Deliberately Blurring the Foreground

[William W]

I first wrote "Hekob" around 2005. I claim it as my creation. Please send me the royalties cheque when using it.

[xpatUSA]

I have been thinking about your Tractor challenge, for these two days.

From what I surmise is the scene's layout, I think you're best to jump the fence and shoot the tractor front-on with the barb wire, Out of Focus and leading in from Camera Left.

Something in the range of FL = 100m to 200mm on APS-C would do the trick for Compression and that (with a large aperture) should get the Background OoF also

However, if you've jumped the fence then you could probably frame the Tractor with no barbed wire in the foreground of the shot, anyway.

I have no idea how you can use that advice, but please use it wisely.

regards.

Thanks Bill for the further advice re: telephoto. I have a couple of zooms that can do that (My DSLR is 1.7 "crop"). Pretty small apertures though and would likely need to take the tripod. I also have f/2.8 70mm and 105mm true macros which have quite a flat field. The possibilities abound.

At almost 80, I'm not going to be hopping the 4ft fence ...

[William W]

. . . At almost 80, I'm not going to be hopping the 4ft fence ...

You've got a pair of wire cutters in your Pick-up . . . and the fellow who owns the tractor is a very bad shot.

Nothing at all to worry about.

BTW: "Walker - Texas Ranger" screens down here for the insomniacs at 0300hrs week mornings

[xpatUSA]

BTW: "Walker - Texas Ranger" screens down here for the insomniacs at 0300hrs week mornings

Meanwhile Wife and I are addicted to the "Phryne Fisher Mysteries" currently showing on PBS. Incidentally, my cousin lives fairly close to Ballarat!

[Manfred M]

I covered this topic (“Blurring Foreground”) in one of my Master Classes a few years ago. It took me a while to dig out to dig out the specific example that I wanted to show you.

Above all else, I think that ONE strong lead-in line from the side and to the Main Subject, is the most useful composition component to pull off a good use of Hekob.

Secondly, compression (using a Telephoto Lens) is very useful.

That’s all I want to write - here is the example - I’ll let it speak for itself:

Traditional Photography - Bokeh: -


*

Non-Traditional Photography - Hekob: -


Both Images: EOS 5D; EF 135/2.8SF @ F/5; Full Frame Crop
Copyright, Nadine OHara, 2009, used with her permission.

WW

Thanks for posting these Bill as this is an excellent example of how "breaking the rules" provides a superior image to one where the "rule" is followed.

As the photographer went both ways and shot with the nearest objects in focus versus the bride and groom in focus, I suspect she was working the scene and was not sure of which shot would end up being the stronger of the two. I also think it is important to understand why the shot works, while so many others do not and studying these two images certainly gives some very solid clues as to why this is so.

[William W]

. . . this is an excellent example of how "breaking the rules" provides a superior image to one where the "rule" is followed. As the photographer went both ways and shot with the nearest objects in focus versus the bride and groom in focus, I suspect she was working the scene and was not sure of which shot would end up being the stronger of the two. I also think it is important to understand why the shot works, while so many others do not and studying these two images certainly gives some very solid clues as to why this is so.

CiC is welcome: it is a really good example, I agree.

For those interested in the back-story:

Nadine and I had a continuum of correspondence spanning several years mostly when we were both shooting a lot of Weddings; by happenstance we had almost the same gear in our bags and both of us cut over from Film to Digital around the same time. She was an excellent exponent of the use of on-site Speedlite Flash and was extensively knowledgeable of the Canon Speedlite Systems and how they interacted with the EOS Camera System.

Certainly these two images were made at a Wedding Coverage: for clarity there was no doubt of her choice of image, it was the Image with the Blurred Foreground. The additional image, making a PAIR of shots, was planned a few months in advance, and that was for my benefit.

Firstly she made this pair (and other pairs also) for me to interrogate the EF 135 F/2.8 SF. Secondly she made the Pair for me to use as an A/B (Bokeh/Hekob) and that being as one topic in a Master Class that I was planning, and as I have shown the A/B here.

Nadine was excessively generous with her time and energy, which she used to educate other Photographers.

WW

[xpatUSA]

Thanks to all who contributed to this thread.

I've learned that it's rarely possibly, if ever, to "blur out" stuff that's actually in front of the subject but stuff to one side could be OK, dependent on the scene and composition.

I've been reminded of the relationship of blur to focal length.

Thanks again ...

[Tri Danimal]

I recently did a photoshoot where I was able to use this technique I think it add that "artsy" look that is running rampant all over instagram.

Image 1- no distractions


Image 2 - I took a half step left and added the leaves into the image


what do you guys think? I know I should not have cut off the legs of my model.

[tao2]

Hell,

when ah was growing up we called it depth of field...but what did we know then? Some folk seem tae need new names for old methods

[xpatUSA]

I recently did a photoshoot where I was able to use this technique I think it add that "artsy" look that is running rampant all over instagram.

Interesting - a variation on clothed vs. nude, sorta kinda!

In context, it works for me - with it being a lady as opposed to a tractor.

[xpatUSA]

Hell, when ah was growing up we called it depth of field...but what did we know then?

Ah yes, back when we all shot 135 format film and only printed 8x10" and only viewed at 10" distance and the only known CoC was 0.030mm except for Zeiss lenses ...

Some folk seem tae need new names for old methods

Got any particular folks in mind?

[Manfred M]

Hell,

when ah was growing up we called it depth of field...but what did we know then? Some folk seem tae need new names for old methods

This discussion is a bit more nuanced than pure DoF, Boab. We are discussing the areas in front of as well as behind those areas that are considered sharp enough. The issue, I believe, is whether these areas detract from the image or add to it. Pulling attention away from the subject is often not effective.

[Manfred M]

I recently did a photoshoot where I was able to use this technique I think it add that "artsy" look that is running rampant all over instagram.

Image 1- no distractions


Image 2 - I took a half step left and added the leaves into the image


what do you guys think? I know I should not have cut off the legs of my model.

Legs cut off the model aside, the first image is reasonably effective although I do find the bright background to be a bit of a distraction.

The second image has some appeal as well as the bright out of focus area definitely grabs one's attention and your subject is a far less important part of the shot. It helps balance out the bright highlights to the camera right side of your subject.

Both image have their strengths and their weaknesses. If the second one generated discussion, that is good. That being said, most of the people that I see on Instagram have limited photographic understanding, so it depends on who was commenting. The big blob of green in the second image is a significant distraction and in my view the image does not work.

[William W]

I recently did a photoshoot where I was able to use this technique I think it add that "artsy" look that is running rampant all over instagram. . .
what do you guys think? I know I should not have cut off the legs of my model.

I think that the second image (the OoF Leaves across the Model's Torso) does not work: for two main reasons -

- There is too much NEARLY IN FOCUS clutter at camera right, especially the fence (this could be nulled by judicious cropping).

- More importantly, the OoF leaves are fighting with the Model's Clothing, especially the White Brassiere contrasting against the Blue Overalls (one contrast fight is often OK, but three is a crowd) - this idea of the OoF Leaves would work much better if it were a Nude Study.

WW

[MrB]

In a field near where I live, there is an old tractor sitting close to the roadside - presumably placed there for the viewing enjoyment of passers-by. But there's a barbed wire fence at the side of the dirt road and the tractor is close, maybe 6 or 7ft (2-3m), so it's not possible to get a good head-on shot without interfering with perspective and stuff.

This is not going to be a response to foreground blurring but I wonder, if you have a tilt screen, and you could take a shot at arms length overhead, might it exclude both the fence and also the burnt out sky?

Philip

[xpatUSA]

This is not going to be a response to foreground blurring but I wonder, if you have a tilt screen, and you could take a shot at arms length overhead, might it exclude both the fence and also the burnt out sky?

It might indeed, Philip, and thanks for the thought; I get your point. Yes, the fence is 4 ft, so such a shot is possible and wouldn't even need arms-length unless I wanted the exhaust stack in the frame. As to the sky, I don't mind a bit of sky in my rural shots. Round here, the sky is rarely "pretty" so I'll often let it blow in favor of the subject at hand.