I hate blurry backgrounds! What equipment do I need?

[IH8BOKEH]

I do not understand this relatively new obsession with blurry backgrounds! It even has a name - "Bokeh". I hate that word and I hate everything it stands for.

Photographers are taking too much control over where the viewer's eye is drawn to in their picture. And it's just getting worse and worse. I love old pictures because there so much to see within the four corners of the image and more often than not I'm fascinated with something that was never intended to be the subject of the picture - like a house in the background, clutter in the corner of the room, a really interesting tree. But now all of this is taken away from me, taken away from me by "Bokeh".

I have been looking for camera equipment for years, but am very much a novice in understanding what I need exactly. I used DSLRs heavily for work (Canon 70D+700D) and I liked them but primarily used them for their video capability. For my own personal camera, still pictures will be the primary use. I really like the traditional form factor of the Canon 70d but I hate the light plastic build. I would love for the camera/lens to be manufactured in Japan (my car, my power tools, almost everything is Japan made!). I see quite a few people like the Fujifilm xt3 in these forums, so I have added this to my list of options. Money is no object here but I would rather not have to mind it too much so would prefer to stay <1500€ (1800$)

I would just like some advice on what equipment I need to maximise the focus in the pictures. I understand I need to avoid full frame cameras but get a sense that the soul of "Bokeh" is in the choice of lens.

Any help would be appreciated!

 

[rick shaw]

You need to avoid 35mm and go to large format.
Problem solved.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Welcome to Apug... er, Photrio! I don't understand your hatred for boke, since you love all things Japanese ( I do as well as I lived there for many years, and my wife is Japanese and insists on Japanese products). Boke is a Japanese word meaning unclear. It can also be used as an insult meaning dumb, stupid. Boke in an image is fine by me as long as it isn't obvious. That shouldn't be the subject of the photograph. It should be seamless, just like when burning/dodging a print in the darkroom or the light room. If you want to avoid extremely short depths of fields, then use wide angle lenses and shoot fully stopped down. The only thing that bugs me about boke is the spelling. Notice the lack of h at the end... But I realise it is there because people would pronounce it incorrectly... kind of like how we pronounce Nikon wrong Cheers and good luck. Would like to see some of your images posted here.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Pentax Q and the widest lens you can find

 

[Pieter12]

You need to avoid 35mm and go to large format.
Problem solved.

No. Large format lenses are slow and do not give the kind of depth of filed you want unless you make very long exposures (think minutes rather than fractions of aa second).

You want a camera with a wide-angle lens and fast film (or use a high ISO in digital) to be able to stop down to at least f8 or 11. (f16 or 22 if you opt for a medium-format camera, but it doesn't seem like that's where you're heading). Any camera will do.

 

[Horatio]

I recommend an iPhone.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

I recommend an iPhone.

Fo' real.

The triple-lens designs on newish phones are reminiscent of the rotating turrets on cine cameras, even.

 

[Cholentpot]

f/64 on a m4/3 camera. Boost the ISO to who cares and get a tripod.

Everything will be in focus.

 

[Pieter12]

f/64 on a m4/3 camera. Boost the ISO to who cares and get a tripod.

Everything will be in focus.

I understand you're being facetious, but the OP if not a troll, may not. Good luck finding an m3/4 camera with a lens that stops down to f64.

 

[shutterfinger]

You need to study Depth Of Field called DOF. There are several DOF calculators available on line.
Any camera that has exposure modes other than full auto Program (aka Push Here Dummy/PHD button) can be set to give a correct exposure and good depth of field.
A blurred background is a good thing when you want to eliminate distracting junk in the background or hide where you are and other times it distracts from the image. I'm not offended by others choice to use boketh. I either like the mage or I don't.

 

[warden]

I do not understand this relatively new obsession with blurry backgrounds! It even has a name - "Bokeh". I hate that word and I hate everything it stands for.

Photographers are taking too much control over where the viewer's eye is drawn to in their picture. And it's just getting worse and worse. I love old pictures because there so much to see within the four corners of the image and more often than not I'm fascinated with something that was never intended to be the subject of the picture - like a house in the background, clutter in the corner of the room, a really interesting tree. But now all of this is taken away from me, taken away from me by "Bokeh".

I have been looking for camera equipment for years, but am very much a novice in understanding what I need exactly. I used DSLRs heavily for work (Canon 70D+700D) and I liked them but primarily used them for their video capability. For my own personal camera, still pictures will be the primary use. I really like the traditional form factor of the Canon 70d but I hate the light plastic build. I would love for the camera/lens to be manufactured in Japan (my car, my power tools, almost everything is Japan made!). I see quite a few people like the Fujifilm xt3 in these forums, so I have added this to my list of options. Money is no object here but I would rather not have to mind it too much so would prefer to stay <1500€ (1800$)

I would just like some advice on what equipment I need to maximise the focus in the pictures. I understand I need to avoid full frame cameras but get a sense that the soul of "Bokeh" is in the choice of lens.

Any help would be appreciated!

You have a most excellent screen name.

 

[Cholentpot]

I understand you're being facetious, but the OP if not a troll, may not. Good luck finding an m3/4 camera with a lens that stops down to f64.

Adapters duh.

 

[Pieter12]

Adapters duh.

Except for large format, not many lenses beyond macro/micro stop down to f64.

 

[MattKing]

With M4/3, you won't need f/64.
M 4/3, f/8 and 33mm

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hasselblad SWC with ISO 400 film at box speed and using the longer exposure times.

 

[runswithsizzers]

If you understand the basics about depth-of-field, and if you understand what is meant by "hyperfocal distance" - then you will be well on the path to less blurry backgrounds.

Try to find lenses with depth-of-field scales marked on them. Looking at those scales shows what distances should be in focus at any given aperture.

Some digital cameras (and I believe the Fuji XT-3 is one of them) can show what is in focus in the electronic viewfinder. When I half-press the shutter on my Fuji XT-1 it shows a stopped down view of the scene - just like the old mechanical depth-of-field preview, except the Fuji's viewfinder does not go dark.

The Fujifilm XT-3 would be a good choice, as would many others; but be aware it may be made in Japan, or it may be made elsewhere (many Fuji owners say it does not make any difference in quality or reliability, no matter where it was made).

 

[wiltw]

I do not understand this relatively new obsession with blurry backgrounds! It even has a name - "Bokeh". I hate that word and I hate everything it stands for.

Photographers are taking too much control over where the viewer's eye is drawn to in their picture. And it's just getting worse and worse. I love old pictures because there so much to see within the four corners of the image and more often than not I'm fascinated with something that was never intended to be the subject of the picture - like a house in the background, clutter in the corner of the room, a really interesting tree. But now all of this is taken away from me, taken away from me by "Bokeh".

I have been looking for camera equipment for years, but am very much a novice in understanding what I need exactly. I used DSLRs heavily for work (Canon 70D+700D) and I liked them but primarily used them for their video capability. For my own personal camera, still pictures will be the primary use. I really like the traditional form factor of the Canon 70d but I hate the light plastic build. I would love for the camera/lens to be manufactured in Japan (my car, my power tools, almost everything is Japan made!). I see quite a few people like the Fujifilm xt3 in these forums, so I have added this to my list of options. Money is no object here but I would rather not have to mind it too much so would prefer to stay <1500€ (1800$)

I would just like some advice on what equipment I need to maximise the focus in the pictures. I understand I need to avoid full frame cameras but get a sense that the soul of "Bokeh" is in the choice of lens.

Any help would be appreciated!

Unfortunately most young (under 50) photographers MISUNDERSTAND 'bokeh'. It is NOT 'how blurry' the background is! Yet so many people say they 'want bokeh' when they actually want a 'blurry backround' . Blame the internet for spreading mistruths!

'Blur' comes with use of a long FL in combination with a large aperture (very small f/number...like f/2). And whether you shoot a subject at f/4 with 50mm lens at 10' or 100mm lens at 20' or 200mm lens at 40' or 400mm lens at 80', the DOF is 'the same' in ALL of those cases.
And the degree of blur is only dependent on the aperture's physical size in millimeters (200mm lens at f/4 has a 50mm diaphram diameter; 400mm lens at f/5.6 has a 72mm diameter aperture and its amount of blur is greater, even if the subject size is identical in both frames. Notice that I NEVER called any of it 'bokeh' because none of it is what the term actually means!

If you want 'no blur', you need to use a tiny shooting aperture, like f/16, but that is not always possible...maybe you cannot handhold the very slow shutter speed that is needed for that small aperture. Use of 'hyperfocal distance' CAN help, but if the Hyperfocal Distance calculator says to focus at 250' out on the lake, where do you focus?!

 

[NedL]

Pinhole, of course!

Best equipment would be: an old tin can, a needle, and some film or photo paper.
Infinite DOF. Problem solved!

 

[IH8BOKEH]

Thanks for the advice everyone. So my main priority should be to increase my knowledge around focal lengths, depth of field, apertures. I gather a wide angle lens helps but really any camera will do so long as the settings are correct? I really like the look/build quality of the Pentax cameras.

For the last few days I've been gathering examples of pictures that, in my opinion, are poor. Mainly for their use of out of focus backgrounds (I hope they are sufficiently credited):

These are just a few examples of what I hate about the style. Overblurred backround, resolution lost in important parts such as the plummage of the bird. And then the last example with just mind numbing use of blur!
While they may be poorly executed attempts, I just feel like every picture taken in the world today (wrongly) tries to incorporate Boke

 

[MattKing]

Selective focus is a very useful technique, but I agree it is often used too much.
What are your presentation goals? Are you seeking to make wall size prints, or do you expect to have most of your results seen on a screen? Or something in between?
The answer to that question is important, because the smaller your target, the easier it is to use smaller formats and get good results.
And it is a lot easier to obtain lots of depth of field with smaller formats.
Your choice of subject is also important. That example with the bird probably benefits from having the background out of focus (because otherwise birds have a tendency to visually disappear into backgrounds) but in that case the near foreground is also blurry.
The following are two examples of photos that make different use of depth of field.
They both were shot on T-Max 100 medium format 6x4.5 film. They were both shot using existing light in a relatively poorly lit heritage industrial site.
One maximizes depth of field, too show depth, while the other minimizes depth of field, to isolate detail.

Please excuse the dust!

 

[bdial]

Some of what you see may well be choices made by the photographer, but as in most everything else, there are some unavoidable trade-offs.
One major factor is that your eyes only produce a sharp image in a small part in the center of your field of view, your eyes compensate by scanning the scene, and your brain fills in the missing detail. But a camera doesn’t do that, and the lens can only focus at one distance, everything nearer or farther is out of focus to some degree, depending on the image size, and the aperture. A wider lens (smaller image size) appears to have more depth because everything is smaller. Small apertures can make things sharper to a point but there are limits.
Mixed in with that is how long the shutter needs to stay open to gather enough light, a small aperture means the shutter speed must be longer, increasing the chances of motion blur.
Boke is often used to isolate the subject, your fence post photo is a good example, a sharp background might give your eyes too much to look at, by drawing your eyes away from the texture of the wood. Whether that isolation is good or bad is hard to say, it’s hard to know since we don’t have another view to compare.
For the bird, it’s likely done with a very long lens and a wide aperture, in that situation the lens only has a few inches of depth of field, a picture done with a small aperture would likely be spoiled by either the bird or the camera moving.
The third pic is a bit odd, it’s not apparent (to me, anyway) why the focus is on the near person, it’s likely the photographer could have made most of the scene a bit sharper by focusing in-between the two people. Again, depending on the particular gear, it might be impossible to have both people truly sharp.

There is a technique called “focus stacking” which combines multiple images, each focused at a different plane, into a singe image that’s sharp everywhere, which is more or less what your brain does. Along with understanding how lenses work, that may be something you want to explore.

 

[MattKing]

Much of the current fascination with shallow depth of field I attribute to the relatively tiny sensors in cel phone cameras, and the relatively extensive depth of field that normally results.
People are looking for something that is different from that.
We have friends who take a lot of cel phone photos. Almost all of them exhibit a lot of depth of field.

 

[Cholentpot]

Except for large format, not many lenses beyond macro/micro stop down to f64.

I adapted a LF lens for my crop sensor. Unfortunately as Wiltw points out 100mm is going to be 100mm and the DoF compressed most of my subjects.

Thanks for the advice everyone. So my main priority should be to increase my knowledge around focal lengths, depth of field, apertures. I gather a wide angle lens helps but really any camera will do so long as the settings are correct? I really like the look/build quality of the Pentax cameras.

For the last few days I've been gathering examples of pictures that, in my opinion, are poor. Mainly for their use of out of focus backgrounds (I hope they are sufficiently credited):

These are just a few examples of what I hate about the style. Overblurred backround, resolution lost in important parts such as the plummage of the bird. And then the last example with just mind numbing use of blur!
While they may be poorly executed attempts, I just feel like every picture taken in the world today (wrongly) tries to incorporate Boke

Can I try to make it much simpler?

The first two are shot with a long focal. You're going to need something 35mm or wider on a full frame sensor and stop down past f/11.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Lewis Hine utilised shallow depth of field to isolate his subjects, not to emphasise boke. If he had shot this with a longer DOF, our eyes would wander behind the girl, instead of being fixed on her, as he so intended.

 

[shutterfinger]

In macro photography the DOF is a few inches to less than an inch depending on how high the magnification is.
These 2 images were made with a Nikon F4s, 20mm extension tube, 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 AF zoom. Subject distance was 10 to 12 feet, aperture was f8 to f11.

An in focus background would have been distracting.

Here a a deep DOF aids the photo. Nikon D300, 35-135 f3.5-4.5 AF Zoom, 1/80 second, aperture not recorded.