, it may or may not be a significant issue. Personally, it didn't attract my attention.