[biz-engineer]

Hi all,
I'm thinking of achieving more blurred background with a K-3 or K-5 + fastest gear available.
I know that using what was coined as the Brenizer method allow to achieve more blurred background as if we'd use a larger camera format or a faster lens.
However, the Brenizer method is not so easy to achieve since the subject may be moving and we need to stitch images etc...
I was thinking of achieving a 3D pop effect by using the multiexposure mode and stacking images including some frame where we force a defocus in manual mode.
Some people use focus stacking for macro photography. The idea is to combine a sharp shot with a defocused shot.

But has anyone tried to use a focus stacking software to combine increased blurred background + sharp subject ?

[mrNewt]

The simplest solution will be Photoshop... manually blur the areas you want them out of focus.
With careful planning and good technique, you will get the results needed. Just don't over do it...

[jbondo]

But has anyone tried to use a focus stacking software to combine increased blurred background + sharp subject ?

Interesting idea of using stacking software in reverse of the traditional way. That is, stacking to decrease DOF instead of increasing it. Might have to try that.

achieving a 3D pop effect

Consider that subject isolation due to DOF or selective Photoshop blur is just one facet contributing to pop. Any technique that increases the perception of difference between the subject and the other objects in the composition will assist with the perception. Relative Luminance, color differentiation, and direction of illumination / 3D cues all also contribute to pop. There are quite a few good science papers out there on 'perception of 3D from 2D images' and the like. It's harder to get good pop if the image has flat lighting to start with, so consider how lighting is used in the composition.

[narual]

Hmm. I wonder if using a macro tube would help? You'd be able to get closer, which would reduce depth of field more.

[baro-nite]

But has anyone tried to use a focus stacking software to combine increased blurred background + sharp subject ?

If you need multiple exposures per image, you have the same issue as with Brenizer technique and moving subjects. To achieve this with a single exposure you'll either need an ultra-fast lens, selective blur in PP, or a larger format.

[biz-engineer]

If you need multiple exposures per image, you have the same issue as with Brenizer technique and moving subjects.

Humm yeah,

Hmm. I wonder if using a macro tube would help? You'd be able to get closer, which would reduce depth of field more.

yes reducing the distance from camera reduces the depth of field but then the subject is too big to fit in the frame.

[Na Horuk]

You just use photoshop and then you use something like blur, history blur, or one of the other many types of blur and you blur the hell out of everything that is OoF. The key is to do it seamlessly, not to blur too much on one end. Use layers so you can always revert.
Oh, and you get the most shallow DoF with the following formula: -highest focal length, -lowest f-number, -lens focused to minimum focus distance
This is why something like 200mm macro lens will give you incredible blur in the macro range. But at that point, shallow DoF is a problem and people use high apertures like f16 and focus stacking to avoid blur.

Blur is overrated. The thing with the 3D pop is that it is more than just a shallow DoF. Some lenses are just good at this 3D pop, like FA 43mm, even though the lens is not ultra fast or tele or macro. In Pentax-land this is usually called pixie dust, when a photo just looks a little more lifelike, a little more 3D than expected

OH and if you shoot raw, there are all sorts of plugins and presets that will add all sorts of clarity, sharpness, and bokeh. Alien skin, Nik silver efex, Topaz clarity, and others

---

Last edited by Na Horuk; 03-26-2015 at 11:03 AM.

[mrNewt]

The funny thing is that to achieve the 3d look, the blur is only one of the ingredients... there are other things you need to factor in like highlights, shadows and framing. They all go hand in hand...

[Rondec]

The funny thing is that to achieve the 3d look, the blur is only one of the ingredients... there are other things you need to factor in like highlights, shadows and framing. They all go hand in hand...

I think this is true. I don't always know what makes a photo look "3 D," but it isn't just about narrow depth of field. It is somehow about lighting and rendering...

[TER-OR]

To me, nailing the exposure with natural (or slightly pushed) contrast and a less interesting background will always do it. Some lenses with a bit of barrel distortion can help this, too. I think it keeps the eye centered.

Lighting from the side helps, too. Not 90 degrees, but 45 degrees or thereabouts can help provide depth of shadows while not shading the subject entirely.

[fuent104]

Shoot something with texture, and physically separate it from its background and foreground.

[jamarley]

Shoot something with texture, and physically separate it from its background and foreground.

This is exactly what Rondec's picture above conveyed to me. That, and the subtle lighting nuances in the edges.

[narual]

Another factor is what aberrations are corrected and how. Often the good-bokeh lenses seem to have spherical aberrations, which correct in-focus but remain oof. This contributes to the separation and -with a round aperture- pleasantly round and even bokeh.

from the https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/87425-defin...h-society.html thread -- old preset lenses (that is, manual lenses with a boatload of aperture blades, located near the front of the lens instead of the back, usually with 1 dial for the aperture setting and a second dial for quickly opening it up and stopping it down) tend to exhibit that improved separation as well.

One of the photos from the gentleman I quoted shows this really, really well:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4789918324/

[vrphoto]

If you don't have a philosophical objection to post-processing - Lightroom's individual colour luminance sliders can do wonders to lift a flat image (used in moderation of course).

[6BQ5]

Dodging and burning with contrast manipulation is the simplest method of achieving "pop". Burn the background to make it darker and lower its contrast. Dodge the foreground increase contrast either directly through the contrast slider or through the definition/clarity sliders. Manipulating sharpening helps too but I use it to extract details like eyelashes.

Here's a shot of my younger boy taken with Kodak Portra 160. The negative was camera-scanned with my K-3.


_IMG1717 by Never Off, on Flickr

I think I may go back to this shot and others in the series to reduce some of the saturation. His cheeks were red from running around but they look Ektar red.

Here's a landscape example. It was taken with a K-3 and a FA 77mm.


_IMG0864 by Never Off, on Flickr

I burned the shadows in the small valleys on the hillside. Otherwise, the terrain would look more flat than it really was.

So, there's lots you can do with simple tools.