Technique or photoshop?

[Big Kev]

I've seem a lot of these kind of insect photos lately, especially on 500px.

I'm curious as to whether it's setup/technique or massive amounts of photoshopping to isolate the subject and then blur the background a lot. I suspect the latter but I'm just seeing what you guys think.

[DexterPunk]

Looks just like a shallow depth of field and lots of vignetting and some post processing on colour etc.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

[norbs]

Looks just like a shallow depth of field and lots of vignetting and some post processing on colour etc.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

What he said.

The biggest fad at the moment seems to be faux vignetting. I blame Top Gear.

[Big Kev]

That was my first thought but the background blur seems to fall off massively making me think there's a bit of post processed blur in there to. I've shot plenty at F2.8 with my macro and the background is still quite discernible.

For instance, this is F7.1.
http://500px.com/photo/57707160?from=popular" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm not sure I'd expect the DOF fall off to be that much at that aperture.

[DexterPunk]

Aperture is not the only factor that determines DOF. Think about a macro lens, even on f/16 you find that up close you have only a thin slice of focus (narrow depth of field). Then take it to the other extreme, use a wide angle lens and almost everything is in focus, even at wider apertures. This is because magnification affects depth of field as well. If a telephoto lens was used here, that seems like it could be totally reasonable. And, you don't know the distance between that butterfly and whatever it was behind it. Could have been 100m away.

It can be hard to tell, but you definitely can achieve a nice out of focus area using smaller apertures when at a higher magnification.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

[DexterPunk]

The other way to do it is a lens or camera system with manual movements. You actually shift the plane of focus... Most know it as 'tilt shift' although some also have 'swing'. Have a look into 'scheimpflug'. It's usually used to get more stuff into focus (architectural images to correct perspective, table top studio images such as product photography for extended or selective focus, and sometimes landscapes) but of course can be used for the opposite.

Most of the time people use a photoshop technique to fake it... This only works for creating out of focus areas, not actually adjusting the plane of focus. It's what people often use to make that miniature effect look.

I'm not convinced that butterfly image has any of that going on though. Maybe a touch of blur tool here and there.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

[w00dsy]

That first one is at f/1.4 so it's no surprise the background it's blurry. However the other one is 5.6 which is normal for a regular lens. On my f/1.8 lens I can have the front of your nose in focus but the back out of focus, depending on how close I am.

[DexterPunk]

Yeah distance affects magnification.

5.6 is also my max aperture on my 400mm. That would blur many a background.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

[Speed]

Obviously both images are very edited but the blur looks like "camera" technique to me.
Lens length and distance from photographer to subject and from subject to background is critical for blurred backgrounds.

One of the rules I try to follow for portrait photography is keeping the main subject at 1/3 distance from me & 2/3 distance from background using the longest lens possible.

The below shots, by Peter Coulson is using a 400mm lens...albeit at 2.8
I've seen him work & he does very little editing.

1890_565378746828376_2011249650_n.jpg

[J.D.]

The biggest fad at the moment seems to be faux vignetting. I blame Top Gear.

The second biggest fad at the moment is shallow depth of field.

I've been taking photographs for 35 years and this is - from memory - the third and most irritating episode of it. I blame Fred Miranda (well, his website anyway). This time it's driven by sharpness freaks and competitive spending.

Like everything, there's a time and a place for it.

[durbster]

The biggest fad at the moment seems to be faux vignetting. I blame Top Gear.

The second biggest fad at the moment is shallow depth of field.

Funny you should say that because I've noticed it on TV a lot recently. I couldn't tell you if it's a new thing or not, just that I have noticed it in the past year or so. I watch a lot of amateur stuff on Vimeo and it's extremely prevalent there too, but also on the budget shows like Sherlock e.g.

[Speed]

Lol, sounds like you could be describing me JD.

While I've never had more than a glance at Fred Miranda, I love a shallow depth of field & anything of mine that isn't sharp gets deleted.

[DexterPunk]

I was once told at Uni that if you're going to drop something out of focus, make sure it's properly out. That way the viewer doesn't confuse it with a technical mistake. It's quite obvious it was intentional. I don't have a huge issue with shallow dof.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

[durbster]

I think the only problem is that if everybody does it all the time, it's no longer interesting.

[DexterPunk]

I see it as something to isolate the subject, or point of interest... Rather than it simply being interesting.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

[norbs]

I see it as something to isolate the subject, or point of interest... Rather than it simply being interesting.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

[J.D.]

I was once told at Uni that if you're going to drop something out of focus, make sure it's properly out. That way the viewer doesn't confuse it with a technical mistake. It's quite obvious it was intentional. I don't have a huge issue with shallow dof.

There's out of focus and out of focus; a little bit out or a lot out.

Backgrounds are important and have a contextual value as well. If you are trying to isolate your subject from the background, you have to ask yourself whether the background has a value in the shot or not. If it does then it needs to be sufficiently in focus to be recognisable but not to dominate. If it has no value in the shot then completely out of focus is okay but then you need to ask yourself why you are taking that photograph with that background.

I do this with every piece to camera I shoot every day. This is the bit where the reporter talks to the camera. It has a two-fold job. Firstly, it puts them in the location of the story which lends credibility because it shows we were there and secondly, it usually introduces an element or elements of the story which we we may not be able to cover any other way.

The FM guys do it to show how sharp their lenses are. The contrast in sharpness between the subject and the background enhances the apparent sharpness in the same way that contrast between pixels improves apparent edge sharpness in Photoshop. Then there's endless discussions about "bokeh". If you're cranking off about how "creamy" the bokeh is, the shot is pointless, IMHO.

On top of that, as Woodsy pointed out, it is possible to have someone's nose in focus and their ear out. It is possible with his 1.8 lens and many people now shoot this way. IMHO, this is technically wrong. If you are going to have the subject in focus and the background out then IMHO, all of the subject should be in focus (within reason). That said, I always focus on the eyes.

On the issue of deleting things which are not absolutely sharp, I largely agree. The only difference I have with it is probably due to my news background. If the shot is great and you are the only one who has it, don't delete it (besides, some of you psychopaths are using 1Dx bodies...). In news, you only get one crack at it. In a studio or setup shot you have enough time to make sure it's sharp.

I see it as something to isolate the subject, or point of interest... Rather than it simply being interesting.

Yep and a subtle vignette will do the same thing, even subliminally.

[J.D.]

Lol, sounds like you could be describing me JD.

While I've never had more than a glance at Fred Miranda, I love a shallow depth of field & anything of mine that isn't sharp gets deleted.

I'm really referring to the guys who spend their entire time taking pictures of $100 bills to show how sharp their lenses are. I can't imagine you ever doing that or waving MTF charts at me.

That's why I hang out here and not at FM.

[DexterPunk]

All good points... And I sometimes do forget to consider the level of focus in the background as to how relevant it is to the 'story'. Although I am very aware of backgrounds in general. Actually.. after posting that, I wondered if it has something to do with people being a little more lazy with lighting. Not all of course, but I'm guessing some find it a lot easier to illuminate a scene evenly (or just use natural light) and drop focus to isolate, instead of lighting the scene to do this. Of course this only really applies where studio lighting would be helpful. I'm really just pondering out aloud here...

[J.D.]

Actually.. after posting that, I wondered if it has something to do with people being a little more lazy with lighting.

Absolutely! I do it all the time by lighting that way, though my preference is for things to look as though they're not lit at all.

This might be one reason why vignettes have become so popular.

[Swain OHaw]

This might be one reason why vignettes have become so popular.

They have? Nobody seems to like mine!