Flower Bokeh

[lynnthomas]

Does anyone have any advice on settings or lens to use to achieve this shot?

 

https://500px.com/photo/31199705/hidden-by-teuni-stevense?ctx_page=3&from=search&ctx_type=photos&ctx_q=flowers

 

Thank you

[User_6502147]

<p>Well, camera settings are normally determined by the lighting at hand. Having said that, you do need to keep up the shutter up (I usually keep it min of 1/250 sec)....so the photo doesn't get blurry from handholding. Most likely a macro lens was used, but not necessarily. I could use my conventional 105mm (F2.5) and tweak the blur in the post...to give the photo that selective effect. <br>

My best guess, however, is that the person used a macro lens and blurred parts of the image in editing.</p>

<p>Les</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>There's (very) out of focus foliage between the camera and the subject flower/bug.<br /><br />A macro lens will usually have very shallow depth of field when used like that, all the more so if the aperture is wide. The <em>quality</em> of the out-of-focus areas (this is when and why you would be discussing "bokeh") is going to depend on which lens you're using. Some render those out of focus areas in a nice creamy way, and others will render them with a harsh and busy look. </p>

[John Seaman]

<p>The sharp part of the scene, the cosmos flower and ladybird are a fairly flat subject so the depth of field doesn't need to be too great. I would guess it was shot at F5.6 or thereabouts. Thus putting the rest of the scene well out of focus, although the photographer may have enhanced this by adding blur later.</p>

<p>I've achieved similar results with an ordinary zoom lens (Nikkor AF 28-70) which has a good minimum focus distance, and a nine blade near circular aperture for smooth bokeh. Some older manual focus lenses with a lot of aperture blades when adapted to digital cameras, can give the same effect.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

To be clear: the shallow depth of field is produced by magnification and f-stop, regardless of what lens was used. How the out of focus parts appear, besides blurred/out of focus, may vary with the lens that was used.<br><br>The photo in the link has a shallow depth of field, and lots of unsharp image content between the lens and the main subject. Good composition.<br>It is further helped by diffuse lighting and would have looked very different in harsh sunlight.

[DawsonPointers]

<p>I think this is a composite or done with blurring post production because nothing else is sharp, even the L, R and bottom edges of the flower that is sharp. It seems unlikely that nothing else would be at the same plane in such a large and busy field of view.<br>

Take a sharp image and then an image out of focus (or to which you have applied a blur), overlay them and paint the in focus image back in with a mask. Or, just mask what you want to keep in focus and blur the rest. It looks to me as if the sharp and unsharp images were not taken of the same scene in this case, so my bet is that it is a composite of 2 scenes.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I think this is a composite or done with blurring post production</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd go with composite - and some additional processing. Somehow the OOF areas don't look "right" - it appears there are only two planes in the image - a sharp center and the remainder unsharp (but in a way that it looks like a "softened" sharp image.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would guess it was shot at F5.6 or thereabouts</p>

</blockquote>

<p>f/2.8 - says so right under the image ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The OOF regions are defined too sharply to come from the lens. Furthermore, there is a swirl effect which is natural only in something like a Petsval lens or LensBaby would produce, but again too sudden. My conclusion is this is an artistic application of Photoshop.</p>

[stephen t]

<p>Agree with the Photoshop opinions.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I don't. I think there is nothing that could not be 'natural'. Clever composition and a coulisse, clever use of DoF, good lighting.

[gordonjb]

<p>As has been mentioned by Matt and others the photo was taken through out of focus foreground flowers/foliage. It also looks like some extra blur was added in post as well as some selective sharpening. Here is an image of Amerorchis flowers which I shot through some foreground flowers with a macro lens wide open at 2.8</p><div></div>

[lynnthomas]

Thank you everyone for responding.

 

Will be spending this week when not working, trying this.

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>In the OP's example, the petals are in the focus plane, yet blurred midway from the ends to the same extent as the background. Photoshop, with a mask and blur filter!</p>

[susan_baker1]

<p>Totally Agree with photoshop option.</p>