I hate blurry backgrounds! What equipment do I need?

[Ariston]

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

Ha! That is funny! I don't think others knew you were joking, though!

Pinhole, of course!

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

This is the correct answer.

Other than that, get the smallest sensor and widest lens you can find and you will never have to worry about it. Because of these criteria, the iPhone was a good answer, too.

 

[grat]

You no want Bokeh? Pinhole, you must!

 

[LittleParallelograms]

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

These look like they were shot at or near maximum aperture. Stop down to between f5.6 - f16 and you should be fine.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

if the OP wants sharp backgrounds, h needs to focus on the background and not rely on depth of field to cover it!

 

[Luckless]

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?!

Given that this is in the digital section, the obvious answer would be "Focus out to where you think 250' would be, and take a test photo to zoom in on and review in the field, adjust and take again as needed"

 

[KenS]

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

I have a 480mm Apo-Ronar (for my 8x10 B&J) that 'closes down' to f 260). In all honesty I have never-ever made an exposure using that small an f/stop using a velvet 'sock' (fluffy side 'out') over a 4x5 inch plenum as a hand-held 'shutter.
I keep looking on e-bay for a front of lens 'leaf' shutter.. but of 'no avail"... yet anyway.

Ken

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

if the OP wants sharp backgrounds, h needs to focus on the background and not rely on depth of field to cover it!

I'm well aware of that. But thanks anyways.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

I keep looking on e-bay for a front of lens 'leaf' shutter.. but of 'no avail"... yet anyway.
Ken

Off topic, but have you considered a packard shutter? Sinar also made lens boards with electronic shutters but they're rare, expensive, and probably not available in 8x10.

 

[KenS]

Off topic, but have you considered a packard shutter? Sinar also made lens boards with electronic shutters but they're rare, expensive, and probably not available in 8x10.

If I had the $$$ (or 'might have' soon enough) I would t ship it off to Grimes to have something like a Compur shutter 'installed'
Until that time... my "inside-out' black velvet 'glove' over a 4x5 plenum will have to do that which is 'needed'.

Ken

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I would use your depth of field scale more often and shoot with wider lenses.

 

[C-130 Nav]

Since this question was posed in digital, my recommendation would be to explore focus stacking using post-processing software as suggested by bdial yesterday. This can be employed to make the entire image "in focus" front to back.

Advantages:
1) I think nearly any camera sensor size and lens combination should work. Therefore, you're not limited to exotic or expensive equipment.
2) Post-processing software have numerous features that automate the stacking process and should make this fairly quick work once you dial in your workflow.
3) The technique is frequently employed by macro or astrophotography specialists to overcome DOF limitations or scene movement limitations to excellent effect. Forums or sites on these types of photography may share techniques and methodology worth exploring.

The disadvantages, however, include the following:
1) you won't be able to shoot "one and done"
2) you won't be able to create your ideal image straight out of the camera
3) if the subject involves movement, focus stacking becomes more difficult and, at some point, becomes impossible
4) you can't use this method if you switch to film unless you either scan your negatives and process a digital image (Although there are some creative ways of printing multiple images on a single print that might get you close to this effect)
5) you will need to shoot in RAW format (It might be doable in other formats, I don't have enough knowledge to know)
6) your camera needs to be in a fixed position (tripod) as you shift focusing so the stacked images have the same field of view and perspective

I concur that boke is often overused or overly emphasized in photographic composition, frequently to the detriment of the final image. However, I do not have a blanket aversion to boke or even blur in images if they are employed as part of an effective composition. As such, I haven't utilized this technique and am unable to provide additional details. I recommend researching to see if it's something that fits your photographic particulars.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As I landscape photographer, I aim for the most DOF I can get. So I stop down the aperture far. (I mainly use a Mamiya RB67 medium format film camera). Of course, I have to use a tripod because that requires slow shutter speeds. When I travel, I take a light P&S 1" sensor (Sony RX100iv digital camera). No tripod. The smaller the sensor more DOF you get. I put it on P mode and shoot away happy as a lark. Here are samples. Plenty of DOF most of the time without thinking about it.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=rx100&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1

 

[IH8BOKEH]

As I landscape photographer, I aim for the most DOF I can get. So I stop down the aperture far. (I mainly use a Mamiya RB67 medium format film camera). Of course, I have to use a tripod because that requires slow shutter speeds. When I travel, I take a light P&S 1" sensor (Sony RX100iv digital camera). No tripod. The smaller the sensor more DOF you get. I put it on P mode and shoot away happy as a lark. Here are samples. Plenty of DOF most of the time without thinking about it.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=rx100&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1

Those are incredible photographs and exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks for the advice!

 

[grat]

Since this question was posed in digital, my recommendation would be to explore focus stacking using post-processing software as suggested by bdial yesterday. This can be employed to make the entire image "in focus" front to back.

Advantages:
1) I think nearly any camera sensor size and lens combination should work. Therefore, you're not limited to exotic or expensive equipment.
2) Post-processing software have numerous features that automate the stacking process and should make this fairly quick work once you dial in your workflow.
3) The technique is frequently employed by macro or astrophotography specialists to overcome DOF limitations or scene movement limitations to excellent effect. Forums or sites on these types of photography may share techniques and methodology worth exploring.

I hadn't considered focus stacking for landscape, but it makes sense. More modern digital cameras even have this feature built in.

I do have to point out that while astrophotography stacks photos, it's to increase signal vs. noise, not for DOF. Astrophotography is all effectively "infinity" from an optical standpoint, so either you're in focus, or you're not.

 

[wiltw]

Given that this is in the digital section, the obvious answer would be "Focus out to where you think 250' would be, and take a test photo to zoom in on and review in the field, adjust and take again as needed"

I have my doubts that, given the fact that DOF calculation assumes 8x final print size (8x10"), how well does looking at an LCD (or EVF) replicate the DOF of the print?! And that answer is so dependent upon how zoomed in you happen to be. After all, DOF changes based upon the print size and viewing distance from the print...the same correlation with apparent size of the viewed image in the viewfinder or LCD also applies.

I once took a Topcon Super D with 58mm f/1.4 lens, aimed it at a ruler which was oriented roughly perpendicular to the focal plane. I calculated the DOF for a certain f/stop and then looked at the ruler (and objects placed at the theoretical DOF zone near and far points) in the viewfinder with lens stopped down...it pretty poorly mimiced the calculated DOF!

 

[wiltw]

Just recently I've read somewhere that historically, large depth of field used to be photographer's obsession, and it was one of the major selling points of smaller formats. Just like todays photographers masturbate over sharpness, large DOF was an obsession "back in the day". Can't recall how far back it was, or which book I saw this in.

...while today so many photographers of today are obsessed with portraits in which the eye is in focus and the nose and ears are out of focus. Nevermind that the portrait sitter's response is "Why am I out of focus?"

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

...while today so many photographers of today are obsessed with portraits in which the eye is in focus and the nose and ears are out of focus. Nevermind that the portrait sitter's response is "Why am I out of focus?"

Many younger photographers don't realize the purpose of big lenses with wide open apertures had a purpose other than narrow DOF. Back in the film days with SLR's, the brighter the lens, the easier it was to see your subject, focus, and compose especially when shooting in darker areas. Also, due to the slow speed of film, an extra stop let's say at f 1.4 rather than f2 , allowed a faster shutter speed to freeze the action. Of course, with modern digital, with live view and higher ISO speeds, f/1.8 or 2.0 would be fine. It's also lighter to carry and cheaper to buy and may distort less because less glass is needed. .

 

[Bill Burk]

Larger format than 35mm does give you a chance to record more details.

Large format 4x5 and above in a view camera allows movements that you can use to obtain infinite depth of field.

You can use that principle backwards and wreck the picture like your original examples. They look like someone used a “lens baby”

A tripod allows you to use slower film (ISO 100) at smaller f/stops. That can be your best first step.

 

[Bill Burk]

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?!

You told us what boke isn’t but not what it is.

As I understand it, boke is the character of the background blur. There is good boke and bad boke. Good boke is when the blur is smooth and bad boke is when the blur has a ring of brightness. With good boke a branch out of focus in the background will look like a soft branch. With bad boke the branch will look like two. It’s all in the lens design and that’s why some lenses are expensive because they have the good boke

 

[Sirius Glass]

You told us what boke isn’t but not what it is.

As I understand it, boke is the character of the background blur. There is good boke and bad boke. Good boke is when the blur is smooth and bad boke is when the blur has a ring of brightness. With good boke a branch out of focus in the background will look like a soft branch. With bad boke the branch will look like two. It’s all in the lens design and that’s why some lenses are expensive because they have the good boke

The mirror telephoto lenses have the boke as rings which I find annoying and which would be called poor or bad boke.

 

[Bill Burk]

The mirror telephoto lenses have the boke as rings which I find annoying and which would be called poor or bad boke.

That’s a different issue but on point.


The ring is subtle, just a kind of edge effect. When you watch Hallmark channel movies and the Christmas tree lights are in the back you can see the good boke in this context. They are smooth

If you have bad boke in the background you might have good in foreground (and vice versa).

 

[Bill Burk]

And the crazy thing is a lens hyped for its boke might set you back a lot of money and yet the lens might not have the good boke when you get it home. Then you start to ask who is this Ken Rockwell guy anyway... so for all I can see the 35mm Summicron has got it but the OM 40mm f/2 hasn’t

 

[JBrunner]

The perception of DOF is controlled by a combination of aperture, focus, and focal length. There are apps you can download that will calculate this information for you, if you input the proper factors. You don't need an aperture like f64 either. I use photopills, but there are many others. Back in the day I used a SmaCine slide rule. Some lenses have calculators built into them. They are precise enough for general use. Larger sensors or film area create shallower DOF perception for a given focal length, not more, as was jokingly stated earlier in the thread. Wider lenses, smaller apertures, are generally where you wan to go to increase DOF although distortion can come into play. Focus distance is also a factor. There is no free lunch.

 

[mshchem]

I recommend an iPhone.

+1 Is this person a troll. Sounds batty. But who am I to judge?

 

[wiltw]

You told us what boke isn’t but not what it is.

As I understand it, boke is the character of the background blur. There is good boke and bad boke. Good boke is when the blur is smooth and bad boke is when the blur has a ring of brightness. With good boke a branch out of focus in the background will look like a soft branch. With bad boke the branch will look like two. It’s all in the lens design and that’s why some lenses are expensive because they have the good boke

I was trying to NOT be too pedantic in defining 'bokeh', merely pointing out the too-common misuse of the term You did a great job.