Hello Norm,
First let me apologize for my late reply. I got caught up with some daily chores.
I thank you very much for your kind posting.
I agree with you that one is conditioned by his/her, environment, suroundings and experiences.
I understand that, as a wildlife biologist and Professor of Wildlife Ecology, you prefer to photograph an undisturbed animal in its habitat. A blurred background is naturally of secondary importance to you and you would rather leave it alone. For example, in my case, I would never shift an experimental point slightly so that the graph it is on would look better! That is why I also have the tendency to try and keep the backgrounds if possible.
However the objective of most of our colleagues in this forum is to present us with breathtaking pictures of the subject (bird, cougar, flower etc.) with minimal distractions. They are extremely good at it and have developed effective techniques to do so. Most all of them have given excellent advice but have also mentioned that it is up to me to take it or leave it. That is to say the final decision is mine. As a scientist I am trained to gather as much information (and advice) as possible. From this knowledge I can then make my conclusions and develop my technique.
By the way, I am still in awe of the pictures of your birds-in-flight using manual focus lenses.
Hello Tim,
Thank you for your comments. Although the subject is old (first discussed in a book in the 1940s) I cherish the updated advice, opinions and techniques of my fellow colleagues in this forum.
Take care
Saba
Well the cluttered BG can be both good and bad, if you shoot at f16 like you did on all except for the second one, and the subject is to close to the BG then that's BAD! Now f16 with some distance between the subject and the BG then the BG become a bit more bokeh and adds a pleasing feel to the photo, but I don't see how the tight crop with a busy BG shows the subjects environment surroundings of their nesting area? I know every shots can't be had with a clean beautiful toned BG but these to me, look like snap shots, they do nothing for me. The female Anhinga looks very soft for being shot at f16 btw. Just my opinion, sorry.
I am pleased that you took the time to view and comment on the thread.
The pictures were shot a f16, to exaggerate the effect of the background on purpose
Even when the distance between the subject and the background is tens of yards, shooting at f16 will still not create a pleasing enough bokeh. Consequently there is a need for another fix.
The purpose of the posting was to solicit some new tricks from the experts (other than the conventional ones known since the 1940s) so we can all benefit. Regrettably you missed the point and went after the pictures
Regarding the female anhinga, I knew it was soft beforehand but posted it because sharpness was not the issue! I even pointed that to Roberta in the reply to her post . If it pleases you, I am including a sharper picture, from today, of a male anhinga. It is shot at f4 not f16 Yes it does have some foreground and background issues around its tail
I hope this will conclude this discussion between us.
Don't worry Saba I'm not going to go on and continue to argue with you over something that is pointless anyways, unlike how you did in my red tail hawk thread a while back! Just to me, shooting f16 with the BG soo close to the subject doesn't really exaggerate anything, f8 would of done plenty and would of been much sharper! To prove you wrong on your tens of yards between the subject and the BG theory!! Explain me this then, why are the branches in Bokeh even at f16!? No more then 5-10ft behind the birds.
Come on man, here is another shot at f4! look how BG looks at f4 now maybe f8 max, what new techniques is this, and it stems from the experts? Um, okay.
Hi Alan,
Thank you for your kind words. I am glad you enjoyed the discussion.
On another note, I am sure you had fun with the Aurora Borealis caused by the sun storms of the previous ten days.
Cheers
Saba
Mr. Pulurian,
Why do you not read what is written carefully. You missed the point again . My words were: "shooting at f16 will still not create a pleasing enough bokeh ".
In your birds example you state:"To prove you wrong on your tens of yards between the subject and the BG theory!! Explain me this then, why are the branches in Bokeh even at f16!? No more then 5-10ft behind the birds."
Sure the branches are in bokeh! But they are not, as I previously stated, a pleasing enough bokeh. They are, as a matter of fact, still a distraction. If you want I can post a picture where the background is about half a mile away and is still a displeasing distracting bokeh,
Once and for all, this thread was not about sharp pictures and f stop settings. It is about distracting backgrounds, irrespective of whether they are in bokeh or not.
The new techniques I was thinking of are along the lines:
use computer methods of signal processing to create intricate digital masks that isolate the subjects from the background. Use these masks to proceed in several ways
a- extract the subject from the background completely
b- desaturate the background colors as Socrate suggested or reduce their brightnes/contrast
c- selectively blur the background using gaussian blur
d- multiply the background by an appropriate apodization function. Use Fourier transfom/backtransform techniques
e- enhance the subject using the method of maximum entropy
f- etc.....
All these signal processing techniques (known in photography as digital blending and masking) are new and are not possible without a sophisticated computer. They are very difficult, if not impossible, to create by hand. I was wondering if some of our colleagues on this forum have used them and which were particularly effective. By the way, these are all well established methods in scientific and medical imaging.
They are also different from the basic methods we have all known for the last 50 years such use a small f stop, leave some distance between the subject and the background, use a very shallow depth of field etc.!
OldProf wrote:
Mr. Pulurian,
Why do you not read what is written carefully. You missed the point again . My words were: "shooting at f16 will still not create a pleasing enough bokeh ".
In your birds example you state:"To prove you wrong on your tens of yards between the subject and the BG theory!! Explain me this then, why are the branches in Bokeh even at f16!? No more then 5-10ft behind the birds."
Sure the branches are in bokeh! But they are not, as I previously stated, a pleasing enough bokeh. They are, as a matter of fact, still a distraction. If you want I can post a picture where the background is about half a mile away and is still a displeasing distracting bokeh,
Once and for all, this thread was not about sharp pictures and f stop settings. It is about distracting backgrounds, irrespective of whether they are in bokeh or not.
The new techniques I was thinking of are along the lines:
use computer methods of signal processing to create intricate digital masks that isolate the subjects from the background. Use these masks to proceed in several ways
a- extract the subject from the background completely
b- desaturate the background colors as Socrate suggested or reduce their brightnes/contrast
c- selectively blur the background using gaussian blur
d- multiply the background by an appropriate apodization function. Use Fourier transfom/backtransform techniques
e- enhance the subject using the method of maximum entropy
f- etc.....
All these signal processing techniques (known in photography as digital blending and masking) are new and are not possible without a sophisticated computer. They are very difficult, if not impossible, to create by hand. I was wondering if some of our colleagues on this forum have used them and which were particularly effective. By the way, these are all well established methods in scientific and medical imaging.
They are also different from the basic methods we have all known for the last 50 years such use a small f stop, leave some distance between the subject and the background, use a very shallow depth of field etc.!
Consequently there is a need for another fix.
. If it pleases you, I am including a sharper picture, from today, of a male anhinga. It is shot at f4 not f16 