The magic of achieving shallow depth and nice splashy background lights

[GerrySiegel]

I was interested in the discussion in DPR on mirrorless micro four thirds, the little runt in Sensorland. Spotted a nice sharp girl portrait achieving the kind of separation of

background in portraits so eagerly sought. I share it then:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56491925

 

Any comment, other examples. Yes, It is easier to get shallow with a Linhof Technikardan but one cannot fit a

Linhof in the Thinktank bag or even a standard backpack without lumbar aches.

 

My point is that technique and adaptation wins out in these

kinds of discussions. And no great magic needed to get a lovely background with little circles of light and color..

[Uhooru]

<p>For some reason when I use my manual Leica lenses on my 4/3 I get nice shallow DOF even though its max aperture is 2.0 <img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7540/16290769992_7e983afab5.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[Uhooru]

<p>and...this one, because the background is much closer not as much, but her hand which is not really far from her face is already blurring as what is in front of her. Also the Summicron 50 <img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8679/16024038340_f76ee53827.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[andylynn]

Gerry, that shot you linked to was with a 75mm f/1.8 lens wide open, so that would be like shooting a 150mm f/3.5 or f/4

on full frame. It looks about right.

[allen_gara]

<p>IMHO, the background on the linked photo is quite distracting because it's not out of focus enough. It's very busy, and at the immediate edges around the subject woman's right side outline, the other person is too discernible as another person in the frame. That being said, it's all a matter of taste, so it's only an opinion. If the objective was to create a background story, then I'm all in with it being right. <br>

I think you are 100% right about technique creating the shot, not the equipment. Barry's first shot is a perfect example to me. The ratio between the subject and the background is large, and the background colors are in contrast to the subject. So, she pops right out and there is nothing but pleasant framing around her. Her hair flowing from top left to bottom right creates nice movement. If the background had too much information, this would be lost. The take away is that where you stand and the direction you point the camera determines the background. </p>

 

[GerrySiegel]

Granted the focal length and aperture of 75 mm (equivalent of 150 on the old days for most of us) wide open makes such backgrounds w/ separation of planes easier. Just the nature of the smaller frame as it was for those of us who shot with half frame or even Super 8mm- not the significant take away .....But true enough that lens choice matters for sure. Who would like to achieve such separation effects will want to get hold of the optics that make it easier . Meaning have access to one of the suitable telephoto lenses. (I once btw watched a magazine photographer with a FF Canon shooting a model on the beach with a white 300mm lens,- concentrated on the necklace I believe or her eyes, no distracting waves or people or birds or trash cans ...)

 

 

Andy, your point is well taken. Even my 45mm 1.8 helps in that regard but my longer zoom is more flexible. If Panasonic had made it wider it would have been bigger and a trade off not worth it- IMO...One of the advantages still of a prime lens for speed to size.. I am never totally sure franklywhat 'distracting' means in a fore ground to background, that is subjective to me anyway, but in the case of the 75mm 1.8 shot the photographer wanted SOME context not a lot,but not too much. I submit he got what he was after. From a mere 15 foot distance which is sort of nominal. Moving the backgound to foreground would be another option...

 

Thanks for reactions, A particular interest item for small mirrorless models and portrait lovers.

[GerrySiegel]

This is the photo in question. Probably would even make a good discussion subject for those who like it and those who do not much like it. Seems natural and not a studio shot. And has no glamour but has a warm feeling and sharp where sharp counts and not sharp where not sharp counts. And I love the salmon fingernail varnish...

(15 foot distance is a good one except maybe shooting children. Far enough and not too far)

What is the other reaction, especially about the quantity and quality of the blur cum bokeh effect. For me I kind of like it. ( As to lens speed and Fl. I owned a Canon T90 and was looking a used FD 85mm 1.2 in a shop Also an FD 85mm 1.8 in another local shop. I rented a 1.2 L lens, the one that was 3X the price of the 1.8. My feeling in tests that is so razor shop that I found the nose in focus and the ears maybe not. )

 

Might have been my technique. The size, weight , diameter and price of the lens turned me on to the 85mm 1.8 which I still own and have used with m43. But that 1.2 was one juicy lens. Still commands a large price used market... Only old lens I still use actually with a Vello tube adapter is the 1.8 and sometimes the FD 200 2.8, not often though..<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>My point is that technique and adaptation wins out in these kinds of discussions. And no great magic needed to get a lovely background with little circles of light and color..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it's just distance from subject with a fast lens, but also distance from background. the definition of 'great magic' is pretty subjective anyway. any photo worth looking at for more than 1 second could easily fit the criteria.<br>

<br>

i think its more framing than technique, per se. if the background were closer, the out of focus effects would not have been rendered as well. and the Olympus 75/1.8 is certainly one of the best choices on m4/3 for subject isolation, not just because of the fast aperture but also the compression -- which you wont get on those wide angle f/0.95 lenses, for example. but OOF rendering and subject isolation is an inherent limitation with a small sensor camera. the advantage of m4/3 with fast lenses is that you can shoot at open apertures and get everything in focus. if the above shot had been shot with a 1.8 lens wide open on full-frame, only the focus point would have been in focus.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>IMHO, the background on the linked photo is quite distracting because it's not out of focus enough.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is an interesting point. at f/4 equivalent and that background distance, we don't get a completely melty background. perhaps waiting another second or two until the woman had passed would have made a difference in terms of distraction, but you'd need even more shallow DoF and more compression/distance from subject to really lose the background completely. i dont have an M4/3 shot to compare, but i do have a recent pic taken with an 85/1.4 on a full-frame camera which shows foreground and background bokeh as well as subject iso on the main subject.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>*Nikon D3s</p>

[GerrySiegel]

I sometimes like mushy and melty, creamy or luminous or dark or dim ... and sometimes not so much and foreground takes the gold ring at the time. Lately I like more environmental approach. EM-1 in bright sun and with F 5 and back hedge about 10 feet off...distracting? Depends..<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>if i might offer a suggestion, you could have stopped up as f/5 doesnt exactly 'melt' backgrounds with most lenses (might have needed an ND filter for that though). for shots like that, where you have the sun behind her giving her natural highlights, i prefer an open background. this shot kind of works too, though, because the background blends into her hair pretty nicely.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>since this is the mirrorless forum, let's see if i have a shallow DoF pic taken with a mirrorless cam.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>^ that's actually at f/4, but the background just melts...</p>

[GerrySiegel]

Nice shot, Eric. The topic is about as thorny sometimes, however. When I photographed Dolly I actually gave little thought to how mushy the display looked behind her. There are variables we control and variables we may not have time to control. And comes down to a priority and a sense of what we want to achieve. I used to strive for in focus throughout and just be sure there was no tree sticking out of someone's head in a picture. Now it gets more complicated. But maybe because those who were used to the full frame are slow to adapt. I was at first.

[eric_arnold]

<p>well, candid shots and grab shots are usually an exercise in "seeing." by that i mean, you only have a few seconds sometimes to mentally compose the image in your mind and snap the shot before the opportunity pases. that's different from a more thoughtful composition where you pay attention to every little detail. of course, with digital, we can examine the image and our compositional choices in great detail when we get home and check out the shot on a monitor and then examine what we might have done differently for next time. eventually, with enough repetition, our brains lock in to these details and if we've followed correct methodology, i.e. correctly analyzing light, evaluating exposure parameters, placing our subject where we want them, etc., we can automatically course correct and dial in the right values. but repetition is the key. that's one thing i learned from photojournalism, shooting events, and forcing myself to shoot street. i dont always nail the correct exposure every time, but ive gotten a lot better at not making the same mistake over and over again. which i still do occasionally, but not so much.</p>

<p>one thing which works well is to force yourself to work on photographic weaknesses or i should say turn limitations into strengths. when i was mainly shooting a lot of events and doing real fast-paced event grabs using AF, i would occasionally change it up, break out the tripod, walk around the lake and do landscape shots with manual focus at a much slower pace. i found that my compositional sense really improved by taking an opposite approach to what i normally did.</p>

<p>so maybe for you, you might want to experiment with working on backgrounds, distance from subject, etc. shoot in a style you normally don't. another thing which is a good exercise is doing a portrait series, picking a model, a location and spending 20-30 minutes getting shots just how you want them. ive been shooting a series of portraits just using 35 and 85 primes, rather than the zooms i use for events, because i want to limit my choices and concentrate on composition by narrowing my focus, so to speak. after doing those portraits for a few months, i realized how important background were to the overall shot and their role in the overall composition -- just a slight change in angle changes the entire shot. likewise the use of space or negative space, i.e. open backgrounds, vs. closed backgrounds gives a totally different feel. sometimes you want claustrophobic images, and sometimes you want things a little more spread out. if im using shallow DoF to isolate subjects, i tend to want open backgrounds to make them pop even more and draw the viewer's eye to the subject.</p>

<p>in your case, with that last shot, it might have actually made more sense to draw the background closer into the shot by stopping down even more, to f/8 or so, which would have emphasized the tonal alignment between her hair and the hedge. another thing i do sometimes is shoot shots with a couple of different "looks." with environmental portraits i really like my 35/1.4, which i tend to shoot between f/2-2.8. with M4/3, the closest would be a 17/1.8, which wont quite separate backgrounds like full frame, but does allow you to shoot wide open and worry less about a thin sliver of a focal plane, since you'll have deeper DoF on your subject.</p><div></div>

[jcuknz]

<p>Since for years with digital I used a bridge camera where OOF backgrounds were impossible except for the obvious situations I learnt to do it in editing and read discussions such as this with amusement, particularly the descriptions of what good Bokeh is.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

I had it easy with a Bronica and 150 mm JC.