wpas

I’ve been out of using photo editing software for many years when my granddaughter asked me to take her engagement photos. I used a Nikon D5600 with a 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 lens that just can never throw the background out of focus. So I’m looking for a cheap, easy to use software that will help me throw the image background out of focus. Thanks

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Interesting, looking to hear about this.
Ps if you have a 50mm f1.8 it would have done the job.

wpas

I do have the 50mm f1.8 you mention, but for this work I didn’t like the lack of flexibility, distortion and it just didn’t throw the background out of focus sufficiently.

Phil Martin Loc: New Hampshire

Affinity Photo will do that nicely for you. Put a "blur" layer over your image, and since all of Affiinity's layers are also "masks" you can simply "paint" the characters (and the foreground object) sharp. Works like a charm! Got $35 to spare?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

What was your aperture and focal length for this posted shot? Have you tried more telephoto length at f/5.6? See this calculator: https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Re software, you will need to be careful around your subjects' upper bodies if you want a natural-looking result.

Phil Martin Loc: New Hampshire

Here's what I did in Affinity in less than five minutes.

Ava'sPapa Loc: Cheshire, Ct.

Now, I think the pumpkin looks odd. But the thing that bothers me about this picture is that the horizon is not straight (everything's tilting to the left). I also agree that the 50mm lens would work here.

mrpentaxk5ii

looks a little weird because parts of the leg are blurry and as you go up the body the hands get sharper the mans face then goes soft.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

A 50mm on your crop camera makes a great 75mm ff equivalent portrait lens.
Yes, you might have to step back or forward a step but there will be no distortion.

wpas

Sorry, but I wasn’t looking for criticism on what lens I chose to use, I’m looking for recommendations on blur software. I actually own a bag of lenses which includes the 50mm the audience believes I should have used for the photo. What the readers aren’t aware of is why I chose the specific lens I used. I’m handicapped and can’t stand or walk very far. As a result, I’ve learned that I can’t carry around a heavy bag of lenses and accessories. As a result, I’ve settled on the Nikon 18-200mm as my ONLY LENS and do not carry any bag, only the camera with its lens. I hope everyone understands....

wpas

Oh yes, I no longer ride the motorcycle in my site image. I had to sell it years ago.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

OK, we'll assume that you know your lens well and don't need coaching on the role of focal length and aperture in depth of field. Try befunky.com - an online app. This app has more features for a yearly fee, but "blur" is in the free part, and includes a slider for making the effect stronger or weaker, as well as selective application (just the areas you want affected).

More free software is in this list:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-page?upnum=2948

.

wpas

Thanks a bunch Linda.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

"Good" "Cheap" "Easy to use". "Capable"

Pick one. You can't have all four in the same software. You might find two of those features in some cases ("good", "capable"). But others will only offer one feature.... will EITHER be good or cheap or easy to use or capable.

Sorry, but if you want a realistic looking effect, the previous poster's efforts seem a little overdone and don't reflect realities of depth of field.

To do a more realistic job of it requires a layer and mask technique, along with a gradient. The way I do this make a copy layer, blur that, then put a mask on it to "paint away" the area that needs to be sharp with a 100% brush. That allows the sharper, bottom layer to "show through" the blurred layer. Next I increase the size of the brush and reduce it to between 5 and 10%.... then use multiple strokes to create a depth of field effect where the blur starts a few feet "in front of" and a few feet "behind" the subjects, and gradually increases to a stronger blur in the background. When that was done, the overall effect seemed a bit too strong to me, so I reduced the blur layer to 90% opacity. I used Photoshop for all this, which ain't cheap or easy.

This image is so small and low resolution it's not possible to do a very good job of adding blur to it. Working from the full size original would be a lot better. But, below is some idea how this might end up looking.

P.S. It appears you also added a vignette to the image. To me that looks a bit odd with the subjects off-center. If you're going to use a vignette effect, I recommend changing the crop to center them... Or, if you prefer having them off-center, I wouldn't use the vignette. Photoshop also can help make the writing on the pumpkin more legible.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You want a miracle - that just doesn't exist. Any attempt at doing this in software is fairly complex, since you aren't just blurring the background - you need to blur the background progressively so that you have a sharp area that coincides with the plane of focus of the subject. It can be done, but if it needs to be convincing, you'll need to put some work into it. Using photoshop, you would first make a selection of the main subject, and put it on a layer. Then you'd make a reflected graduated mask on the remaining part of the image, which would have the background, subject focus plane and background - placing the center part of the mask - the part with zero effect, in the vicinity of the subject's plane of focus. It's not hard to do on this image, but other, more complex images will require more work. Or if you are easily satisfied, you can use an app that sorta does this, but not as well as the process I've described.

Good luck with your quest. . .