Deliberately Blurring the Foreground

[xpatUSA]

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.

Some might say "take the shot and clone it out" but I have an odd attitude to that kind of thing. In my view, rural scenes here in Texas include "bob wahr", power lines, ditches, election bill-boards, iron gates, etc. without which it just ain't Texas. So, I'm busy reading (again) all about DOF, bokeh, and more, with a view to blurring out the said wire sufficiently that, although visible, it interferes little with the subject of the shot.

Meanwhile, I'm very interested in this Forum's attitude to foreground blurring.

[Manfred M]

My view is I don't care about the rules and guidelines, so long as the image works.

The problem with foreground blurring is that it is often ends up being quite distracting and when that is the case, the image often does not work well. Do it in such a way where the viewer doesn't really notice it, then the image can work.

[dje]

Ted I think that foreground blurring can be used as an effective creative step under certain circumstances. It can be used to give a sense of depth or to provide extra emphasis on the main "sharp" part of the image. It's hard to be prescriptive about what the favorable circumstances are though. As Manfred says, it must not be a distraction.

Dave

[DanK]

I don't like to treat "rules" as rules. Rather, I think it is best to think of them as generalizations that are often good starting points. (That's a lot to type. Maybe GOGSP?) My generalization is what Manfred wrote: more often than not, blurred foregrounds are distracting. I learned this the hard way when I started macro, which often has blurred foregrounds if you don't work to avoid them. So the question is whether your image might be one of the exceptions.

[xpatUSA]

I don't like to treat "rules" as rules. Rather, I think it is best to think of them as generalizations that are often good starting points. (That's a lot to type. Maybe GOGSP?) My generalization is what Manfred wrote: more often than not, blurred foregrounds are distracting. I learned this the hard way when I started macro, which often has blurred foregrounds if you don't work to avoid them. So the question is whether your image might be one of the exceptions.

Thanks for the comments so far, Gents.

Dan, as to the aforementioned tractor shot, I hope to make it an "exception" by just blurring the wire and not having fence-posts actually in front of the subject. Any foreground grass and ground that gets blurred too won't bother me ... it's not like rural dirt roads are all that interesting close up.

To an extent, I am reminded of Merklinger's DOF paper where he sees no problem with nearby stuff being out of focus, so long as it's not the subject itself.

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html
.

[pschlute]

You could try a few shots with the fence in focus and the tractor blurred to ring the changes !

[xpatUSA]

You could try a few shots with the fence in focus and the tractor blurred to ring the changes !

LOL Well, that didn't work

[pschlute]

LOL Well that didn't work

Pair of wire cutters ?

[xpatUSA]

Pair of wire cutters ?

Glad I looked up that older shot, Peter ... I'd forgotten about the chicken wire (Texas chickens, that is) ...

[Stagecoach]

LOL Well that didn't work

I don't think it would have 'worked' with that framing and angle even if the fence was not there.

Why not put the lens through the fence?

[xpatUSA]

I don't think it would have 'worked' with that framing and angle even if the fence was not there.

Hmm ...

Why not put the lens through the fence?

Hunting for my Sigma 8-16mm, even as we speak. Um, did I mention perspective earlier.

[Stagecoach]

did I mention perspective earlier.

Yes, but interesting perspectives can add to the impact of an image.

[xpatUSA]

Yes, but interesting perspectives can add to the impact of an image.

I fold.

[Shadowman]

Depends on how large an area needs to be blurred and how intrusive it might appear, I assume its impossible to crop out the offending area?

[xpatUSA]

Depends on how large an area needs to be blurred and how intrusive it might appear, I assume its impossible to crop out the offending area?

Well, I was looking for general opinions really, John, and I should not have used an explicit scene as an example and certainly not compounded that with a particular shot. That shot then became subject to C&C with plenty of specific advice relevant to that scene.

Still, might as well stick with the example, eh?

After some research on blur circles and more particularly line spread, I foresaw difficulty in that the blur from a point or line source gets bigger the closer the source gets to the lens. A bit like having bokeh bubbles or lines in front of the subject as opposed to lurking in the background. No good for shooting a specific subject like my tractor with all it's fascinating detail, IMHO.

Shot a few today:

Similar to shot already posted but with max aperture and fully framed:



The wire is clearly intrusive!

Another shot, this time over the fence but wire still in the image:



The blurring of the wire against the grass is acceptable, I reckon.

And finally a front shot possibly the closest to the wire:



As I hinted earlier, the blur got big enough to significantly obscure front wheel detail.

It would appear that trying to reduce the impact of foreground stuff by blurring will only work rarely, perhaps as in the second image above.

Thanks for all comments so far!

Comments re: veiling flare and my shaky hands will be cheerfully ignored ...

[Shadowman]

Ted,

Your aversion to removing commonplace items (barbwire, etc.) is similar to mine regarding removing those intrusive utility wires in architecture, cityscapes, and some landscapes, not only are the wires a typical part of the urban landscapes they can be quite a chore sometimes removing them, also I believe some viewers tend to mentally block out the wires or else readily accept the presence of the objects.

Regarding your images shown as examples, both 1 and 3 are prime examples of my comments about the blur being intrusive or distracting to the viewer, with the second image the blur is less noticeable.

[xpatUSA]

Ted,

Your aversion to removing commonplace items (barbwire, etc.) is similar to mine regarding removing those intrusive utility wires in architecture, city-scapes, and some landscapes, not only are the wires a typical part of the urban landscapes they can be quite a chore sometimes removing them, also I believe some viewers tend to mentally block out the wires or else readily accept the presence of the objects.

Regarding your images shown as examples, both 1 and 3 are prime examples of my comments about the blur being intrusive or distracting to the viewer, with the second image the blur is less noticeable.

Thank you, John, looks like we're on the same piece of ice ...

[William W]

. . Meanwhile, I'm very interested in this Forum's attitude to foreground blurring . . . I was looking for general opinions really [ . . . ] and I should not have used an explicit scene as an example and certainly not compounded that with a particular shot. . . . It would appear that trying to reduce the impact of foreground stuff by blurring will only work rarely . . .

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

[xpatUSA]

Thanks Bill, I like the inverse term "hekob" . And the possibility of different focal lengths; only camera used so far for the tractor was a fixed FL 30mm APS-C compact.

[William W]

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.