Super Bokeh Lens on 40D

[darren_sukul]

<p>Hi,<br>

I'm wondering what lens could be used to produce image like below. I have the Canon 85mm f/1.8, Canon 100 f/2.8 and Sigma 30mm f1.4 on 40D, but I'm not able achieve this look.<br>

http://www.thekjblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/003.jpg<br>

http://www.thekjblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/blog-template.jpg<br>

http://www.thekjblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/0051.jpg<br>

Would 35L, 85L or 135L give this look on my camera? I know 5D2 has one level of shallow depth. Also Could the 70-200 f2.8 IS do this?<br>

Also do you guys think there some post processing involved?</p>

<p> </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>There is some post processing involved, mostly to pump up some contrast on the subjects, which helps provide that stand-out look. But there's no reason you can't use your 85/1.8 or that 30/1.4 to achieve very similar looks. The big factors are the distance between camera and subject, and the apertuere used. <br /><br />Do you have an example or two of your attempts to do this, using the nice lenses you have? Is the issue the <em>degree</em> of and transition to an OoF background, or the <em>quality</em> of that bokeh that's troubling your eye when you look at your shots?</p>

[darren_sukul]

<p>Thanks Matt. I want to produce the image with subject popped out. The sigma 30mm does come close. But it doesn't look as good as this. I've tried 85mm 1.8 the further distance and shooting at 1.8, but background doesn't look that smooth.<br>

Most images I see seem to be done with 85L on 5DMK2 to get the full body shots.</p>

[darren_sukul]

<p>Matt, I don't have an image at hand to show you.</p>

[starvy]

<p>darren,<br>

there is much post processing in these images. as matt says, the contrast has been increased. it seems the photographer has also adjusted the dynamic range in post processing.</p>

[kari v]

<p>If the comments are correct "Sunny..." is shot with 200/1.8 which is quite insane piece of glass and so is new 200/2 IS. Price is of course rather astronomical.<br>

135/2L is the closest "reasonably" priced equivalent for 40D.</p>

<p>Yes, there is post processing. Colors and contrast enhance subject separation greatly. Good shots.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Sigma's 50/1.4 HSM would be just about perfect for you - since you can get in full-length standing shots from about 15-18 feet, and can benefit from that lenses's really stellar bokeh. 50mm is certainly going to provide a more flattering perspective than 30mm when you aren't forced to work in tight quarters. But I think you might want to focus first on some post work to see if you can tease up that punchiness in the subjects.</p>

[darren_sukul]

<p>Matt, Good to know. I didn't realize there is some post processing involved in making the subject standout from background like that. Do you think Sigma 50/1.4 would better than 85/1.8?<br>

Kari, I've heard a lot about 135L which was one of the lens I'm considering since I already have 85mm 1.8. Was wondering if its too long for my camera or not. 85L has cult following too, but its bit more expensive.<br>

So far, I'm considering getting the Sigma 50/1.4 and 135L to replace by 50/1.8.</p>

 

[darren_sukul]

<p>Do people also do any bluring to make the background smooth in post?</p>

[peter_wang6]

<p>Darren,</p>

<p>You can most certainly get that kind of shallow DOF with the 85/1.8 but you have to understand what you are doing. Specifically, you have to have a sense of how the subject distance affects the DOF. The couple images are probably with a 50/1.4 prime, or something close to it. If you get close enough to the subject so that they fill most of the frame, you will get the above result for objects far in the background. It is about composition and framing. The DOF rapidly increases as the subject distance increases if the focal length is short.</p>

<p>In fact, I would say that a 135/2 would make it even easier to get lots of bokeh in these outdoor scenarios, as you can stand a good 30 feet away from your subject and blur your backgrounds (provided they are far enough away!) at f/2.</p>

<p>For the wedding photo example, that is definitely wide open, there's lots of background blur. The photographer is probably maybe only 10 feet away from the subject. Of course that's a guess, without the EXIF data you can't really be sure.</p>

<p>Here's the bottom line for you. You could get similar bokeh for all three of the examples you posted, with just the 85/1.8, but your angle of view and your subject magnification may not be the same as the examples. Two basic rules:</p>

<ol>

<li>Get closer to your subject.</li>

<li>Increase distance between subject and background.</li>

</ol>

<p>You don't need the L glass or the extremely wide apertures.</p>

<p>Of all the lenses you mentioned, the only real difference is that if you get close enough to fill the frame with your subject in each case, the rate of defocus is fastest with the longer lenses, the 135/2 and the 70-200/2.8 @ 200mm.</p>

<p>I really, really strongly recommend that you play with your 85/1.8 and figure out how to use it before you drop crazy amounts of money on L glass thinking that it's going to give you better bokeh. Here's a suggestion: Go outdoors. Find a subject, like a friend, and take headshots with the 85/1.8. Stand about 5-7 feet away, lock focus on the subject's eyes, and fire away. Now since you've fixed all of the parameters that contribute to DOF (focal length, f-ratio, subject distance, circle of confusion), the DOF is always the same. If you shoot the subject leaning against a wall, the wall in that spot is not going to be blurry. If you shoot them standing in open space with objects in the distant background, you can bet the background will be very blurry. Nothing changed in those two examples except for the distance between subject and background.</p>

<p>If you want full figure shots instead of just head/shoulders, then you have two choices: either increase subject distance (stand further away), or decrease focal length. Both of these actions will <strong>increase</strong> DOF making it harder to throw the background out of focus, but not in the same way. Generally speaking, the first method will increase the DOF more slowly than the second.</p>

<p>Practice and experiment. You have the ability to do this already with the lenses you have.</p>

 

[darren_sukul]

<p>Thanks so much Peter. I going to take up your advise and try it out.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Sigma's 50/1.4 HSM would be just about perfect for you - since you can get in full-length standing shots from about 15-18 feet, and can benefit from that lenses's really stellar bokeh. 50mm is certainly going to provide a more flattering perspective than 30mm when you aren't forced to work in tight quarters. But I think you might want to focus first on some post work to see if you can tease up that punchiness in the subjects. And just to be clear, when we talk about "standing out," it's more about the differential in contrast, saturation, and perhaps some localized sharpening - not so much about blurring the background in post. That can tend to look surprisingly artificial in a hurry. Distractingly so. It's a fine line between "natural" optical blur and the fake stuff, but whether or not a lot of people can articulate what they're seeing, they know when they're seeing it.</p>

[stephen_osullivan1]

<p>Yes. In photoshop you can add a layer, apply a fairly strong gaussian blur to it, then create a mask and wipe off the areas you want sharp. Works like a charm, but you have to be careful that it doesn't look unnatural.</p>

[peter_wang6]

<p>The problem with applying a gaussian blur to simulate bokeh is that focal blur does not have the same intensity distribution as gaussian blur. At small blur radii the two are reasonably similar, but at large radii they look nothing alike. Most astute observers will be able to tell you that a simulated background blur "just doesn't look right," or that "it looks fake," but they can't quite quantify why the effect is unconvincing.</p>

<p>The difference, of course, has to do with optics. Focal blur, which is one component of bokeh, is a property of the fact that an object not in the plane of focus will be rendered as a disk (assuming a circular aperture) of roughly uniform luminosity. The size of the disk is primarily a factor of the f-ratio, focal length, and distance to the subject. Out-of-focus point highlights, then, will be rendered as distinct disks that may or may not overlap.</p>

<p>A gaussian blur is a mathematical model that operates independently of any underlying optical system. Unlike focal blur, it has no access to distance information of points represented by the image. Therefore, all pixels in the image are treated equally (unless masked). A gaussian smoothing kernel is applied to each affected pixel to "average out" its value among neighboring pixels. The weighting function is normally distributed as a function of the distance from the pixel, with variance determined by the user.</p>

<p>The most obvious difference, then, is that the luminosity of a point highlight in a captured image that has had a gaussian blur applied to it will not be a uniform disk with a defined boundary, but a sort of "fuzzy" disk with no definite boundary. Furthermore, the degree of fuzziness, or the "spread" of this disk, is the same throughout all affected pixels and does not vary with subject distance because the algorithm does not have access to this information.</p>

<p>Bokeh, of course, is not merely about focal blur. The shape of the blur, the intensity distribution of the resulting out of focus disks (e.g., mirror lenses produce strong annular bokeh), and the chroma of the blur are all important. These are things that cannot be convincingly simulated once a flat image has been captured.</p>

[kari v]

<p>About the post work and colors and contrast.</p>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.thekjblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/blog-template.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.thekjblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/blog-template.jpg</a></p>

<p>Look how uniform colored the background is while the couple is wearing bright shirts and black pants. That alone will give you some "stand out" effect.<br /> Take a shot, then fiddle with the colors in PS, perhaps lower background contrast and saturation and adjust color a bit. See how the brown dog is suspiciously similar tone as the background brown? And even the green plants are subdued and brownish?<br /> Also, there might be some work done on their faces. Makeup and good exposure goes a long way but there's nothing like PS to bring more snap to things. Keep the faces bright and soft, sharpen and perhaps even apply some dodge/burn to eyes, nose and mouth. (I guess there are more sophisticated ways than simple dodge/burn but that's one way. I'm not a portrait retoucher.)</p>

<p>Bordering unreal but snappy. It would be interesting to see these shots at larger size. Web size can mask many little tweaks that are almost right but not quite.</p>

<p>For "Sunny..." you don't need PS. 200/1.8 will destroy everything in OoF areas on its own and give great subject separation... but even in this shot you see how much contrast is added by the jacket and single colored red dress. (I don't think the colored heavy vignette effect adds much, centers the subject, ok, but I don't think it's actually needed unlike in blog-template.jpg where color edit is a crucial part.)</p>

<p>I don't think 135/2 is too long when you shoot outside. Take your 100/2.8 and have a look, that extra 35mm isn't a lot. Increasing focal lenght has much less visible effect at tele range than at wide/normal range.<br /> That said and while I haven't heard anyone regretting buying 135/2 your 85/1.8 should give you wonderful results with some practise and careful background choices. There's more to bokeh and "stand out" effect than the lens.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Those images (and practically every picture on the website from what I can see) have <em>very obviously </em> been hammered with noise reduction. It's not bokeh, it's too much Noise Ninja or Neat Image.</p>

<p>I use the trick myself for bird photographs, but I don't kill all the detail with it the way the photographer of those images has done.</p>

<p>Picture after picture of people that looks like waxwork dummies. Yuck.</p>

[kari v]

<p>A bit odd set.<br>

http://www.thekjblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/003.jpg<br>

On the left he looks actually pretty normal but rest of the image has way too high contrast and her face looks like a computer game character with 2002 era polygons.<br>

On the right his face looks like prototype growth for T-888. (But the shirt has nice detail, points for that.)</p>

<p>Keith has a point. No need to apply enormous amount of noise reduction. With sharpening it will create images (and faces in particular) like these but more you look at the images more annoying it gets.<br>

It's a matter of taste of course but please don't overdo "the snap". :)</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Perhaps this software was used:<br>

<a href="http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/index.aspx">http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/index.aspx</a></p>

 

[charles_tuthill]

<p>To me, it looks like lighting probably played a big role in making the people stand out from the background. In a couple of shots it looks like the people have been lit with an off camera flash (perhaps through an umbrella or softbox), while ambient has been slightly underexposed to make them stand out (i.e. the "popping" effect). I don't think not sure that the effect is due to aperture and bokeh alone, but I could be wrong.</p>

<p> </p>

[mathew_gardella]

<p><a title="eyes on you too" href="http://www.photo.net/photos/38133242@N03/3508714347/"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3645/3508714347_43e31e4f98_m.jpg" alt="eyes on you too" width="240" height="160" /></a><br>

if you use a telephoto accurately you can blend backgrounds easily... this was with the tamron 28-75mm with no post processing..... just practice with the lenses you have... you will eventually get what you are after.</p>

[darren_sukul]

<p>So you guys think, with the 85/1.8 + creative compostion and some microcontrast adjustments in lightroom. I can produce the same type of images. I agree with Keith, it images are bit overdone. I'd probably take it down a notch.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>In short, Darren, yes. Choice of setting for your subjects (with an eye to avoiding high-contrast areas/objects and point light sources in the background), care with distance between you and them, and some conservative post work - and, sure, you'd get great results.</p>

[darren_sukul]

<p>Thanks everyone. This has been a very informative thread.</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>I think Charles deserves recognition here for stating what is way, WAY more of an issue in these photos' "look" than this-or-that lens and post-processing. I am genuinely astonished that nobody before him mentioned strobing and the tremendous effect that has on making a subject "pop."</p>

<p>IMHO the images are over-cooked anyway.</p>

[bbb1]

<p>I just bought the Canon 85 mm 1.8 and on my 30D it works miracle better than any other Sigma lens with such a lovely Bokeh :) just use f4 and practice :)</p>

<p>Best</p>