NBA photo - poor bokeh - why?

[jeff_becker]

<p>Used a Nikon D4 with the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VRII lens. AF-C settings, matrix.<br>

My settings were 1/1250, 2.8, ISO 3200, with Focus priority.<br>

Anyway, please note the poor bokeh. I had a handful of pics turn out like this. Can't decide if the AF system reacted poor, or why I'm having some sort of Chromatic Aberration or diffraction. <br>

Very displeased with this type of quality of what should be a tack sharp photo.<br>

Thoughts?</p>

 

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/x4cpo_ugzIFBnL2kZzHtQdMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bcQi23r8Pwg/VrnaT9TxmhI/AAAAAAADPxo/iidLbHPZlm0/s640-Ic42/DSC_8965.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /></a></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/107071309703330989429/PhotoNetTroubleshooting?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">photo.net troubleshooting</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

[ShunCheung]

<p>What exactly is wrong with that image?<br>

The larger version is available here: http://plus.google.com/photos/107071309703330989429/albums/6249141210154304913/6249265994363148818</p>

[sjmurray]

<blockquote>

<p>Very displeased with this type of quality of what should be a tack sharp photo.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The basketball player does look "tack sharp" to me, which is the way it should be. Shooting a telephoto lens, especially at f 2.8 will always make everything not in the plane of focus out of focus. Portrait photographers count on this as a means to separate the subject from the background, hence, that's why telephotos with large apertures are used so much for portraits. In other words, you photo here looks totally normal.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Jeff, I'm confused about what your complaint is too.<br /> Bokeh refers to the <em>quality</em> of out-of-focus parts of the image, not to how <em>much</em> out of focus the background is. The background is as far out of focus as I'd expect it to be with an f/2.8 lens, and the quality of blur is also what should be expected from a zoom lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Very displeased with this type of quality of what should be a tack sharp photo."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>More confusion. Do you mean that you expected the background to be sharper (more depth of field) or for the basketball player to be more isolated from the background (with less depth of field)? The basketballer looks perfectly sharp to me, and I see no evidence of chromatic aberration. Diffraction at f/2.8? - I don't think so.</p>

<p>I suspect you were expecting more isolation of the subject from the background, but busy backgrounds like well-lit crowds are very difficult to throw far enough out of focus such that they aren't distracting. An f/2 200mm prime lens would be needed to throw that type of background far enough out of focus not to be distracting. And only then if the framing of the main subject was tight enough.<br /> One way to rescue such a shot is to use an image editor to create two layers. You then apply blurring and maybe lower the brightness of the background layer. Then rub through to the background using the eraser tool to silhouette the main subject from the blurred and darkened background.</p>

<p>I've done a rough and ready edit using that technique below.</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>This is also my main complaint about the optical quality of the 70-200/2.8 II; it produces relatively poor bokeh at mid to long distances. I noticed it the first time I shot an event with it. Using another lens such as the 200/2 solves this problem, however the cost is quite high. It is my recollection that the 1st version of the 70-200/2.8G produces nicer and more consistent bokeh across distances than the newer, second version. It may be a tradeoff between corner sharpness and bokeh.</p>

[jeff_becker]

<p>Loving the positive responses - very much appreciated, thank you so much!<br>

Jeff</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Doesn't distance to subject have something to do with how the level of blur? Where were you shooting from? the basketball player is pretty sharp.</p>

[jeff_becker]

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>Doesn't distance to subject have something to do with how the level of blur? Where were you shooting from? the basketball player is pretty sharp.</p>

 

 

 

</blockquote>

<p>I was sitting on the baseline and the player was at mid-court on the opposite site of me so probably 60 feet. I realize that diffraction is out of the question, but was just disturbed that the bokeh was choppy....and I know that at a 60 foot distance my DoF grows a great deal and that changes my bokeh output. I agree with a lot of the input above. Curious if my photo would have looked better at 3.5 or 4.0 versus trying maximize the best out of a 2.8 shot (Steve is correct above). I know I'm pixel peeping here a little on a decent shot but I'm picky and I truly need to be....</p>

[SCL]

<p>Jeff - at f/3.5-4 your main subject would probably have been more distinct in terms of resolution and contrast, as most lens designs are optimized for shooting not wide open, but stopped down a stop or so, but your oof background would also have become more distinct. When you're a significant distance from your main subject, even with a telephoto lens of good quality, you increasingly lose the capability to isolate it from the background...it's just a tradeoff of the physics. Best answer is get closer to your main subject wherever possible and use the widest aperture which you have tested on your lens to produce the separation results/oof areas you most desire.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>In terms of the picture's narrative, I think you have to decide what you story you are intending to tell, a tack-sharp picture of a player, on his own, picked out from an unimportant background (f2.8) or as could have happened here (as is implied by the composition) player + coach? against a background of very animated sports fans (telling their story) maybe as much as f8.</p>

[jose_angel]

bokeh was choppy...

... Specially if the the VR is on in this lens. Anyway, I don't get too much disturbed by the bokeh in this kind of photo.

 

Lens design is very complex, and bokeh is very dependant of many factors. I think to expect a nice bokeh from a lens this

type (fast supersharp AF telezoom, with VR and IF) is maybe expecting too much.

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>Don't see any problem with the 'bokeh' of this lens in this kind of picture (although I don't understand the 'choppy' part).</p>

<p>Shooting a long lens wide open will automatically result in a sharp subject again an out of focus background. The character of the OoF background in my experience comes with the lens used.</p>

<p>The 2.8/70-200 is a high level, but nevertheless 'bread and butter' lens, excellently fit for use in many different types of situations, but no meant to in particularly excel as far as bokeh is concerned compared to other lenses. So it may be a bit 'harsher' (choppy?) then desired</p>

<p>If you want a 'smoother' bokeh, you will need to use long lenses with relative wider max aperture,<br>

like 2.0/200 VR<br>

http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/113151693<br>

of 2.8/400mm (didn't't have that one. didn't need it),<br>

or even 4/600mm (even when used with a TC 1.4)<br>

http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/113151693<br>

wide open.</p>

<p>My two cents</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

It could also be the lighting on the fans which is is stark and all coming from above. Most shots i see where soft bokeh is

vaunted are shot where the lighting on the background is pretty flat to begin with.

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>It could also be the lighting on the fans which is is stark and all coming from above.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think Ellis has a good point too.<br>

<br />Here is my basketball image with that same lens (model), although it is basketball at a very very different level, inside a rather poorly lit gym.</p><div></div>

[User_6502147]

<p>It looks quite typical to me. If you want to improve the bokeh, you'd have to go to a faster lens...say something like 85/1.4, but the improvement would remain rather marginal, considering how far the player was.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i was gonna say something about the overall lighting too, but Ellis got there first. lighting from far away both in height and distance can have a hazing effect which can translate optically as softness. that's compounded by the combination of ISO 3200 and 2.8, which could explain what seems like slight overexposure of the background, which appears to be at a brighter EV level than the main subject. That said, a 70-200 is capable of producing excellent bokeh, but to do so, the main subject needs to be a little bit closer, which results in correspondingly meltier backgrounds -- which is what it seems the OP was going for. in this case, the bokeh-o-meter wouldnt necessarily record total distance from lens to background, but moreso from focus point to background. so if you're 60 feet from the main subject who is 20 or 30 feet from the background, the OOF effects arent going to be as prominent as shooting a main subject 20 or 30 feet away with a background 60 feet away from that. in other words, if you want better bokeh from that same lens, your main subject should be closer to you and more separated distance- wise from the background. but at least you got a sharp central subject.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want to improve the bokeh, you'd have to go to a faster lens...say something like 85/1.4, but the improvement would remain rather marginal, considering how far the player was.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yeah, at 60 feet from the main subject, with the backgrounds relatively close to that, even an 85 at a faster aperture is gonna struggle to make the backgrounds disappear. and there are other reasons, such as much slower focus acquisition, why you wouldnt want to use an 85 unless you absolutely need the 1.4-2.8 aperture range due to dim lighting. if you really want to maximize bokeh with a 70-200, you have to shoot it a bit differently, with a closer foreground subject, or perhaps a different composition altogether, while paying attention to overall lighting and EV levels at different parts of the gym/arena.</p>

[WAngell]

<p>Would shooting a second later have helped? Slightly better subject to background distance ratio?</p>

[andylynn]

At that distance with a 200mm lens, the audience isn't far enough away to get a ton of blur. I would consider the effect

here to be pretty normal.

[clive_murray_white]

<p>As with all lenses it's probably a good idea to experiment to find where it is happiest in these sort of situations or you like the best - rather than preconceiving what you expect from it .</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Ilkka, it is one reason I stayed with the 70-200 I. As portrait photographer, I am out of focus in corners much of the time so soft corners or vignetting not an issue. When I want great bokeh, I reach for the 135 2.0 dc or 85 1.4. If you were closer to the subject instead of 60 feet or the subject was further from the background, the bg would have been more out of focus. Part of learning a lens is trying things like camera to subj distance and subj to background distance effect on the image. Try shooting a subject say 15 feet from camera and 40 feet from bg and see if that is more to your liking. Also, learn your dof at preferred distances. It is especially important if trying to capture 2 or 3 subjects sharp when not on same plane. Clive makes a good point, that will help you tell the story you have in mind. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Agree that the bokeh could be nicer (although it is OK), but there's nothing you can do about it apart from getting a lens with better bokeh. It might also be that at this distance and focal length the lens is showing its worse bokeh: at other focal lengths and distances perhaps it is nicer.</p>