Apertures, lighting, backround blur and popping subjects!

[philthejuggler]

Hi all,

Apologies in advance for the ramble which is in effect a longer version of a post I made on POTN ages ago.

I love the effect you get when you pop the subject out of the background, something I try and achieve with a number of shots and sometimes succeed with.

What I'm after is almost like a rough formula / rule of thumb that allows you to get the effect.

I used to think the formula was simple - as small an aperture as possible to make as much background blur as possible.

This I realised was too simplistic because shots on (say) the 85mm f/1.2 wide open tend not to pop the subject unless they are full-body shots. f/1.2 for head and shoulders gets sharp eyes and everything else blurring into the background - no 'pop' at all!

I then decided it might be to do with distance and aperture - say use f/5.6 for headshots, f/4 for half body etc to get all the subject sharply in focus relative to the background blur.

Even this doesn't always work as planned - here's a full body shot @ f/2:

I think this looks reasonably 'popped' but doesn't work as well as the first shot in this post - not by me - posted by ZenFox on POTN here or direct link to image here

I asked ZenFox about this image and he said the setting were around f/8 to f/10 and he lit it using a portable flash setup with the sun as a rimlight.

So why does it pop so much & look so 3-D?

Is it the rim-lighting that seperates it from the background in conjunction with enough dof to keep to the whole subject in focus?

I'm really interested in thoughts on this - the likes of Blinkerz and others have produced great popping shots with models shot @ f/1.2, but obviously there is a lot to getting the effect. When I used to own the 85mm f/1.2 I wasn't all that delighted with the results and eventually let it go - I've been happier with the 35L, 50mm 1.4 and 135L.

Sorry for the ramble, but I'd be interested to hear what other people think needs to go into the 'recipe' for a good 'popper'

Phil

As a footnote - if you can get the effect with f/8, I wonder then what might tempt be back to the f/1.2? Perhaps the dreamy out of focus effect around the subject? When I owned it I had few pictures wide open I was pleased with - seemed to get better results around f1.8 - f2.0.

 

[specialman]

Personally, I thin it's down to the relationshoip between the subject and the surroundings, especially the background from which you're trying to 'pop' it out of.

If the tones and colours are similar you're always going to have to work your nuts off the make the subject stand out - subjects that contrast against a background are a big help.

Your shot is fine but you need flash to really define the subject outline. I'd at least put a light in from one side to give one edge some 'oomph' (non-technical term!! )

The shots you've linked through to from Zenfox are good - the first is a good example of just what additional lighting can do to seperate the subject from the background. The rim/side light from camera left helps massively. Also, I'd guess that the ambient exposure is about 2/3rds of a stop underexposed.... when I'm doing off-camera flash I find that a bit of underexposure on the background helps you play around and get a more dynamic, powerful lighting look.

Probably not the best example and definitely a world away from the loverly girls you're shooting, but you can clearly see what just one off-camera flash has helped to do with regard to seperating subject from background. Settings are on the flickr page but I just used bare flash.... obviously softboxes etc will give a softer light.


The Pike Angler by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

Settings-wise it obviously going to be dictated by ambient light levels, the kit you have to hand and just how much of an effect you want the artificial light to have, but a simple tw-flash cross lighting set-up would work fine.

 

[GIZTO29]

I was watching a guide on this and the photographer said to use a long focal length and try and have distance between the subject and the background. He did say use the lowest aperture available but as you say it can be achieved with other apertures. Seperation of the subject and background was his main point.
Phil

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

I like shooting at around 50mm for the pop appeal it often offers, DoF effects are often diminished because of the lack of length but I think it balances with the close feel type impact.

Really the main thing to make it pop, like SM says, is, like always, good light.

....No matter how much loverly DoF.
Ten feet, 200mm F2.8 … just think if Id fill flashed a tad.

But with more DoF at F4 ish at 50mm (47 ac) with a little fill flash and bingo!

...my fox has turned into a man. lol.

 

[loplyg]

I think it helps if the back of the subject is in focus yet the background isn't.

That's why sometimes shots with the 85/1.4 don't pop - because (if it's a person) the back of their head has began blurring into the background.

The best lens for achieving this is long and fast - 200mm @ 2.8 gives a large depth of field (deep enough to get a whole person in focus) yet produces a background with very large blur discs, producing a 2-component effect: in focus person, very blurry background.

I think it also helps if the subject is 0.5 - 1 stops brighter than the background.

The trouble with the long lens solution is that you've got such a small field of vision that you loose context as the background is only a few degrees wide - no good if you're trying to portray someone standing in a particular location, par example.

All in all though, as a rule, I'd say you need the background to be as far away as possible and to shoot fairly long (>100mm usually) at a wide aperture.

There are other methods, but that's a go-to.

 

[onform]

I think Adam has hit the nail on the head there with his second shot. I think the secret is in the light! Your shot has the model almost the identical shades and brightness as the background so she doesn't POP.

Take this shot of Dave, (MD), Even at f13 and a very busy BG he still pops IMO.

IMG_0983-7 by onform1, on Flickr

I think you need to overpower the ambient and use the appropriately shaped and intensity of light to suitably expose the subject. I don't think there is a hard fast rule as to getting it right, there are to many variables but understanding light and how to manipulate it is key!

 

[philthejuggler]

Thank you so much for all the great advice here! I think it seems that light is important (I'm going to read more about cross lighting with interest!), but also varying tones from the background while lifting the exposure of the subject slightly.

It is interesting that you clearly don't need very wide apertures to pop!

Phil

 

[Scarecrow]

The biggest difference between your shot and Zen's linked shot, is lighting.

Zen's model has been exposed slightly above ambient levels by whatever light he used, and has been helped by the additional rim lighting.

 

[HoppyUK]

Pop and bokeh are different things. Well, according to my definition anyway, given that neither term has a formal definition.

IMO pop is about creating contrast between the foreground and background. You can do it with differential focus - sharp against blurred; wide-angle perspective - big against small; with tone - light against dark; colour - warm against cool etc.

 

[Tracer]

Personally I don't particularly like Adam's second one or Pat's fisherman - the flash is too obtrusive and looks too artificial for me. When I first saw ZenFox's ones I assumed he had shot the model on a white background and then overlaid it on a separate landscape shot!
JMO of course.

To me Matt's shot of Dave has got it just right. I don't know if he used flash or not, but it pops while still looking entirely natural.

It's just a matter of taste, though.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

On that photographers shot - I really don't think so Tracer, his shots look spot on to me. He’s simply utilising every aspect available to gain that look.

...for instance he’s chosen a clear days end when the light is still good at dusk, hes placed the mountains that are now in shadow being the model to aid the separation, we can't see but Id imagine hes used a two or three large soft box lights or similar, maybe some thing like two at her front sides and one behind her right side...perhaps flashes, its all the same really. (Yes, soft diffusers are essential btw Phil, unlike my snap of my mate.)

He’s then blended all the light sources to balance the model into the ambient light behind her to make it look as natural as possible and gain a good 'hard 'exposure on her. For me exposure wise that shot is perfect, but its all quite possible and a standard enough approach by any experienced pro I'd imagine.

 

[specialman]

Personally I don't particularly like Adam's second one or Pat's fisherman - the flash is too obtrusive and looks too artificial for me. ....

Disappointed....

...Only joking. It's a very stark look I suppose that isn't to everyone's taste. Personally, looking back on it, I wish I'd used a softbox and the addition of a second flash camera right would have help.... although camera right was about 10ft of water!!

 

[Tracer]

On that photographers shot - I really don't think so Tracer, his shots look spot on to me. He’s simply utilising every aspect available to gain that look.

I realise that - I only meant that my initial reaction was that it was a composite.

It happens not to be to my taste but I appreciate that it is well done and that a lot of people like it.

... I wish I'd used a softbox and the addition of a second flash camera right would have help.... although camera right was about 10ft of water!!

You could have dangled it from a fishing rod?

 

[HoppyUK]

Disappointed....

...Only joking. It's a very stark look I suppose that isn't to everyone's taste. Personally, looking back on it, I wish I'd used a softbox and the addition of a second flash camera right would have help.... although camera right was about 10ft of water!!

I think it's a great shot! Flash is just right - looks like a shaft of evening sunlight