Go to a  "printer friendly" view of this message which allow an easy print Printer-friendly copy Go to the page which allows you to send this topic link and a message to a friend Email this topic to a friend
Forums Lobby MASTER YOUR TOOLS - Hardware & Software Digital postprocessing & workflow (Public) topic #67795
View in linear mode

Subject: "Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?" Previous topic | Next topic
vitalishe Silver Member Nikonian since 27th Dec 2012Wed 27-Nov-13 09:48 PM
203 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
"Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?"


Los Alamos, US
          

"Fast" lenses with wide apertures are good for low light and subject isolation. I want to focus on the later one. Suppose the amount of light is NOT an issue.

How would you compare photos taken with wide aperture vs a smaller aperture and then the background blurred in postprocessing?
- Clearly, postprocessing will take longer. So, if you do it often and you are paid for it lenses like 24 f/1.4 could be justified.
- On the other hand, blurring can be done selectively. Instead of taking a picture at f/1.4 and slightly missing the focus on the eye, one can take the same picture at f/4 and blur the image in post.

What other issue do you see?

Is it a good idea to take the same photo at wide aperture for a chance to get the image right in camera and then at smaller aperture to have more info just in case the first one was a bit of? Or is this a waste of time?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
Reply message RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?
ron917 Silver Member
28th Nov 2013
1
Reply message RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?
agitater Gold Member
28th Nov 2013
2
Reply message RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?
walkerr Administrator
28th Nov 2013
3
Reply message RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?
esantos Moderator
30th Nov 2013
4
Reply message RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?
vitalishe Silver Member
30th Nov 2013
5
     Reply message RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?
Ineluki Gold Member
30th Nov 2013
6
     Reply message RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?
briantilley Moderator
30th Nov 2013
7
     Reply message RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?
Ferguson Silver Member
10th Dec 2013
9
          Reply message RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?
sabbey51 Silver Member
11th Dec 2013
10
          Reply message RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?
sabbey51 Silver Member
11th Dec 2013
11
Reply message RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?
ericbowles Moderator
08th Dec 2013
8

ron917 Silver Member Nikonian since 14th Dec 2012Thu 28-Nov-13 04:05 PM
300 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#1. "RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?"
In response to Reply # 0


Andover, NJ, US
          

Blurring in post processing often looks fake to me. It may possible to make it look more like the result of actually shooting with a wide aperture, but I see a lot of images where the blur was obviously added in post.

Best regards,
-Ron

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Thu 28-Nov-13 04:30 PM
3970 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#2. "RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?"
In response to Reply # 0


Toronto, CA
          

>What other issue do you see?

Selective background blurring is easy enough to do, but it is not the same as large aperture lens bokeh. Simulation of lens bokeh - a quality which varies from lens to lens - is really difficult to do in post. IMO, bokeh - the natural qualities of an out-of-focus background as rendered by a specific lens - is almost always better when captured in the camera rather than manufactured in post.

>Is it a good idea to take the same photo at wide aperture for
>a chance to get the image right in camera and then at smaller
>aperture to have more info just in case the first one was a
>bit of? Or is this a waste of time?

I think that whenever possible, getting a second almost identical shot of a subject at a significantly different aperture or exposure setting is always a very good idea.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

walkerr Administrator Awarded for his con tributed articles published at the Resources Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in multiple areas Nikonian since 05th May 2002Thu 28-Nov-13 04:56 PM
14434 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#3. "RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?"
In response to Reply # 0


Colorado Springs, US
          

I agree with the others. Although I don't blur my own images in post-processing, I've done it for others using the better plug-ins out there. It's very hard to get a realistic transition from in-focus to out-of-focus, and it takes some time, even with the best masking tools. I've never been satisfied with the results, which is why I don't do it for my own images. On the other hand, the people I've done it for were happy, but I was rescuing some frankly awful images. They had nowhere to go but up. I personally view it as a last ditch effort when you have no other choice, rather than a primary plan. All that presumes that you want a look that resembles a fast lens with limited depth of field. If you're going after a Lens Baby look or one that is clearly post-processed (which some photographers do), then post-processing is fine and even easy.

As for whether or not fast lenses are worth it, I don't think it has to with whether you're paid for it or not - it's whether or not you feel the expense is worth it. If you enjoy the lenses and can afford them, great. It's however you choose to look at the decision. Keep in mind that there are a nice set of less expensive fast lenses, too. Nikon's 28mm 1.8, 35mm 1.8 (for DX), 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 are good examples that perform very well and are substantially less than their 1.4 counterparts.

Rick Walker

My photos:
GeoVista Photography

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

esantos Moderator Nikonians Resources Writer. Recognized for his outstanding reviews on printers and printing articles. Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas, including Landscape Photography Awarded for his extraordinary accomplishments in Landscape Photography. His work has been exhibited at the Smithsonian. Nikonian since 10th Nov 2002Sat 30-Nov-13 07:10 PM
11510 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#4. "RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?"
In response to Reply # 0


McAllen, US
          

Trying to simulate bokeh in post processing can have its problems. While a simple Gaussian Blur is okay in some situations I have found that the specialized Photoshop plug-ins are a little better. Is this simulated blur better than the real thing from something like the famous "Cream Machine" Nikkor 85mm f/1.4? No, no way. Regardless, here are a couple of guidelines that I find useful in increasing your odds in post processing and when shooting with a slower lens.

* It's really important to try to isolate your subject from the background. And by that I mean if at all possible situate the subject at least six feet or more away from the nearest background objects that will be showing up in the frame. If anything the distance will hopefully fall outside of the DOF of your lens and aperture setting.

* If you can't extend the background out then try using a lens with more focal length putting you farther away from the subject and thus moving the the back end of the DOF range closer to the subject.

* In post processing try using different strengths of blur in layered masks to help create the illusion of depth. A single level of blur throughout the background will looks less believable than gradual blur from fore to aft. You can also use lighting techniques to highlight areas of the background to also give a little bit of variance to the overall luminance of the background another technique to fool the eye/mind. Vincent Versace uses this to great effect. If you want to learn more on how to do this I recommend his book Welcome to Oz.

Ernesto Santos
esartprints.com Ernesto Santos Photography

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
vitalishe Silver Member Nikonian since 27th Dec 2012Sat 30-Nov-13 07:34 PM
203 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#5. "RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?"
In response to Reply # 4


Los Alamos, US
          

Thank you for the suggestions. It all makes sense. I think I should play a bit with preprocessing to see what are the differences between the post and the real thing. So far, the concensus deans to be that in post it is very hard to do quality blurring.

I have to disagree with one thing. In my experience with the depth of field calculators the depth of field is virtually independent of the focal length of the lens so long as the subject is filing the same portion of the frame.
Shooting with 50mm lens at f/2.8 from 1m away you get .94m and 1.05m as the limits forthe depth of field of .09m.
Shooting with 100mm lens at f/2.8 from 2m away you get 1.94m and 2.05m as the limits for the same .09m depth of field.
So, if you want the subject to fill the whole frame and you know that you want a specific aperture (say f/2.8) you will get the same depth of field with any of the trinity lenses. There will be other differences, but not in the depth of field.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Ineluki Gold Member Nikonian since 03rd Aug 2011Sat 30-Nov-13 07:39 PM
2724 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#6. "RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?"
In response to Reply # 5


Nürnberg, DE
          

A good photoshopper can blur everything in the bg and no one will see the pp.

Egbert

www.allmondo.com

http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/ppuser/401509/cat/500/

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
briantilley Moderator Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Sat 30-Nov-13 08:32 PM
28731 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#7. "RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?"
In response to Reply # 6


Paignton, GB
          

Hmm - if Rick and Ernesto (both of whom are very "good photoshoppers") would prefer to achieve the effect with a good fast lens at the time of shooting, that's good enough for me

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Ferguson Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Tue 10-Dec-13 01:34 AM
3506 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#9. "RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?"
In response to Reply # 5


Cape Coral, US
          

>I have to disagree with one thing. In my experience with the
>depth of field calculators the depth of field is virtually
>independent of the focal length of the lens so long as the
>subject is filing the same portion of the frame.

Yes, but no. Isolation is not just about DOF.

Even though the DOF is similar, WHAT you see in the background changes significantly based on focal length, so the in-focus portion may look the same, but the out-of-focus part will be different subjects, since your field of view is (approximately) half or twice.

The result for me is that mostly, longer lenses achieve greater isolation as they ALSO show a smaller portion of the background, so distracting and uninteresting items are not only blurred, but often off-frame.

Linwood

PS. Someone, somewhere may be able to blur background and make it indistinguishable from shallow DOF, but I know I sure can't -- it always looks grossly fake. If you are good at it, great. Post some samples to compare though.

Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
sabbey51 Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Jan 2010Wed 11-Dec-13 12:32 AM
541 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#10. "RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?"
In response to Reply # 9
Wed 11-Dec-13 01:27 AM by sabbey51

Saddle river, US
          

Deleted

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
sabbey51 Silver Member Nikonian since 10th Jan 2010Wed 11-Dec-13 12:32 AM
541 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#11. "RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?"
In response to Reply # 9


Saddle river, US
          

I have to agree with Eric. I've lately been using contrast, saturation, etc very successfully. The LR select brushes provide a very natural transition.

Scott

"Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans"


Attachment #1, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

ericbowles Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge and high level skills in various areas, especially Landscape and Wildlife Photoghraphy Writer Ribbon awarded for for his article contributions to the community Nikonian since 25th Nov 2005Sun 08-Dec-13 02:07 PM
8514 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#8. "RE: Subject isolation: wide aperture or postprocessing?"
In response to Reply # 0
Sun 08-Dec-13 02:11 PM by ericbowles

Atlanta, US
          

The out of focus areas look very different if you use DOF rather than post processing. It's not just that they are out of focus, it's the shape of out of focus elements. Using DOF, the out of focus elements are more rounded with smoother transitions. Using software, they tend to be soft but not round.

It depends a little on what effect you want. An angled subject is very demanding because you have degrees of out of focus. A square subject is easier since you have clear in focus and clear out of focus areas.

If you are trying to manage background areas, don't limit yourself to just focus. You can get great results by using reduced contrast neutralizing light and dark areas, and neutralizing color differences.

The same idea goes for sharp areas - sharp areas look sharper if the transition areas are a little soft.

If you shoot at f/4 rather than f/1.8, it's very hard to create the gradual transition you would get by nailing focus at f/1.8. If you miss focus it becomes even harder since you have to take sharp areas and create degrees of out of focus areas.

Here are two examples. The first used post processing and shallow DOF while the second used just DOF. Both were with a 600mm lens and Nikon D800E.

This used the 600mm lens shot near wide open at 15-18 feet, but the background was close and very busy. I used a number of layers of blur, contrast, color, and brightness to manage the background and the subject.



This was pretty much straight from the camera. It was shot with a 600mm lens at a wide open aperture with a long lens at a distance of around 70 feet. Software could have been used here for the mother but not the hammock, and I needed the light of a wide open aperture.



Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
2014 Workshops - Spring in the Smokies

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Forums Lobby MASTER YOUR TOOLS - Hardware & Software Digital postprocessing & workflow (Public) topic #67795 Previous topic | Next topic


Take the Nikonians Tour and learn more about being a Nikonian Wiki /FAQ /Help Listen to our MP3 photography radio channels Find anything on Nikon and imaging technology - fast!

Copyright © Nikonians 2000, 2014
All Rights Reserved

Nikonians®, NikoScope® and NikoniansAcademy™ are trademarks owned by Nikonians.org.
Nikon®, Nikonos® and Nikkor® are registered trademarks of Nikon Corporation.