File :-(, x, )
Smooth bokeh Anonymous
How come my bokeh isn't smooth?

Is this because of camera shake or because my aperture was at 4.0?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Oh, forgot. 24-105 at maximum aperture.

Would I have gotten better background blur at the long end?
>> Anonymous !dMYYvF5Blo
It seems like you should get more in focus
(IE,make your aperture smaller.)

What speed was it?
If you're considered about blur, go for something above 100th of a sec if you really think thats the issue.
It doesn't look blurry.
>> Anonymous
Focal length, etc.?

EXIF OR GTFO
>> Anonymous
>>111304
fuck, you don't deserve a lens that nice
>> Anonymous
>>111318
seconded
>> Anonymous
Um, it's just a 24-105.

You guys make it sound like it's the second coming of Jesus.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>111334
Its an L, L is not for noobs.
>> Anonymous
>>111334

Your own personal Jesus.
>> Anonymous
L are marketed at pros, sure. But does that prevent anyone else from buying it?

Yeah, it's a 1,000$ lens but it's the only one I own. I have a 5D (take that!) and it's the perfect lens for it.

I checked the EXIF again, this was at 105 actually.
>> Anonymous
Bracing for impact.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>111343
if you know how to use a 5D you would know how to post a picture with the EXIF still attached and would be able to find out why your bokeh is horrible.

hello troll <3

and post the EXIF to show us its a 5D and the 24-105 would you.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
     File :-(, x)
L or not, anyone's best bet for smooth bokeh is going to be fast primes. Some zooms have nice bokeh, but it's decidedly less common than with good primes. The 24-105 is a good lens, but that doesn't mean it's going to have creamy bokeh. Some lenses have all-star bokeh, some are terrible, most are middle-ground.

The Canon 50mm f/1.4 EF is a great example of a lower-priced lens that has great bokeh. See photo at left.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>111350
On the other hand, some of us don't give a fuck about EXIF.
>> Anonymous
Good bokeh can't be judged on specs. You have to see what it can do from results. Some can surprise and some disappoint compared to what is on paper.
>> Anonymous
/p/ - Photography

3. Even though EXIF data is made available when encoded, please post as much relevant technical information as possible, such as: camera, kit, lens, etc.

EXIF is there for a reason, faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>111350

Don't be such a little bitch just because Sony doesn't make a full frame camera.

Shot is at 105mm, 1/60 and f/4 with IS on.

>>111353

In general, do you get better bokeh on the short or long end?

I get decent blur when the background is distant.
>> Anonymous
>>111361

Generally on the long end it is better.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>EXIF is there for a reason, faggot.

Yes. For anal-retentive fuckwhits like yourself. It can be useful at times. Usually it's just irrelevant.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>111361
I'll be enjoying my 7 soon enough, i dont care about 35mm equiv sensors, lenses = important.

Ofc since its yours, how about posting a larger version?
>> Anonymous
>>111366

I guess that's why it's specially added and FUCKING RULE NUMBER THREE OF THE BOARD is there.

If you don't like it, leave. Nothing of value will be lost.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>111368

Yeah, lenses. And it just so happens that only full frame can take the full use of the 24-105 and make it the 'one' lens to have for general walkaround.

More flowers now.
>> Anonymous
>>111370

I prefer the EF 24-70mm 2.8 L. So do many Canon users. I don't like f4 zooms. Too narrow.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>111369
You're clueless and I'm not going anywhere. Deal with it.
>> Anonymous
>>111374

No, you are clueless because you don't even understand the rules. YOU deal with it, retard.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>111371

Bit too big and heavy to my liking. I got the 105 as a kit anyway.

What do you mean too narrow?

More flowers.
>> Anonymous
>>111377

I mean the aperture. You get nicer bokeh with the 2.8 one and of course it's brighter and nicer in the viewfinder too.
>> Anonymous
>>111379

Ah, I thought you meant zoom range. But eh, can't get it all.

The 105 kit is only 500$ more than the body so it's really a no brainer to get it. I don't shoot indoors or sports anyway.
>> Anonymous
>>111379

Oh yeah, there's always been rumours of Canon making a 24 or 28-105 2.8 with IS but it was so big and expensive that it never came to.

But again, just rumours on the Internet. Never seen it confirmed or pics of it.
>> Anonymous
>>111384

It'd be nice if it happened, but the weight and slim niche for it probably means it isn't. Plus, the 24-70 would probably just get IS thrown in it next instead. Easier done, I'd bet as it's not needing a redesign from the ground up.

Not that there isn't a pile of other more urgent requests for new lenses or updates. It's like lens fever every time a trade show is around.
>> Anonymous
>>111386

Actually, no. I remember reading that the 24-70's design can't just have IS slapped on to it. It would need a complete overhaul.
>> Anonymous
>>111387

Damn. That'll be why I was told it was a long way down on the list then. Probably still more likely unless they scrap both the walk about lenses and make one 24-105 2.8 IS. Any guesses what will turn up in August?

I know a 200mm f/2 IS L (lot of folk have been crying out for a return of the currently-overpriced-but-soon-to-devalue 200m 1.8 L) and a 800mm is due, but that might be the one coming up. Don't know what other updates they have for us.
>> Anonymous
Alright, in risk of sounding like a complete moron, what is this 'bokeh' you speak of?
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>111396
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-04-04-04.shtml

It basically refers to the quality of the out of focus area of an image. It is dependent upon a number of factors such as lens design and aperture.
>> Anonymous
>>111396

If you Google it you'll get a better example than we can describe, but it's basically the quality of the background blur we are talking about.
>> Anonymous
Okay, it makes sense know. I kind of figured that's what it was, but it's always better to ask then guess.
>> Anonymous
what other ways can you modify the bokeh's effects ? filters etc ?
>> Anonymous
>>111624

Buy a better lens, usually.
>> Anonymous
>>111624
Focusing closer and adjusting distance to subject and focal length.

Backfocusing a bit obviously means more blur right behind the subject, but don't over-do it.

A good trick to do to accentuate nice bokeh (or even just an in-focus background) when it's already there and the image is in monochrome is to lightly burn the background. I get the best results in Photoshop doing this this way: New layer, soft light, fill with 50% neutral; Burn tool, no hardness on the brush, not much opacity at all, set it to highlights. Don't go over the same spot twice on a different click of the mouse.

I think in some film darkroom way whoever Cartier-Bresson used to print his photographs did something like this on that famous shot of the guy with the cloak and umbrella turned around with a tree-lined road receding behind him. There's a little bright halo around him that suggests the remainder of the print was burned and the printer didn't want to get too close to him. (That is 100% a guess based on what I get sometimes doing an imprecise job of this in Photoshop. I know next to nothing about darkrooms or film printing, so it could be something else entirely.)
>> Anonymous
>>111627

Also, more expensive lens doesn't automatically mean better bokeh.

Some lens just don't have it.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
     File :-(, x)
This.