Want blurred background - getting blurred foreground:(

mumof2

IMG_3281 by Just Imagine..., on Flickr

Nothing wrong with focusing here I think......

IMG_3273 by Just Imagine..., on Flickr

Thanks again everyone. I've tried everything - small aperature moved in and stepped back to take pics, larger aperature, same again, but not getting what I want. Tried Manual mode too:D

Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong?

(I want to be able to take pics like these in this link http://www.keukenhof.nl/)

stabo

Turn off auto focus and manual focus on the foreground.

DeVore

aye, or cheat like i do and half-press the button to autofocus while you are pointing at the foreground object as a sort of range-finder , then without leaving your finger off, frame your shot and press the button and the focus wont change (at least on my Canon!).

Or manual focus

Also, just wanted to say that I really like that shot, its good to have blurred objects in the foreground too, can give a sense of depth.

DeV.

The blurry stuff is usually far away from the point of focus.

Try moving the background pobjects (items you wish were out of focus) a little further back (the farrer back, the less detail) and bringing the front items closer (or getting rid of them altogether).



If you plan to do a lot of this sorta thing, investing in a 50mm f/1.8 lens is advisable if you haven't got one (I can't check the exif data, so unsure what f/stop you used here). f/1.8 allows a very shallow depth of field/more blur.


EDIT: From reading the above replies, i may have taken your post wrongly. I thought you wanted the book name in focus and the threads behind it out of focus. The other guys above seem to be replying as though you wanted the out of focus threads, that are at the very front, in focus, and the book, etc. out of focus. In that case, it could be an issue with the minimum focusing distance of your lens.

You look to have the camera very, very close to the thread at the front. Check the front of our lens, and it usually gives the lens details, including the minimum focus distance (or just Google it). Sorry if I took you up wrong.

sineadw

Deleted User wrote: »

it could be an issue with the minimum focusing distance of your lens.

Was just about to suggest the same. Switch to manual focus and bring it to the closest possible point (the one at the other end to the infinity sign) and then focus with your feet.

mumof2

stabo wrote: »

Turn off auto focus and manual focus on the foreground.

Wasn't using autofocus......

mumof2

These are the shot details - blurred foreground shot

f4 1/800s 24mm ISO100 Manual focusing

Lens Tokina 12 - 24 f4 IF DX

Body - Canon 450D

Hope that helps give correct advice.

stabo

mumof2 wrote: »

Wasn't using autofocus......

Nothing wrong with using autofocus if you were using it.:rolleyes:

Thecageyone

Place the focus point in the view finder right over what you want to keep in focus. Use spot metering and a wide aperture.

Zillah

I don't understand what is being asked here. I don't even see any images on that link that makes any significant use of a narrow depth of field. If anything, there's a few with a very wide depth of field, must be stopped down.

Er, mum, could you describe more clearly what it is you're trying to do?

mumof2

sineadw wrote: »

Was just about to suggest the same. Switch to manual focus and bring it to the closest possible point (the one at the other end to the infinity sign) and then focus with your feet.

Had to read this about 5 times to figure out what you meant, (the other end to the infinity sign), think this means the larger end of the focus range of the lens

Sorry, this terminology is new to me.......:D:o

sineadw

According to the internetz the minimum focussing distance is about a foot. If you were any closer than that when you took the shot the shot then the focus would be further back in the shot than you wanted it to be. Make sense? You just need to be aware of this and try the shot again Just keep an eye on what's in focus in the viewfinder and you shouldn't have any issues..

sineadw

mumof2 wrote: »

Had to read this about 5 times to figure out what you meant, (the other end to the infinity sign), think this means the larger end of the focus range of the lens

Sorry, this terminology is new to me.......:D:o

No, I'm not talking about zoom, I'm talking about focus. If you look at your focussing ring you'll see an infinity sign at one extreme of it, and something like 0.3 at the other. You probably want to be around 0.3 to make use of the narrowest depth of field you can (assuming that's what you want!).

@Zillah - maximum aperture is f/4 through the zoom, so it's never going to be very shallow with what she's working with..

mumof2

This is what I got!! Think I get the idea now, thanks so much (i know its not 100% but practice will help).:D


IMG_3300 by Just Imagine..., on Flickr

Mumof2, you'll probably need to post up and tell us what part of the photo you want in focus, and what part you want out of focus?


If I'm correct in thinking you want the book name in focus and the threads behind it out of focus, my suggestion would be to move all the threads back about five foot.

This will leave a massive gap, though (between the book and threads) so to hide that, you'll need to position the camera almost horizontal and shoot straight on. Using f/4 and focusing on the spine of the book, because the threads have now moved so far back, the should appear a fair bit more out of focus than they currently do.


Regarding minimum focus distance; essentially, what that means is that the lens can't focus any closer than a certain distance. So, for example, if your minimum focus distance is one foot, then anything that is closer than one foot to the front of the lens, no matter how hard you try, will be out of focus.


EDIT: Nevermind, just seen your last post. It seems you've gotten the idea

mumof2

stabo wrote: »

Nothing wrong with using autofocus if you were using it.:rolleyes:

Totally agree, but for me I feel I can learn alot more by going manual all the way!:D

mumof2

Zillah wrote: »

I don't understand what is being asked here. I don't even see any images on that link that makes any significant use of a narrow depth of field. If anything, there's a few with a very wide depth of field, must be stopped down.

Er, mum, could you describe more clearly what it is you're trying to do?

eh yeah, sorry that does seem confusing.:D I was looking to learn how to do the blurred background pics, and want crystal clear flowers at the front of my image (I used the link to show how crystal clear I hope to attain and where/what I'd be shooting). Id like to get creative when Im over there, and not just take random shots and come home disappointed.

Mountainsandh

I didn't read the page, but there's a great diagram with a cyclist there, that might help. I find even if I don't understand everything in it, a diagram always helps somehow.
http://www.chrismart.in/category/tutorials/

or this one with the ducks
http://media.photobucket.com/image/depth+of+field+diagram+/theannabeanlatte/Art%2520work/depth-of-field-mm-compariso.jpg

the distance the little white duck and the other duck at the back are at are going to create more or less blur.
So if the little white duck is close to the first duck (the one that's closest to the photographer), he might be blurred but just a little, whereas if he was a good bit further behind the photographer's duck, then he would be a lot more blurry.
So as it is in the diagram, with the small depth of field, the photographer would have his first duck in focus, totally clear, then maybe depending on what aperture he used, the white duck more or less clear, then the 3rd duck at the back pretty much all blurry. Does that help any bit ?

mumof2

thanks Mountainsandh for the links, I like the DOF images link the most!!:D I think I have the knack now, but will try again tomoro. The kids are back now, so no time to myself again!!

Thanks to everyone again.:D

FoxT

Mumof2, I think that you have a canon 350d or similar. I have a 40D myself & I almost never use manual focus.

Here is why:
- Compared to the old 35mm cameras I had back in the day, the viewfinder of a modern camera is smaller and darker.
- Most modern lenses have very sloppy manual focus rings, and in many cases they offer only a quarter to a third of a turn between about 1m & infinity.
- As a result, I find Manual focus difficult in good light, and in lower light situations, I find manual focus is pretty much impossible.

Here is what I do, and it works for me:

MANUAL FOCUS
- I use manual focus for static macro shots or lens testing. For these I will mount the camera on a tripod, and zoom to 10x using live view. I will then take 3 shots & at PP , select the best of the 3. Focusing this way can take me between 5 & 10 seconds.

- I will focus bracket. By this I mean, focus manually, take a shot, move the camera a little closer, take another shot, move it a little farther away, take a third, without changing focus on the lens.


AUTOFOCUS
- Autofocus is my very best friend in the whole world, but it needs to be managed to get the best results. To do this I

1 - decouple the AF function from the shutter button. Find some other button that you can use to turn AF on & off again. The 40D has a so-called 'back-button' AF feature & I find it is brilliant.

2 - never let the camera try to figure out what to focus on. Select 1 AF point for your shot, and focus on that point. Just doing this gives you far greater control over focus & composition. My camera has a little joystick at the back for selecting AF points & I use this more often than the shutter button!

To answer your original question - if you want a shallow depth of field, I suggest you :

1- use the widest possible aperture (ie the lowest f/number).

2- fill the frame with the item that you want to keep in focus
OR
2a- If you do not want it to fill the frame, step back & use a longer focal length. It is difficult to create a blurred b/g at 24mm, if your subject (the book?) does not fill the frame.


3 - Remember that the way focus behaves is nonlinear. If you focus on an object say 4 metres away, then something that is 2 metres away will be much more blurred than something that is 6 metres away, even though the difference is only 2 metres in each case!

Hope all that makes sense!

- FoxT

mumof2

FoxT wrote: »

Mumof2, I think that you have a canon 350d or similar. I have a 40D myself & I almost never use manual focus.

- I will focus bracket. By this I mean, focus manually, take a shot, move the camera a little closer, take another shot, move it a little farther away, take a third, without changing focus on the lens.


- FoxT

Hi FoxT,

I have a 450D, and also use the back button to change the metering mode, (usually evaluative or spot used) and here I could also change the auto focus mode from one shot/AI Focus/AI SERVO (always use one shot) and in small letters it states to set focus mode switch of the lens to AF (but again never do as I shoot using manual focusing).

Why wuld you move in or back from the original spot without changing the focus on the lens = doesn't this mean a blurry out of focus shot? (or is this what you intend at the time?)

What I want to try and achieve with the flowers during my trip, (will be alot:D) is to get single flowers in a shot and the rest blurred in the background. Can this also be done in LR?

thanks.

FoxT

mumof2 wrote: »

Hi FoxT,



Why wuld you move in or back from the original spot without changing the focus on the lens = doesn't this mean a blurry out of focus shot? (or is this what you intend at the time?)


thanks.

If your DOF is very shallow, moving in/out a little w/o changing focus allows you to select the photo that looks best afterwards. I find manual focus is difficult for the reasons cited above - so this can help if your original focus isnt spot on....
- FoxT

ThOnda

I haven't read all the posts, just don't forget the depth of field is approximately on third in front of the focal plane (focused distance) and two thirds behind. So if you want to achieve the same blur, the objects in the background must be much further. And don't forget to wide open your lens. You could also borrow nifty fifty that will do magic at f/1.8. Or buy one, they are dirt cheap. Well, cheap enough. Unless you could get your hands on macro lenses, 100mm would be magical for what you want to do.
Another trick is to use forced perspective and to create the scene so the actual distance is optical illusion.

mumof2

ThOnda wrote: »

I haven't read all the posts, just don't forget the depth of field is approximately on third in front of the focal plane (focused distance) and two thirds behind. So if you want to achieve the same blur, the objects in the background must be much further. And don't forget to wide open your lens. You could also borrow nifty fifty that will do magic at f/1.8. Or buy one, they are dirt cheap. Well, cheap enough. Unless you could get your hands on macro lenses, 100mm would be magical for what you want to do.
Another trick is to use forced perspective and to create the scene so the actual distance is optical illusion.

Thanks for that, funny in the last thread I just read (food photography with cake), a nifty fifty was recommended too!! Tempted to get one actually.:D

The Snipe

Set your AF spot to the foreground/midground

Edit: about the nifty fifty, GET ONE! Only about €100 and well worth the money, Really good lens!

mumof2

XiledSniper wrote: »

Set your AF spot to the foreground/midground

Edit: about the nifty fifty, GET ONE! Only about €100 and well worth the money, Really good lens!

Where and is that for the 1.8?

Im finding the reviews for the 1.4 are better, but costs a bomb compared to the 1.8:(

The Snipe

mumof2 wrote: »

Where and is that for the 1.8?

Im finding the reviews for the 1.4 are better, but costs a bomb compared to the 1.8:(

Yes for the 1.8, You can get it in Conns in Dublin for €129.99 Link
And the 1.4 version for €420 (Which I do like the looks of, and I might pick up myself :P) Link

Heres one from Amazon for >£80 so roughly about €100 Link

And Kerso on Ebay (Top Quality Seller) for About €90 including Delivery Link

mumof2

XiledSniper wrote: »

Yes for the 1.8, You can get it in Conns in Dublin for €129.99 Link
And the 1.4 version for €420 (Which I do like the looks of, and I might pick up myself :P) Link

Heres one from Amazon for >£80 so roughly about €100 Link

And Kerso on Ebay (Top Quality Seller) for About €90 including Delivery Link

Thanks, am waiting on friend (pro photog) in Holland, she is checking one out for me, she would know where to go:D

The Snipe

mumof2 wrote: »

Thanks, am waiting on friend (pro photog) in Holland, she is checking one out for me, she would know where to go:D

Very good But I would recommend the lens, it is really good for a great price