Addition to the Fake Flowers series on depth of field?

Question

For those who have seen this series...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/2145982734/in/set-72157603455598439/

Oh snap. What's the question?

Have you ever seen such creamy, smooth and delicious blurring in your life from a digital camera with less than a full-frame sensor?

Okay, that's a bit overstated, but at least it's a question.

Rita, one of the most common questions that we get in this section is from people who would KILL if they could do this kind of selective focus with their cameras. You need to look at all five images in the series to get an idea what the point of this discussion is. It's been an ongoing thing and you have just picked up on the newest message in that discussion. I was not asking for critique, but thanks for sharing your opinion. :-)

Thanks, D. I have seen this, also (obviously), but I wanted to put my post in the form of a question to comply with community guidelines...

My point is simply to share more images from the newest camera out there with others in the Yahoo! Answers community.

I guess some who are used to working with a 6 mm lens in front of a 1/2.5" sensor would think that this is "too blurry," but others would ask how the heck they can do that with their camera:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/408446616/

Toni, thanks for the constructive criticism. There is an arrangement of fake flowers on a counter in my office. I didn't set them up for this series; I just shot the flowers because they are available and "standardized." Actually, it turns out that the fact that they are fabric makes it more obvious which ones are out of focus, so maybe they are a good demo subject. I admit that there may be some movement blur at 1/10 second, hand-held exposure. Maybe what you are seeing as a seam is actually the edge of one of the flower petals, as I see that too. As far as the sharpness of the white balls things, one is in the same plane as the flower and the fuzzy one is closer to me than that. I am about 10-12" from the subject, so the plane of focus is very narrow. I think I'll add that to the description. [continued...]

[continuation] As far as the "shape" of the out of focus bits, the Pentax lens had 6 blades. I can't find the spec on this 60 mm macro on-line and the lens is in the office. I think it may have 9 blades, but I'd have to see it and count it to be sure. I am still exploring sharpening. I tried to use "Threshold" until the general appearanceof the background matched the original. It did leave the main subject less sharp that is attainable, but it's a balancing act.

Mason, I'm not so much showing off either as I am just adding to a series of the same subject about depth of field. I took some at f/22 here, but - although they DO illustrate the point - they are just butt ugly and I don't want to post them under my name! Do you have depth of field work in your own tutorials? I am sure you have some classic examples.

Lidy, it's a photographer's secret. If I tell you how I did it, I will have to kill you.

But actually... That's what selective focus is all about. You've seen the many questions here saying, "How can I make a depth of field picture." This is what they are really talking about.

Look over the 5 images in the series and read the differences in lenses, apertures and distances. That's where the answer lies.

The summary is:
Use the largest sensor (or film) you can
Use largest aperture possible
Use longest focal length available
Use close distance to subject
Use far distance to background

It works every time.

Answer 1

It demonstrates depth of field well. People ask how do I make the background blurry, you have an excellent example.

So thats nailed that,

The left side red breaks the depth up and would be better on the inside of the white maybe. It's not meant to be a work of art, its done to illustrate one of the top questions in this forum visually so its a sucess. Keep it or do another better for the example yes.

The bokeh or exclusion or depth et cetera is as expected from the sensor/lens/focal lenght etc, the colour is good, its not popping, thats lighting I think. Creamy, smooth? Am i missing something? I think thats what cab means by a fatter aperture, like a f1.x or so maybe a F2. I dont think is a good example for the advantages of cropped sensors - depth of filed yes, its so hard to tell the texture in the white is gone in places, there is a visable seam in the flower, then on the left the texture is flaired? so exposure a bit there? inside of the top leafs flaired highlights, - sorry maybe I need to calibrate again? is it movement blur? is it the sharpning?

the pleasing flairs in the droplets are very pleasing, the boken is sort of not like your F1.4 full sensor shot of red man image, that is hex or octo gons, - the aperture shape, this boken is like fuzzy shadowish.

the bottom corner left is interesting. one ball stick the balls are crystal, the other is fuzzy like 70's side burns, what was the height? difference?

so sorry I go on so much, its an excellent image for the purpose, and please disregard alot of my rambling.......

a

Answer 2

Yes I have seen such creamy and smooth blurring with a digital camera that had a aps-c sized sensor. Of course the f-1.8 lens really really helped. Although the delicious part is a matter of taste.

Answer 3

Quite amazing!

The front sepals and the petals are in focus, the sepal at the back is slightly blurred but still on the same plane.
How'd you do that ??!! Were you setting the focus by the flower or the front sepals ? Please excuse me if this is a dumb question.

Answer 4

Are you showing off the camera or lens?

Answer 5

wow. that is WAYY too blurry...............

and the flower is way too close to the edge of the picture.