Thanks, Jerry. I have been blurring backgrounds in PS. The links here are useful, especially when refering to the select and mask function. Seems like a good way to cut out hair, BTW.
But the problem is time. At approximately ten to fifteen minutes a picture (getting a precise selection is what takes me the most time), blurring in PS is not as efficient as getting the blur and separation right in camera.
I think I will try the 75mm 1.8 lens, although, not being a zoom, it is likely to be very limiting.
Unclehoss wrote:
Practice, practice, practice. Set up some sort of object(fence posts, pop cans, bowling pins) at different distances to the camera with each of them in view. Take copius notes for camera to object distance, shutter speed, F-stop, focal length on the zoom lens, etc. Without the objects moving you will have time to change shutter speeds, f-stops, zooms and take a WHOLE BUNCH of shots. Study them to figure out what look you are looking for. Remember, faster shutter speed means less movement blur, larger aperature (lower f-stop number) means shallower depth of field(DoF), physically the closer you are to the subject, the shallower the DoF, the larger the sensor the shallower the DoF for an equivalent f-stop. Since you don't want to change formats, you can work with the other variables to achieve your goal. I used to drive my wife nuts with the number of pictures I took of pop bottles lined up. There are numerous online charts to tell you numbers of depth of field for different sensors, f-stops, but a picture is worth a thousand words, when you see it in practice you will be able to anticipate what it will look like for the real thing.
Practice, practice, practice. Set up some sort of ... (
show quote)
Thanks, Unclehoss. This is good advice!
TriX wrote:
If you’ll pick the “quote reply” selection under the response when you respond, we’ll know who you’re responding to. Thanks!
Sorry! this is my first time at replying.
Thanks for your kind reply. I already have the 14-150 and the 70-300 and like them very much. Took both on a safari last spring and they performed admirably. But neither is as fast as I need. And I have just got the E M1ii and am learning how to get the best from it.
Thanks for your kind reply. As I replied to him, I will be trying this out. Glad to hear your opinion of this lens. It is not cheap, but if it can be put to several different uses, it will be worthwhile.
Thanks for your kind reply. I am with you on the first part. But compressing the background should bring the distracting background into sharper focus.
Thanks for your kind reply.
I was shooting wide open. I think the answer will be to select subject close to me but farther from the distracting elements. Regrettably, much of the action, at least in soccer, seems to be away from me. Analagous, in reverse, to smoke from the grill; it seems to follow you wherever you go. LOL
Thanks for your kind reply. These are great pix. Congrats. But what I want is tack sharp pictures of the athletes with a blurred background. I am not sure whether soccer players move fast enough to blur the background, but panning is something to try. And not wasted effort--practice in panning would be a good thing. But not likely useful for volleyball; the players don't move that fast or in such a constant direction.
Thanks for your kind reply.
I know that they use ff cameras. But I am reluctant to move to a full frame and invest in a $2000 or so lens for that would be only about 10% of my photography. Reasons are expense (obviously), the unwieldy size of the gear, and learning a new system. I will continue to work on a work-around. I have already received some good ideas in answer to my post.
Thanks for your kind reply. I mentioned the 12-100 f/4, confusingly, as an aside. I am thinking of it as a walk around lens, as the sharpness of the cumbersome 40-150 is so good.
I am sure the 75mm 1.8 will be equally sharp. I have ordered one and will soon get to try it out. i am happy to hear your opinion of the lens.
Thanks for your kind reply. Great pix. But in my sports pictures, I dont have the advantage of choosing backgrounds and their distance from the subject. Not unless I limit severely the pictures I take to those where there is little background clutter and where the subjects are close to me. This would confine me to only about an eighth of the field or less. Which is probably the only real solution, except perhaps a faster lens.
Thanks for your kind reply. I mentioned the 12-100 f/4, confusingly, as an aside. I am thinking of it as a walk around lens, as the sharpness of the cumbersome 40-150 is so good. You are one of the hoggers I most pay attention to, as you are clearly an expert in the field.
As has been noted elsewhere, your reply this time somewhat missed the mark. Perhaps my fault for not being sufficiently clear. I don't do film. And I was shooting wide open. Shutter speed 1/1000 to 1/2000.
Thanks for your kind reply. I mentioned the 12-100 f/4, confusingly, as an aside. I am thinking of it as a walk around lens, as the sharpness of the cumbersome 40-150 is so good. I should not have mentioned it here, as it is a distraction. I just wanted to refer to the sharpness of the best Oly lenses. I had been using the less expensive teles, and was happy with them. At least until I saw what the 2.8 could do. It should be handled with care. it is dangerously sharp.
Thanks for your kind reply. I have a great respect for your knowledge and willingness to help. But I am not sure that your images are very helpful in my situation. You have a lot of separation between subject and background, I suspect. And some time to get good focus. Regrettably, in soccer, as you know, the subjects move rather quickly and all too often there is little separation between the subjects and the distracting elements on the sidelines.
I suspect that I am being too optimistic about what I can capture with this lens, or any 2.8 lens with MTF for that matter. Best to take pictures with subjects close, to create physical distance from background. And avoid pictures where a cluttered background exists. All of this is rather limiting. I suspect, but am not sure, that the pros who do sports photographyalso concentrate on relatively close subjects.
Thanks for your kind reply. I think that if any solution is possible, it is with the 75 f/1.8. this would be somewhat limiting, not being a zoom. And for fast moving subjects, nailing focus with such a narrow depth of field will be tricky. but I will try. Ordered the lens last night.