mknmemries54 Loc: Missouri

I have seen nature photos with the object clear and the background and foreground out of focus. How do I create this image. I am a newbee and after several disappointments just recently learned how to create clear pictures. My new camera is a FukiFilm HS 20 EXR. I have taken SEVERAL photos but I'm still learning the camera. I am just playing around at the moment. I intend to photograph nature and want to get it right when I try.

Son with bachground

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

1) Read my Lens/Aperture/Shutter speed primer noted in my signature below.
2) You need a wide aperture (below f/3) and a good distance between your subject and the background.

The blurriness is called 'bokeh' (pronounced "boke-uh" ) and many photographers spend hours debating its worth and/or desirability.

To get it, you need a wide aperture with a shallow DOF, so the background is indistinct.

pigpen

Can be done in PP, but much easier (and more realistic) done in camera with an F/2.8 or f/4.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

JimH,
Nice primer....I just read it for the first time.

MWAC Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy

I believe your camera has aperture priority mode, you will need to take control of at least that part of the settings in order to obtain bokeh.

As JimH mentioned bokeh is related to a high aperture setting (low number f stop), it allows for only a small section of your image to remain in focus.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

You use a wide-aperture lens, at or near full aperture. This is known as 'differential focus', and is not quite the same thing as bokeh, which refers to the quality of the out of focus image.

From http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/bokeh.html

"The point about differential focus is that for the most part, it's the differential focus that creates the impact, and not the out-of-focus area behind the subject. Few people, apart from bokeh-obsessed photographers, will pay much attention to the actual detail of the out-of-focus area; and often, even if it is drawn to their attention, they will see nothing much to praise or to damn in the way things are rendered. This is not to say that bokeh is meaningless: merely that it is possible greatly to overrate its importance."

If you follow the link, you will find a variety of pictures with shallow focus, some more successful than others.

Cheers,

R.

LittleRedFish Loc: Naw'lens (New Orleans)

My note is that your back ground is a little out of focus. It's just not as out of focus as you would like. As already stated, the distance between your subject and there background is important. As well as the setting on your camera.
The only thing I can add is, also making sure your background is something you want to see and not to distracting. This can also help give you the "illusion" that it is more out of focus.( like a big shurb or a blank wall) Also, try adjusting the lights in the background and letting it be a darker space behind your subject. This could help give your subject more focus and the background less. You could also place your subject in front of a window (during daylight and have them look at the window or have the light on just one side of thier face) and turn off all other lights, including flash and let the natural light give the subject the main focus, the background will usually fade away into the dark.

In other words, play around with your camera settings, your subjects background and the lighting to get a more out of focus background.

docrob Loc: Durango, Colorado

I have never heard of "differential focus" or bokeh for that matter (till joining this forum) but discussions regarding DOF, selectice focusing, being mindful of background/foreground issues and the like are of import to me. A great many of my images are created with Nikon's multiple exposure feature - 2, 3, 4, and 9 exposures per frace. I am curious what you might say to help me understand better the quality of bokeh and the impact of differential focus in my ME images?

RobertMaxey

Be mindful of your backgrounds. In the pic of your son, I would make a few changes, and likely, others would disagree.

RTR Loc: West Central Alabama

Try this. Set your mode dial to A (aperture priority). Then rotate the command dial to set the largest aperture available (smallest number, such as 2.8). Then zoom all the way in on your subject. You may have to take a few steps back from the subject. Now fire away.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

The practical problem with 99% of Point and Shoot cameras is the very small sensor. The majority of them are about the size of the fingernail on your little finger. Without going into the physics of the sensor/aperture combination, the fact is that even with an aperture of f2.8 - or f2.0 for that matter, the DOF is considerably deeper than 2.8 with a DSLR.

So the short answer for this Fujifilm unit is: You cannot get that look. At least not with a background within 20 or 30 feet. Even distant scenery cannot be really blurred all that well. Physics - just can't cheat it.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

But on the other side of the coin, the camera works great for close ups on flowers and such, great depth of field.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Yes - true. What physics giveth, physics also taketh away.

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

The problem with this camera is the lens. When using the wide angle end of the spectrum, you have the best aperture (f/2.8) for attempting to create blur, but the wide angle point of view will also prevent the blur from happening.

When in telephoto mode, this camera is at f/5.6 which is not ideal to get an out of focus background.

Adobe Photoshop CS5 has a lens based defocus algorithm, but would require sophisticated masking to really get the effect right.

This camera is a very good general purpose camera, but lack of interchangeable lenses is in itself a limiting factor.

All this said, shooting nature is more about seeing things in an interesting way than it is about shallow depth of field. This camera should do well.

Richard Brown

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Differential focus and selective focus are merely two different terms for the same thing, of similar antiquity.

Have you read the link? Geoffrey's definition of 'good bokeh' seems to say most of what is really needed about a much overused term.

I can't quite visualize what you are talking about with multiple exposures: could you possibly show a picture in the thread to illustrate it?

Cheers,

R.