Tips on getting a blurred background?

[Brad_]

>>> I'll be shooting up close like waist up or head and shoulders". I don't believe he was referring to how much

working room he had to shoot, ...

 

I think most people would read "up close" as subject distance. Which brings up a very important and crucial

point for good portraiture; subject engagement. For me, the relationship between subject and

photographer/camera is crucial.

 

I couldn't imagine using an 85mm on a crop-body camera (130mm equiv). That would be much too far away. I

like working in the 4 - 12 foot range for my kind of street portraiture. It lets me easily engage with subjects by

establishing an easy two-way relationship.

 

For me, little/no engagement = boring portraiture. And thats much more important and trumps small differences in background blur over various lenses.

[babak_tahniat]

<p>And it's in these situations that I envy the 50mm and 85mm f1.2 autofocus lenses from Canon. I just love that super shallow DOF in some portaraits of people.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>For me, little/no engagement = boring portraiture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>agree 100%. that's one reason why i like a 30 or 35 for candid shots. here's a shot from last weekend.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>For the OP... I'm quite happy with the portraits I get with my Nikkor 50's on DX cameras, either the 1.4 or the 1.8. It's nice for head-shoulders portraits from across the dinner table, for example. Should be good with your D70. </p>

[sam_adams2]

<p>With a crop sensor like yours I'd go with a 50mm lens. Depending on budget and preferences you could then get either the 1.4 or 1.8 version. There are some nice third-party manufacturers out there for that. The 85mm should be nice as well though. Can't really go wrong either way I'd say.</p>

[Brad_]

Actually, I don't see how any lens recommendation can be made since the OP didn't mention the kind of

portraiture he wanted to engage in. Headshot, environmental, studio, etc?<P>

 

Just as an example, a 35mm on a crop-body would probably be too long most of the time for the portraiture I do. A 50 most

definitely would. And an 85 would be an absolute no way.<P>

 

Again as an example, for *my* specific needs, which is <a href= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-

evans/Images54/TL%20Faces/">street portraiture</a>, and where subject engagement is really important, a 35mm (in this case on a full-frame body) is ideal putting me at a decent working distance. Can't speak for

anyone else not knowing what kind of portraiture they want to shoot. That doesn't mean other focal lengths would be impossible. Just not an ideal choice the majority of the time; especially if it puts me in the street with traffic. If I were doing headshots most of the time, then I'd pick something longer.

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Did anyone mention aperture priority mode? AV ?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>not an ideal choice the majority of the time; especially if it puts me in the street with traffic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>oh c'mon brad, what's street photography without a little danger?</p>

<div></div>

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm looking to buy a lens that is fast enough so I can blur the backgrounds. Will the 85mm 1.8 do the job?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is there any other way to trick the camer to blur the background?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't have thousands of dollars to spend on a lens but is it worth the extra money to get a 1.4 instead of 1.8 lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends on how picky you are about the aesthetic quality of the out-of-focus background, especially specular highlights.</p>

 

[sjmurray]

<p>As Brad- says, the OP needs to describe in more detail what kind of portraiture he is doing, such as studio, outside, environmental, etc. The lens choices vary with each type of situation. </p>

[robert_k1]

 

<blockquote>

<p>As Brad- says, the OP needs to describe in more detail what kind of portraiture he is doing, such as studio, outside, environmental, etc. The lens choices vary with each type of situation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. Without a context of the situation and the desired results, discussions can be very confusing and misleading. But this OP should not be singled out, the vast majority of PN's postings are like this.</p>

 

[john_morris4]

Darn. Now I want a Voigtlander 75/1.8. I love 75mm on full frame.

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Sorry John.</p>

<p>Looks like I accidentally sucked you into my Voigtlander cult...</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>OK here's an example</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>this one with the 105mm</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>two people</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>another with the 50 1.8</p><div></div>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>Tips on getting a blurred background?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>1. As you already know, the larger the aperture, the shallower the depth-of-field.<br />2. The closer the focus distance, the greater the area in the background appears out of focus.<br />3. The further away your background is from your subject, the easier it is to throw it out of focus.</p>

<p>To summarize, shoot as wide open as is practical. Place your subject as close to camera as is practical. Find a background that is as far away as possible.</p>

[studio460]

<p>John asked:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I"m trying to take portraits and get the blurred background effect. I'm looking to buy a lens that is fast enough so I can blur the backgrounds. Will the 85mm 1.8 do the job? I'll be shooting up close like waist up or head and shoulders, but I'd also like to shoot full . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, regarding your specific questions (I previously replied to the post topic only), you already have lots of advice here, but I'll add even more! I think the bokeh from an 85mm f/1.8 looks great, even on a DX body:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/coke85-1.jpg" alt="" /><br />Nikon D90; AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D</p>

<p>While both the 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 are capable of throwing the background out of focus rather easily as well, their characterisitic bokeh on speculars is a bit "tight," and may not be to your liking. As far as shooting full-length shots with the background out of focus, try to find a background that is <em>really</em> far away.</p>

[studio460]

<p>John also asked:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't have thousands of dollars to spend on a lens but is it worth the extra money to get a 1.4 instead of 1.8 lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, the 85mm f/1.4 is prettier, but the f/1.8 is a close second, especially on a DX body, due to the "longer" 1.5x crop factor. For most, the 85mm f/1.4 probably isn't worth its high price tag. For the money, the 85mm f/1.8 is the best bang-for-the-buck portrait lens of the bunch. If choosing the 50mm instead, I think having the f/1.4 version of this lens in your bag is totally worth it for shooting in low light (everyone should have at least one f/1.4 lens!).</p>

[studio460]

<p>Joseph said . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you're comfortable at a bit of a distance, say 3.3m (11ft), the old manual focus Nikon 105mm f2.5 Ai-S has exceptional bokeh.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm aware that the 105mm f/2.5 has a lot of fans, but why? Because it's a bargain? Aren't the AI-S 105mm f/1.8D and AF DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2.0D going to serve the shallow depth-of-field seeker better than an f/2.5 lens? (I have both the AI-S f/1.8 105mm and the f/2.0 105mm, but have never tried the famed f/2.5 105mm.) It'd be great to see a "shoot out" among the three.</p>

<p>He also mentioned . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>Another manual focus lens to look at is the Voigtlander 58mm f1.4. It's a tad short, you'll be on the inside edge of 2m from your subject, or frame just a touch more "open" and back up to 2m.</li>

<li>If you're not in a hurry, Voigtander announced a 75mm f1.8 that should be a killer portrait lens. Give it another month or two, and $400.</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>Joseph, you're beginning to pique my interest in those Voigtlanders as well. How's their sharpness compared with Nikon's fare?</p>