Boken in portrait is unwanted.

[Aton]

If you take head to chest shots most likely the background will be blur. Maybe the person not confident and don't like too close up. They wanted the background to "fight" the attention with themselves.

If you take head to toe shot and still blur the background most people will feel a bit negative with the result.

A lot of people still like "I've been here" shots. So its important to show more depth of field if the location is nice, let it show lor.

 

[sehsuan]

thanks for the good read, ST1100!

 

[Teddman]

I agree with the above reply. But just wondering... Don't you guys think that having a lens with good bokeh isn't everything? Bokeh only allows you to produce the kind of Jappo-swimsuit-model-about-to-turn-pornstar look, which is stunning of course... When you pay for a fantastic lens like the, ahem, Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM, you are paying for 1. sharpness, 2. Colour fidelity, 3. bokeh, and I think only numbers 1 and 2 really matter.

If I had a spiky haired model to pose beside the esplanade, good bokeh would screw up my shot... and if I wanted a hard, contrasty shot (drama drama type), eg, maybe a closeup of a violinist with a violin, good bokeh would also screw up my shot.

Just 2 cents.

 

[justarius]

I agree with the above reply. But just wondering... Don't you guys think that having a lens with good bokeh isn't everything? Bokeh only allows you to produce the kind of Jappo-swimsuit-model-about-to-turn-pornstar look, which is stunning of course... When you pay for a fantastic lens like the, ahem, Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM, you are paying for 1. sharpness, 2. Colour fidelity, 3. bokeh, and I think only numbers 1 and 2 really matter.

If I had a spiky haired model to pose beside the esplanade, good bokeh would screw up my shot... and if I wanted a hard, contrasty shot (drama drama type), eg, maybe a closeup of a violinist with a violin, good bokeh would also screw up my shot.

Just 2 cents.

I agree that lens with good bokeh isn't everything; it's importance is rather relative to the type of shooting you do. Obviously if I'm going for lots and lots of DOF, good or bad bokeh isn't going to be in the picture.

However, I fail to see how good bokeh can screw up a shot, unless of course you are going for some abstract type shooting where harsh distracting out of focus highlights complement your main subject which might also be harsh and distracting.

I feel that you are confusing bokeh with depth of field and blurred backgrounds....

 

[2100]

Minor nitpicking point : you don't bokehed things. You blur backgrounds, you don't bokeh them. .

:bsmilie: Noted.

 

[2100]

:mad2: I guess i should have selected my lenses more properly. In fact i brought along a 28-75 and 12-24 but never used them.

 

[2100]

If you take head to chest shots most likely the background will be blur. Maybe the person not confident and don't like too close up. They wanted the background to "fight" the attention with themselves.

If you take head to toe shot and still blur the background most people will feel a bit negative with the result.

A lot of people still like "I've been here" shots. So its important to show more depth of field if the location is nice, let it show lor.

Most of the pics are just head to just below the chest shots, be it landscape or portrait mode. I just merely wanted the skyline of the CBD to form a backdrop of building outlines lor (like what you'd see from Marina Promenade, near Esplanade). You know how complex the building shapes could be, all greyish and all. (and it was pretty greyish/bluish as it was 6.30-7pm). I guess if it's durian head, it's different. Anyway, i shot Fullerton One with great depth of field.

Next time must ask client, and even then shoot both. :devil:

 

[Aton]

Most of the pics are just head to just below the chest shots, be it landscape or portrait mode. I just merely wanted the skyline of the CBD to form a backdrop of building outlines lor (like what you'd see from Marina Promenade, near Esplanade). You know how complex the building shapes could be, all greyish and all. (and it was pretty greyish/bluish as it was 6.30-7pm). I guess if it's durian head, it's different. Anyway, i shot Fullerton One with great depth of field.

Next time must ask client, and even then shoot both. :devil:

I believe your composition should be quite nice, so it voice down to personal preference.

You were at the promenade during the weekend?
I was there on Saturday, 630-730pm.

 

[tomshen]

I may sound stupid, but... when a number of people think the effect of bokeh is not nice, that means the composition fails. It doesn't matter whether these people know anything about art or photography. Bokeh is useful to emphasize the main subject. The best way IMHO is to find some lines/curves in 3D space which lead to the model rather than simply place her/him on a blurred background. Maybe you could post a few shots and let us to see why your client didn't like the effect.

 

[TME]

Engaged in circles of confusion again?
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?p=564731&highlight=bokeh#post564731

This is an almighty old thread.....

 

[2100]

I believe your composition should be quite nice, so it voice down to personal preference.

You were at the promenade during the weekend?
I was there on Saturday, 630-730pm.

I saw someone unpacking a tripod with 2 middle sized black bags. Was that you? I was the dopey looking guy there with 2 gals and umbrella and flash, tripod + Nikon bag. :bsmilie: In between the toilet and metal art piece structure.

 

[2100]

I may sound stupid, but... when a number of people think the effect of bokeh is not nice, that means the composition fails. .

Nope don't say until like that lar, you have a point. I didn't post this in the portrait gallery coz i am not good in portraits anyway. I posted 2. Some errors i see are things like unleveled horizon. Anything you wish to add?

http://www.pbase.com/dh78/inbox

Pls bear in mind, they are small in size, so the background looks reasonably 'sharp'. I think i was using like f2.5 at 50mm for the greenery one and f4.5 for the skyline pic. This skyline pic is one of the sharpest, i went down to as low as f2 for some of them as the light was diminishing (of course then the subject would be somewhat soft too as it's just a 50/1.8). When printed in S8R the background is pretty blur.

 

[Aton]

I saw someone unpacking a tripod with 2 middle sized black bags. Was that you? I was the dopey looking guy there with 2 gals and umbrella and flash, tripod + Nikon bag. :bsmilie: In between the toilet and metal art piece structure.

Yup that was me! :bsmilie: I was with my GF.
You were at the park area 1st then move to the edge of the water right?

So which shots your model didn't like? the park area 1 or the seaside?

 

[2100]

Yup that was me! :bsmilie: I was with my GF.
You were at the park area 1st then move to the edge of the water right?

So which shots your model didn't like? the park area 1 or the seaside?

Actually, i was at the edge, then moved to the park, then back to the edge, i guess i was there before you. Then we went to Fullerton 1 and the bridge area to take night shots. They simply love the night shots, not to my credit of course but coz Fullerton 1 easily brings out the glamour in the photo. Just add some saturation, rich yellow colours and a classic building, all gals sure like. :bsmilie: Lots of location wedding shots are done there, pretty standard. I was just trying to imitate. *paiseh*

Actually, she said some of the shots are good (as in how i posed her but pretty standard ones lar). Dad said the background too blur, mum said ok. For my side, currently 2 ladies have viewed the result (my next potential models but i guess i lost the deal), they said cannot make it coz too blur. :sweat:

 

[Aton]

Actually, i was at the edge, then moved to the park, then back to the edge, i guess i was there before you. Then we went to Fullerton 1 and the bridge area to take night shots. They simply love the night shots, not to my credit of course but coz Fullerton 1 easily brings out the glamour in the photo. Just add some saturation, rich yellow colours and a classic building, all gals sure like. :bsmilie: Lots of location wedding shots are done there, pretty standard. I was just trying to imitate. *paiseh*

Actually, she said some of the shots are good (as in how i posed her but pretty standard ones lar). Dad said the background too blur, mum said ok. For my side, currently 2 ladies have viewed the result (my next potential models but i guess i lost the deal), they said cannot make it coz too blur. :sweat:

You can inform them that not all shots will turn out good. If they are satisfied with halve of the series, thats already quite good. If all shots turn out well that's PERFECT.....but hardly anyone can give 36 shots to a client and the client like all the shots.

Perhaps next time you can shoot more, then only give them the good selection. You shoot 2 rolls, but only give the 36 good shots.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[tomshen]

http://www.pbase.com/dh78/inbox

Hey friend, these two shots more or less prove my point: the bokeh does not REALLY help make your model "pop up". The reason is that you only included horizontal lines (2nd shot) and weak boundary (1st shot). Here I have two examples of making use of bokeh to lead the attention to your main subjects. Please don't feel that I am rude. I don't mean to be.

1st: when the background is rather boring, ignore it, take a close-up, and make use of your wide aperture.

2nd: Find straight lines/curves to extend the perspective.

3rd: If really no need for bokeh, can take the risk to use a small aperture. Here I set f8 with a 16mm WA. But I think this shot may be better if the background is a bit blur.

 

[StreetShooter]

Pleasing bokeh:

Lousy bokeh:

Geddit?

 

[ST1100]

Whoa, picture paints a thousand words.

Anyway, back to that ding-dong with linse, Streetshooter's pics were what i meant when on my initial statement about choosing focal lengths for the background. A longer FL creams the backgroud, a wider one has everything more or less recognizable. Let's just leave the DOF part out of it, yeah?

 

[2100]

Hey friend, these two shots more or less prove my point: the bokeh does not REALLY help make your model "pop up". The reason is that you only included horizontal lines (2nd shot) and weak boundary (1st shot). Here I have two examples of making use of bokeh to lead the attention to your main subjects. Please don't feel that I am rude. I don't mean to be.

Hey bro, I am all ears for learning man, so no worries. Hmm...i know what you mean. I know in theory you wanna lead the attention towards the subject. In this case i only used 2 layers, model in foreground sharp, background blur. Can i ask you something? Do you find the subject (first pic) to be too obviously/artificially lit and stand out too much?
Thinking more about it, maybe i could have used the walkway length of Marina Promenade with trees and path and all to give a bokeh like your 2nd pic.

Alright, say i really would want to take a sort of skyline or shilouette of the buildings with the model in foreground. How would you approach it? Perhaps sharper at f8, 50mm? I find the sea's deep blue contrast, reflections off the boats and buildings great at that time of the day (6.30pm).

 

[Zplus]

2100, I think its more of the composition that causes the 'client' to think that way. Its not the shallow dof or bokeh per se that made her think that way. She does look familiar though.