Background

alphasnapper

alphasnapper

Messages
13
Edit My Images
No
He everyone, new to the forum and fairly new to DSLR photography so gentle please!! I would like some help on how to achieve a completely smooth background. I see photos that are completely plain, not almost obliterated but completely so. I achieve a good bokeh but not 100%. Is it to do with the lens, settings or Photoshop?
Thanks in advance.
 
It's produced through depth of field controlled through you cameras aperture also subject to back ground distance helps. One other way is also by using a nice lens telephoto a are great as the really compress the background into nothing where as with a wide angle u will have a very hard job in doing so. Hope that helps
 
chunkey20012001 said:
It's produced through depth of field controlled through you cameras aperture also subject to back ground distance helps. One other way is also by using a nice lens telephoto a are great as the really compress the background into nothing where as with a wide angle u will have a very hard job in doing so. Hope that helps
Click to expand...

Thank you for that info. I have tried different apertures and subject to background distance but still can't achieve that completely smooth background, almost but not quite. I also tried a teleconverter with no better results.
 
Or just start with a plain background
What is it you're shooting, people or something else? In studio, or location?
Maybe easier if you post your efforts and let us see if we can help?
 
BruceMo said:
Or just start with a plain background
What is it you're shooting, people or something else? In studio, or location?
Maybe easier if you post your efforts and let us see if we can help?
Click to expand...

Good idea but you can't include photos without them being on the internet so it seems which mine aren't, not good enough yet. I am shooting butterflies, insects, birds and flowers on location.

Not the easiest forum I've ever used by a long chalk. However, have posted a couple of photos in Galleries under Alphasnapper, hope you can locate them.
 
Last edited:
You need to understand Depth of Focus.
Because back-ground blurring 'bokah' is when whats beyond your subject is grossely beyond the Depth of Focus.
Here is a manual focus lens, with DoF scale.
dsc_1830.jpg

From the image title, its a Helios 44, so its the Russian 58mm f2 'standard' lens off my old Zenith 35mm film camera. OK...

-Green numbers either side of the Red line on the lens body; thats the Depth of Focus Scale.
- Yellow numbers, above, end in funny fallen over 8 symbol 'infinity' and an 'M'.. thats the distance scale on the focus ring.
- White numbers, bottom, those are the Aperture F-numbers on the aperture control ring.

On the Focus scale, '4' is lined up against the red line; so the lens is focused at (close enough) 4m
On the aperture ring, '4' is lined up against the red-line, so its set to f-4.

Now look at the green numbers/scale. Either side of the red-line are green-lines marked with the f-number they correspond to. On this lens, f8, 11 & 16 have both sides marked, the rest only get one number a side, and you have count lines the other way.... because they are so close together, but I'll explain that in a second.

for now, if you take the marks for f4 on the DoF scale either side of the red line, and read off the distance scale, it will tell you the limits of the Depth of Focus.... and the F4 mark left of red index line lines up with aprox 3.25m, mark without a number for f4 right of index lines up with aprox 5.5m.

so the Depth of focus is from about 3.25m to 5.5m, anything closer will be blurry, anything further away getting blurrier the firther away it is from camera.

Now, notice that the focus ring scale is logarythmic. Scales atarts something before first number I can see clearly, which is 1.3m, then we get 1.5m, 1.7m, then 2m, 2.5m, 3m, 4m, 6m, 10m and then infinity... the markings actually getting closer together on the rings, whilst further apart numerically.

So... f4, 4m... we have a depth of focus that is about 3.25m, aprox 1/4 infront 2/3 behind our subject.

Without changing the f-number... if we were to walk closer to our subject... and get them in focus at say.....2m..... we'd move the distance scale around on the DoF scale, and the f4 DoF limits would give us something from about 1.7 to maybe 3m.... ie, a shallower DoF, only 1.3m instead of 3.25m... FOR THE SAME APERTURE.

Aperture ALONE does NOT control 'Depth of Focus'.

What controls depth of focus is the ratio of camera to subject / subject to back-ground distance.

Closer you are to the subject, further the back-ground is away from them... the greater the dissociation ratio and the more 'bokeh' you are likely to get for ANY aperture.

Bokeh by the way is not the actual 'blur' or dissociation de-focus, but an utterly unquantifiable commodity, how 'smoothly' unfocused transitions occur.

As such, depends what you are snapping how 'nice' the bokeh effect may be... if you are shooting against a fairly even coloured texture like a hedge, where the tonal range is quite small, and detail discontinuities also small, the out-of focus high-lights and shaddows can easily 'mix' to give 'nice' smooth texture.... if you are shooting against a back-ground that has more contrast, and larger and more sharply defined discontinuities, say a black and white chequer pattern tiled wall.... then the un-focused light wont mix so well, and rather than 'bokeh' you will get 'unfocused detail' with potential quite discernable shape and colour, rather than soft texture.

Which is worth noting..... its something you dont just 'get' twisting a dial... you have to COMPOSE to get it.... then know what twisting the dial does!

Back to the dials!

With this lens, focused at 4m, you will start to 'dissociate' or de-focus back-ground detail at f4 from about 6m on. Anything closer will be in focus, it will only start to blur as it gets further away, and then, further away it is, more it will blur.

If your subject was 10m from the camera, or you were at f16, then the infinity mark on the focus ring would fall on, or close enough to the DoF limit mark.... and you would only EVER get the tiniest bit of dissociation, de-focus and potential Bokeh blurr, no matter HOW far from the subject the back-ground was.

So... you could 'open up' and try a wider aperture... but there is a limit to how much that effects things, and by far and away the biggest influence isn't the f-number, but this camera to subject/subject to back ground ratio. And you have this logarithmic scale.

And moving the subject closer to camera and further from back-ground is the most effective way to get that ratio more advantageouse, moving camera closer to subject almost as good.

Telephoto Lenses......

For the same f-number, longer lenses usually give a shallower DoF. Picking up the 135mm lens for that Zenith; at subject distance of same 4m at same f4, I get DoF limits from its scale at err... well... 3m is way beyond one end, 5m way off the other, I wouldn't get DoF near either even at f22... at 4m... and f4, its a couple of cm either side of subject distance.

This is probably not that good..... as the DoF is likely to be SO shallow that if I focused on some-ones eyes.... thier nose and ears would probably be fuzzy.....

If I back up, take perhaps three paces back... re-focus, at f4, the DoF would now be maybe a foot, 30cm or so, 1/3 infront 2/3 behind subject, I get nose and ears in reasonable focus.... BUT.... while infinity is still a heck of a long way off my DoF scale...... the ratio of camera to subject, subject to back-ground has been very disfavourably adjusted, and while anything beyond maybe 7.5m will start to blurr..... On the wider angle lens, closer up, anything beyond 6m was starting to blurr....

Only reason you are getting 'more' back-ground dissociation from the longer lens is from the shallower DoF....

But. framing your subject, making them larger in the frame.... to get the same 'subject' to 'frame' composition... you are going to HAVE to move away from the subject.....

Move away from subject.... camera-subject-back-ground ratio goes in favour of the back-ground and the less dissasociation you will get, less de-focusing, less potential 'bokah'.

Starts with composition... and you have to work out IF the back-ground is actually more condusive to giving good bokeh or not... and then, composing your shot.... if the back-ground is close to your subject, actually using a longer lens to shorten the DoF to get dissasiation could be counter productive.

To dissasociate, you need to get up close, and get the back-ground away.

Shortening DoF with wide apertures or tele-lenses is NOT necesserily the best way to go.

Using wider angle lenses and smaller apertures CAN give much better results.... BUT either way, its starts with composition..... Is the back-ground GOING to disassociate easily? Then your framing.... how big is the subject? How big do you want it in the frame? How close can you get to it and still focus on it AND get it all in frame?

Its possible that you aren't getting good results, because shooting smaller subjects, butterflies, birds, insects..... small subjects, likely to be close to thier back ground, and probably closer to thier back-ground than they are to the camera, even more so with a tele-photo lens or tele-adaptor.... you are going about it completely the wrong way.... and you would get better results, with a wider lens, closer to the subject.... but even then..... small subject, close to back-ground.... that back-ground with big detail in the frame.... its just NOT condusive to good bokeh.... there isn't enough fussiness in the back-ground for that little de-focusing to mix up enough in the frame.

Try the classic, selective focus experiment.... grab a person to model for you.... take them to a park where you have a bit of space and set them up with a hedge or similar as the back-ground.... then try your camera to subject to back-ground experiments again.

1/ camera to back-ground aprox 10m from camera. Get subject to stand at minimum focus distance, take a shot. Then keeping aperture and shutter the same; get them to take a step backwards, take another shot; another step, another shot..... should get about six shots before they are standing against the hedge.

2/ Now get them to take five paces forwards; keep the subject back-ground distance 5m or so. Now walk up to them until they are at just about minimum focus distance and in focus. Same aperture and shutter.... now YOU take a step back each time you take a picture, until you are aprox 10m away from them, 15m from back ground.

3/ Now select a less bokeh freindly back-ground. Metal fence railings are good; but buildings can work too. Something regular and less happy to unresolve itself to mere texture.... Repeat the two experiments, and again, keep the aperture the same.

Now you can go repeat the experiment with different apertures, and again, with different lens length.

It will start to make sense to you, from doing and seeing, a lot better.

But you'll see how the biggest factor is the back-ground and how readily it will blurr or smooth out, and then the camera-subject-back-ground distance.
 
alphasnapper said:
Yes, they do look natural but it's a matter of preference and I prefer peoples bird/butterfly shots when the background is 100% smooth as in this link, 2nd photo along.
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/24/top-25-wild-bird-photographs-of-the-week-40/
Click to expand...
I don't think there's anything wrong with your technique. My guess is the scene in the photo you've cited above just has a more uniformly coloured background, which has then been thrown out of focus in exactly the same sort of way as you've already managed. It's probably shot against the wall of a shed or something like that, or maybe even an artificial backdrop.

There's no way to "cheat" that with technique (although you could easily cheat it in post-processing). It's just a matter of the distribution of colour in the background that was there at the time.
 
alphasnapper said:
Yes, they do look natural but it's a matter of preference and I prefer peoples bird/butterfly shots when the background is 100% smooth as in this link, 2nd photo along.
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/24/top-25-wild-bird-photographs-of-the-week-40/
Click to expand...

Is this a wind up?
The only photos on that page with completely smooth backgrounds are shot against the sky.

You say you understand the principle, what lens are you using? Also many botanical photographers use single colour backgrounds, at that size they can be A4 cardboard.
 
ghoti said:
I don't think there's anything wrong with your technique. My guess is the scene in the photo you've cited above just has a more uniformly coloured background, which has then been thrown out of focus in exactly the same sort of way as you've already managed. It's probably shot against the wall of a shed or something like that, or maybe even an artificial backdrop.

There's no way to "cheat" that with technique (although you could easily cheat it in post-processing). It's just a matter of the distribution of colour in the background that was there at the time.
Click to expand...

Yes I suppose we do not know the exact circumstances of these "clean" backgrounds but I was eager to ask the question to see if I was doing something wrong and with Photoshop being such a powerful tool it's probably not correct to take everything at face value.
 
Phil V said:
Is this a wind up?
The only photos on that page with completely smooth backgrounds are shot against the sky.

You say you understand the principle, what lens are you using? Also many botanical photographers use single colour backgrounds, at that size they can be A4 cardboard.
Click to expand...

Second photo in, the bird eating the orange berries.
Did I say I understand the principle, where was that?
 
alphasnapper said:
Second photo in, the bird eating the orange berries.
Did I say I understand the principle, where was that?
Click to expand...

You're looking to solve a mystery that doesn't exist.

You can only remove so much detail with bokeh, if you want a BG with a single colour, there should be no mystery. Shoot with a single coloured background(y)

So of course, absolutely anyone can put together a photo like that one, all you need is a well lit subject, suitable background, long fast lens and a bit of luck to capture something of actual interest.
 
Phil V said:
You're looking to solve a mystery that doesn't exist.

You can only remove so much detail with bokeh, if you want a BG with a single colour, there should be no mystery. Shoot with a single coloured background(y)

So of course, absolutely anyone can put together a photo like that one, all you need is a well lit subject, suitable background, long fast lens and a bit of luck to capture something of actual interest.
Click to expand...

I didn't say there was a mystery, I just asked for advice and help in achieving a clean background and in wildlife photography you cannot shoot with a single coloured background as you suggest. If it's not possible then so be it but at least others have been sympathetic to my request. I'm sorry but you have totally misunderstood the whole thread.
 
Last edited:
alphasnapper said:
I didn't say there was a mystery, I just asked for advice and help in achieving a clean background and in wildlife photography you cannot shoot with a single coloured background as you suggest. If it's not possible then so be it but at least others have been sympathetic to my request. I'm sorry but you have totally misunderstood the whole thread.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if my choice of words offended, I tend towards straight talking and factual rather than fluffy and imprecise, it honestly is straightforward - if you want a smooth single coloured background, then shoot your subjects in front of a smooth single coloured background (some patterning can be obliterated by Bokeh - but not loads).

If you can show me an answer in this thread that is more straightforward or correct than that I will eat my hat.;) I think you misunderstood me if you thought I said it wasn't possible - I believed I'd told you exactly how to do it :thinking:

You might not like my answer, it might not be what you were expecting to hear, but it is the only way to do it in camera.

Like lots of photography it takes planning, care and preparation, there's rarely magic involved, but it's common for newer photographers to believe that there ought to be shortcuts. I think within the week you could come back here with an example of a butterfly or flower with a totally plain background simply by putting a little extra effort in.
 
Phil V said:
I'm sorry if my choice of words offended, I tend towards straight talking and factual rather than fluffy and imprecise, it honestly is straightforward - if you want a smooth single coloured background, then shoot your subjects in front of a smooth single coloured background (some patterning can be obliterated by Bokeh - but not loads).

If you can show me an answer in this thread that is more straightforward or correct than that I will eat my hat.;) I think you misunderstood me if you thought I said it wasn't possible - I believed I'd told you exactly how to do it :thinking:

You might not like my answer, it might not be what you were expecting to hear, but it is the only way to do it in camera.

Like lots of photography it takes planning, care and preparation, there's rarely magic involved, but it's common for newer photographers to believe that there ought to be shortcuts. I think within the week you could come back here with an example of a butterfly or flower with a totally plain background simply by putting a little extra effort in.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, we're getting into deeper water. I wonder what makes you think I thought there was magic in achieving a clean background. All you have said is use a piece of A4 coloured card or shoot against a single coloured background. This is of course not possible in wildlife photography. Take a look at photos on the web, and by ordinary people on Flickr and you will see numerous clean backgrounds so it can be done. I was asking if anyone knew how. Take a look at Teflon-Mike's reply, it was courteous, beneficial and easy to understand.
I am now closing this thread on my part.
 
alphasnapper said:
Oh dear, we're getting into deeper water. I wonder what makes you think I thought there was magic in achieving a clean background. All you have said is use a piece of A4 coloured card or shoot against a single coloured background. This is of course not possible in wildlife photography. Take a look at photos on the web, and by ordinary people on Flickr and you will see numerous clean backgrounds so it can be done. I was asking if anyone knew how. Take a look at Teflon-Mike's reply, it was courteous, beneficial and easy to understand.
I am now closing this thread on my part.
Click to expand...

You really are reading an attitude that isn't there:shrug: In fact the way you're pulling apart my help is borderline rude.

You asked a question, I've given you a straightforward answer take it or leave it.

I never suggested it was always done with a piece of A4 card - but I could find you plenty of examples that are. I believe I've said twice - if you want a clean background - find a clean background. That's now 3.

Mike's answer is a great explanation of DoF, but he doesn't tell you how to get a single coloured background (Your question - remember). As I said Bokeh will get you a long way, but a high contrast background will still produce multiple colours. Like I said - ignore me if you wish. Or have a read through again, seeing me as someone trying to help - I'll bet it clicks into place better;)
 
Phil V said:
You really are reading an attitude that isn't there:shrug:
Click to expand...

Without adding fuel to the fire (albeit a simpering one :) ) it was probably the use of "is this a wind up?" as your opening line.

Anyway, on with your smooth backgrounds...
 
Phil V said:
Is this a wind up?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

ernesto said:
Without adding fuel to the fire (albeit a simpering one :) ) it was probably the use of "is this a wind up?" as your opening line.
Click to expand...

Yeah... but then right next to that, inder his mug-shot it does say:-
Real name : Phil
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 4,999

You have to make some allowances for the Donni-Gruff, yok-shi, muk'n'brass bluntness. I mean, I was not completely unaccustomed to it, having spent six years of my early childhood in Leeds... returning decade and a bit later to work in a factory full of Donni-Gurlz, making switches for cars; First Day, when introduced, the Production Supervisor's first flat-cap n ferrets question was "ey L'd y'da-tin!?" ..... there is a certain 'economy of language', still prevelent in the local culture; took a bit of trawling through Last-of-The summer wine & All creatures great & small data-base to come up with a translation... "Have you got a girlfreind?".... but only after he'd added, "Shelli 'n lyan six go-er-ah on y if y'ent, wha'bout'et? eh!?"

And he's not far off... I explained elaborately, DoF and bokeh, not how to get what he was after... but the follow on, IS that with a large Camera to Subject to Background ratio working against you, and large, bokeh unfreindly back-ground, an artificial bokeh freindlyback-ground IS the way to get desired effect... AND setting up shots and waiting for a bug to land in it, is possible and with a week to practice, could be cracked.

Just did it more bluntly, with Donni economy of words!

Jeez I still have PTFB to some of the works do's from when I worked up there! No wonder Yorkshire men walk funy!
 
Last edited:
ernesto said:
Where is this Doncaster place you speak of?
Click to expand...

Up the M1, little beyond Leicester, someway short of Jock-Land. Think its marked on the AA Road-Atless of Britain by exhausted cartographers with "ere Bee Dragons"... great girls...... but pack condoms and ear-plugs! They bring their own hand-cuffs.... make sure you have a first aid kit in the car!
 
Teflon-Mike said:
Up the M1, little beyond Leicester, someway short of Jock-Land. Think its marked on the AA Road-Atless of Britain by exhausted cartographers with "ere Bee Dragons"... great girls...... but pack condoms and ear-plugs! They bring their own hand-cuffs.... make sure you have a first aid kit in the car!
Click to expand...

:clap::clap:
Yer right, I thought I was being helpful:shrug:

Most people round these parts accept me as helpful if a little belligerent.

By the way we consider ourselves not to have too much of an accent unlike Tykes, Cod'eads and Deedahs, who all speak terribly common.

Tykes (generically Yorkshire but especially Barnsley), Cod'eads (Hull) and Deedahs (Sheffield)
 
alphasnapper - as has been suggested, it's all about choosing the right background and lens/DoF combo...

Take this for example:


DSC_9261 by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

I was at the long end of a 80-200mm zoom and shot at f/4.5, more to ensure the DoF wasn't paper-thin but did blur the background a lot. I also benefitted from the dog behind in shade, so I could expose for the dog and the background was overexposed. But the principle of using a long lens to create a solid background colour is there.

This one is the same - short distance to subject, long lens, low f-number...


Wren by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top