Another information packed Video. Thank you, Steve !! I’m no purist and think of photography as art. I try to make images that are appealing not just documenting. I do blur backgrounds in post processing when necessary, but when out shooting I’m always looking for that clean background.
Great video again as always, Steve! I do use slight background blurring only if needed and not worried about being a purist or not. Love for the suggestion about adding grain and will be trying that soon. Thank you!
Another good tutorial Steve. 1-4 were familiar to me. As to 5, I see nothing wrong with slight post processing to blur and darken or lighten the background to emphasize the subject. I find that often I can't move enough to increase the distance from subject to background. The subject doesn't often get the message that it should stay in place while I move around. The key here, as you note, is to make the adjustments subtle. Some photographers routinely add a vignette to darken the edges of the frame and, to me, often over-do the effect.
Great video, Steve. I enjoy Photoshop and Lightroom almost equally as much as being in the field taking photos so I appreciate new Adobe tips and tricks. As I mentioned to you before, I've become a big fan of the Field Blur tool. I am not a professional, simply an advanced amateur and can't justify the expense of 600mm f4 glass. THANKS!!
Great video, Steve! I completely agree on filling the frame. When it comes to background, then it depends on the object and distance and your point on the background being too busy is well taken. The best photos I have taken so far are where I need to reposition myself because the background was too busy. Always appreciate your videos!
Thanks for your tutorials, Steve. Yes, AI and other tools are here to help us, why not take advantage of them. All we need to do is used them wisely as you correctly pointed out. Thanks.
Another great video. Shooting tips and post tips. The tools now at our disposal are just amazing. Why not embrace what is possible. The trick is making it look believable. I often browse forums looking at photographs only to see post processing failures. I enjoy pushing the envelope.
I totally agree-background blur in post is just fine if it's done right. There are times when you don't have the right lens or you're not in the right location to capture a potentially fleeing subject and you need to get the shot before it's lost forever.
This is a very useful video. I love to blur the background whenever possible, I find those type images most appealing. As for crossing the line with "lens blur", I don't have a problem with it all. My favorite tip was to position yourself close to the subject, AND position the subject far from the background.
Always great information. The tools in editing programs are there for me to use as my artistic eye would like to. I have no problems at all making images as any artist would paint a picture from a photograph. This subject is very personal and subjective. Why wouldn't I want to create something that I truly love since I have the tools.
Love the video and especially what you address in this one. I felt so guilty for using post to add bit of blur to the backgrounds, when I can't afford the long, fast glass to do it in the field. Great tip to add a bit of grain, and also to work my position to distance the background from the subject. These videos really help me remember this in the face of a potentially exciting opportunity to photograph something special, LOL. Thank you!!
Steve, another great video of tips and advice for us camera buffs. I like to use the longer glass anytime I can and you mentioned one tip , “Always quick check those settings “, it’s one thing that I find myself guilty of not doing. I get caught up in staying on my wildlife and sometimes forget that I just got through doing a landscape photography shoot, guess it comes from getting older.
@@backcountrygallery thanks Steve, I think it’s something few will admit to. As for my opinion on the blurry background, “I don’t rely much on LightRoom Classic for adding blur, I prefer to get my f stop where my subject is the main focus point and keep my background only if it adds to the overall picture.
Great tips Steve. I think there are situations where totally blurred background, somewhat blurred background and in focus background can all be useful and can keep a person's portfolio from all looking the same. Example your Elk photo. Great shot by the way. I probably would have kept the background just a little in focus to provide a sense of time and place and the vastness of the mountains where these beauties live. I frequently shoot "environmental" shots where I use a wider angle lens or zoom out a bit to capture more of the background. By the way, I really like the way you present your tips both here in TH-cam and in your eBooks. Always something to consider and work with.
Great tutorial Steve. I like you do not have a problem with using a small amount of blurring in post to get a little closer to what I want. Sparingly is the right way to look at it. I never have thought of using a little grain to take a little softness away. Really like that one. Have several photos that I want to try this on. Thanks again
As always Steve, excellent tips. On post-processing blurring, my rule is : "if needed, just enough but not too much". The idea is that photography is a capture sport ! The better your source, the better the output, but occasionnaly a bit of digital assistance makes the difference. It's like adding salt to your meal, too much ruins the dish,.
That’s kind of how I feel about it too. Basically don’t rely too much on the tool and try to get it right in the field. However, if it just needs a little push, it’s OK to ask software for help :-)
These are also excellent tips for sports photographers. Having a full stadium as a background is a huge help, and shooting in goal-line situations when the crowd is 100 yards behind the player are sports applications of these tips Thanks!
I agree with all you say about using Photoshop's background blur to enhance what's already a little blurred. Using layer masks you can make it perfect.
I support background blur because not everyone can go out and buy a 400 2.8 or a 600 F4. Now that being said it has to be done with some finesse and not over done. I've actually got a photo of a cow moose and bull moose on my Flickr account showing how it can be used to where it doesn't look fake. Thanks Steve for another great vid!
Thanks Steve ! These are great tips to keep in mind to improve your subject isolation! I'm not a big fan of using background blur in post, but I would consider using it sparingly in special circumstances.
Good video.. To background blur or not.. really depends on is the location an important part of the story you are trying to tell. If you photograph a Lion in a Zoo, the zoo is probably not a major part of the story, but if you are on a once in lifetime trip to Africa and photograph a lion in the wild, the fact you are in Africa may well be an important part of the story you want to tell
In my opinion, every photo is different and tells a different story. So the amount of background blur is really going to depend on the photo itself - I agree, 100%.
It depends on the scene, sometimes I prefer to show some of the environment; for BIF it is my goal to have the bg as blurred as possible, but bears, moose and perched birds I prefer some definition in the bg. I haven't played with the blur in Lightroom but I use a blur in PS for blurring if it helps the image. I look at it as I am not a photo journalist so editing the bg is not an issue, I process images to make me happy.
Another great video, Steve. I look at (pun intended) adding background blur in post like photogs who lean heavily on Topaz. I'm honing my skills and only use Lightroom for editing. If I missed the shot, that's on me.
Great video and useful tips. For me it’s definitely a mixed bag as far as backgrounds go. Depending on subject, available options and my own preference at the time I pick and choose between close detailed backgrounds and further away ones. As far as editing backgrounds to be smooth, I don’t really have a problem with it. Photography is art and as long as people don’t try to lie about it or pass it off as natural it’s just a tool to create.
Hi Steve, I enjoyed this video very much! My first super-tele lens is coming in two weeks and I can't wait to start shooting birds and wildlife. I dreamed of it since I was a kid. I frequently watch your videos over the years, and I am sure that I will buy some of your educational materials once I dip my toes into birding and wildlife photography. Thanks for sharing you knowledge! Edit: I think that background blur should be used wisely, but I would never solely rely on it to make my photos look good.
I will use this to tell you my opinion of the Secrets To The Nikon Autofocus System DSLR Edition-v162. The only thing I don't like about the book is that I should have got it sooner. However, the book in combination with the videos is the right recipe for success. I just want to wish you the best of luck in 2024 and hopefully, I will be able to join you in one of your workshops. Thanks for all the great information.
I guess I fall into the purist camp on bokeh.Im working with 500mm at f5.6 so im used to a less than ideal background..But if wind conditions and the sun are right, i try to setup as to where I can shoot BIF against some tress or some brown grass and it can actually make some pleasing backgrounds. ..Good tips Steve! I think the best thing to do is keep saving your spare money for a 600f4 and most problems are solved ( which is what im doing )
Steve. I agree when possible a natural background blur is preferred. However. Photography is art and many things are fair game to achieve the artistic perspective desired by the artist. Changing skies,etc. in my case I shoot streakshots of launches. I use numerous shot and stack them vs use an ND. It’s all good.
I like to incorporate the bokeh blur in the field as you mentioned and I haven’t tried it post processing. As you mentioned, a little fine tuning might be good at times. Great information and I took advantage of your recent sale for a couple of E-books!
Awesome job as always, and as always, you cover the one question / answer I wanted to hear right at the end: This time, when to add grain back in and why. ;-) Does blurring in post cross the line? Well, I don't do it often, but I have no problem with people who do - as long - as you say - it is done well. It's just another part of the "development" process. I'm am sure there are many darkrooms that have hidden a secret or two about that in the past. As long as your an artist and not an achiever or photojournalist, I don't see the problem. AI is certainly going to seriously add to this type of debate in the future (or even present). Thanks Steve!
shooting in the swamps of florida, you really dont get much chance to move around.. so yes I have been known to add a bit of blur . but note I never go over 3.0 blur in PS. usually 2.5 or so. adds just a bit and you really dont know that I did it. ( most of he time) . keep up the good work. I originally found you on UHH web sitre, glad I did.
Great tips Steve and you had me laughing at the one that you just slipped in towards the beginning because while it should be routine, it's bitten me on a couple of really cool shots I missed -- check the settings when bringing it up to your eye. It's amazing how often a knob or dial can get bumped when walking... :) As for background blur it depends on the background, yes most of the time I love the separation with a nice sharp subject and a buttery background but there are times when I'm out looking at wild horses and can get an epic mountain range in the background that just sings to me... As for working the background in post...proceed with caution...too many times it just doesn't look right and throws off flags even if you don't immediately realize what's wrong...but tweaking little bits done well can save an image too.
Hey Steve, I have been veiwing a lot of your editing videos. I have been fortunate to be travelling to Kenya - 3-5 times per year the past 3 years and have spent 3-5 days in the field - yes, way too many photos and the learning curve has been steep. I was trying to find a video where you talk about the pros/cons/honesty of removing distracting objects for a photo. This past December I went to the Maasai Mara and we spent time with a Cheetah and her little ones - soooooo cute. I managed to get some nice shots, but there were so any flies. In some case where I used a fast shutter speed some of the flying around with their iridescent blue looks interesting, but in many case they are all over the little ones face and eyes. So 2 questions: 1. What is your favourite editing technique to remove them from the face and 2. Even if I could de a good job such that when the photo is blown up it still looks good (so far that has been out of reach for me) should I even be doing this? Please direct me to one of your videos where you discuss these questions. Thanks for all you do!!!
I am going to split hairs here, or play with semantics, whichever you prefer. Blurring the background slightly does not mean the shot is not pure - in fact, there is nothing "pure" about digital (or film) images. With in-camera processing of even RAW photos, what does it mean, "pure"? In the film days we manually dodged and burned images as needed, even tilted the easel to correct for perspective (or blur something more!), etc. Every time you use a piece of software it is making adjustments which are not "pure". Pure images are a sliding scale, and so adjust to what you feel comfortable with. For me, I will make little adjustments to emphasize a subject (which, when done in camera, is not "pure" either!), but will not, for example, change out a sky or put a subject in an entirely different location. I have no problem with removing things, but adding things like a sky or an ocean etc., is beyond my comfort level. But to each his own!
Good vid as always. Background is important, but for me not critical, if I'm try to show behavior of birds/ animals. May not have time to worry about BG when exciting action happens.
Excellent video with great tips, Steve. For the most part, I prefer a blurred background with just a little definition over a totally blurred background. But, of course, that also depends on the subject and the setting. A little blurring in post os fine with me. I recently bought your BIF and Wildlife ebooks. I just started the BIF book and am anxious to learn a lot from it. I’ll read the wildlife book next.
To me, acceptable background blur depends on the image. Like you I am typically moving around to isolate the background from the subject, but, as a non professional I'd rather get the image than not whether or not I have a great background. I do not believe in artificial blur, maybe because it is not permitted in my photo club competitions, but too it's a bit of a personal line that I do not like to cross. It raises the question, when is something a photo vs. just a piece of created art??
I absolutely prefer a blurred background for stills of songbirds , but do like a little more clarity for larger wildlife. On the subject of this new blur background option in Lightroom, I’m still sitting on the fence, how far do we go before eventually our work is so altered that we lose our originality, we might as well just use AI to generate the image. However I agree that if used minimally, maybe it’s ok. This is a hard one Steve !
Great video Steve! The most important takeaway from your video that I really focus on is assessing the subject and background and then move when I need to. Also this depends where I am at shooting, e..g. not so easy to move around from the boardwalks at Wakodahatchee and Green Cay Wetlands. Also, you did not mention in this this video that shooting low makes a huge difference on the background. It would be useful to me if you had a video how to process a photo in Lightroom/Photoshop to blur the background to make it realistic. Thanks again!
Thanks for the suggestion. As for shooting low, I have a whole video on proper height here that takes a deep dive: th-cam.com/video/8AGoCNG1hcQ/w-d-xo.html
Using Nikon 500mm pf some PS work is sometimes necessary. I use the blur bg technique you posted on youtube some years ago. Not in all image but now and then. Hopefully I´m not override it.Adjusting the level curve in bg can also have some nice effect on the bg.
Another good video, Steve. One of the issues that pops up occasionally is when you enter photos in a contest and the rules restrict any sort of photo manipulation, including background blurring via post processing. You would think that it wouldn’t be a big deal but sometimes they will disqualify your entry unfortunately.
Some of those contests are incredibly restrictive. I would think that most would prohibit any kind of background blurring in post (and some are far more extreme).
What ever it’s takes to get a pleasing background which may or may not be blurred … as I’m a developing my wskills as nature ( bird) photography and if you have time absolutely get right in camera but software manipulation is tool one should use.
I have a question, being on budget sigma C 100-400, which is nice lens but 6.3 wide open I found my self even more often not shooting, knowing that my positioning or my target position won't make for nice blurry background. I'm planning to buy 300mm f4 but PF is quite a stretch for my budget (like in saving for 2-3 years) and I'm thinking abaut older 300mm f4D, but I heard that it is very bad for BIF in terms of AF. Is it true from Your experience?
when I look at those few shots I consider good in my portfolio - I never think of 'I wish I had a shallower dof for this one' . Making the most of out what Steve says - subject to background distance - even my bloody f6.3 m43 equivalent of f12+ did just enough of a good job. On the contrary there's photos with busy backgrounds, close backgrounds etc - where I would wish for 600 f1.2 lol, even though I am not sure if that would help either.
I generally find wildlife 'portrait' photography with completely blurred out backgrounds a bit boring, whereas photos which show some habitat without distracting too much from the subject are much more interesting.
I feel a bit guilty when I use background blur in Lightroom, but I use it to make my 500 PF f5.6 images look more like my old 600mm f4 images looked. Just a touch. Like you, the first thing I do is look for a better angle when shooting. Especially with birds in trees. You didn't mention getting lower, as in not shooting down when in a safari vehicle.
When I blur the background in post, I use 50px denoise on the background which doesn't look fake like a blur filter. Depending on the setting, I may want to show the surroundings to "tell a story".
Steve, Great content, as always. I use a Sony A1+200-600 lens in the sunny Phoenix area. My problem is that at times, when I try to do proper exposure (exposure compensation is almost at 0), the birds eye seems a little too mushy. I have tried 7.1 instead of 6.3, but when I underexpose a bit, everything comes in good focus. Heat wave is something I have no control over, but this seems a little odd. Any comments? I did buy your book to go over techniques I might be otherwise overlooking.
It's tough to say without seeing the photo. You might want to post it over at the BCG Forums so we can see the problem and I'm sure we can figure it out :)
@@backcountrygallery Awesome sir. Will do it today :). Thank you, as always. I always wait for your videos with real tips that contain no fluff whatsoever! No Fluff, Just Stuff :D
Forget entering in photo contests if you are going to blur the background in Photoshop or Lightroom (or any other editing software). Photo contests generally require a purest approach. Blur in camera based on the first 4 ideas.
Not sure that "wide open" is always good advice. I've seen quite a few beginner wild life images where a good portion of the subject is soft, because they shot wide open.
Idk Steve I think my z7II is the problem now. I got myself the 180-600mm and I shoot with it on a tripod but still most of my photos Doesn’t have ton of detail.. only when I m shooting in direct sunlight at f11 I obtain nice risulta with it. Instead when I look at others experience with the same lens I notest that they all use z8 or z9 which both cameras have better autofocus and I see way better photos then mine in term of sharpness. ( I m still super beginner but I was just wondering why )
It's really hard to say - I'd have to see photos. If you want to post some over at the BCG Forums, the group (and probably me as well) will take a look :)
I am still working on my skills. I love the soft background I see coming from the 400 f2.8, but I can't justify its cost. I just transitioned from the 500 5.6 to the 600 6.3. I shoot wide open and try to position myself for a good background. But this proves difficult on moving subjects. Sometimes I get it, sometimes I don't. Depending on the photo, post processing can sometimes make a nice improvement. I'm not really happy with Lightrooms automatic blur tool, but there are other techniques that work ok.
It's tougher with slower glass and there are definitely times you're just not gonna be able to pull it off. However, I find when I'm using a slower lens if I really pay attention to subject and background distance and really try to fill the frame just those two things alone are usually enough to get me the kind of background I want.
@@debrapeasley2606 For me, the challenge is what makes it fun :) It also helps to know that when you go out, 99% of the subjects aren't going to work :)
@@backcountrygallery I don't know, half the time it's a challenge to find any birds at all! A crow, a Canada Goose, (surprisingly abundant here in Southern California 😀) I'll take anything that moves.
The computer tends to blur in an all-or-nothing way much of the time, so the transitions can look unnatural. In addition, if you have a photo with a heavily blurred but close background, it can look "wrong" to the viewer. Done with care I think it's fine, but some disagree.
On backgrounds, I like variety, so long as they’re not too busy and complement the subject. And, yes, I have used the various blur tools in LR and PS. Just don’t swing the sliders too hard. Not using all the tools available, in camera or post, is kinda dumb in my opinion. Kinda like the purist who shuns modern AI subject detection and features like pro-capture and sticks with his old manual focus lenses. Using advances in post processing, whether for wildlife photography or other forms, is exactly the same as using the in-camera advances.
Of course there has to be someone spilling the beans 🤣🤣 I typically don’t use software to blur out my BG but I completely agree. Don’t make it so fake LOL
How much background blur do I like? I like enough to remove any distraction. How much is that? I know what I like. If it's too much for you (or not enough), just move along. Nothing here for you to see. There's enough subjectivity in photography for everyone. As far as post processing background blur, knock yourself out. Haters will hate. If you like it, go for it. It's not fatal. If you don't like/do it, don't. Is this a great country or what?
Using AI to tweak images is just another editing tool. Although, when used for altruistic purposes, it feels unethical. My pet peeve is stacked images. As much as I love an image with amazing clarity , it’s impossible to produce that image out of our camera in a single frame. Thanx for your tutorials, always helpful/ useful tools.
Woody Allen's 1973 Sleeper movie, are we there yet? Soon people won't even have to go outside to take a wildlife photograph, they'll just piece together something in a computer. I feel that humans take anything fun and ruin it. Create rules and contests around it and make people hurry to get it done. I think the standards that are created are limiting. You can't win a contest unless it looks just like this because the good stuff always looks like this and of course the best equipment accomplishes those goals better than the rest. Maybe photographers shouldn't judge photo contests. Try to win a judge over by creating a feeling or emotion rather than having the right blur or the same settings the judge would use in that situation. The world has sticks and weeds and animals live in that environment. It seems like it gets too anal when every little distracting black spot or line needs to be removed to make a great photo. Who determines what is great and does that change with the introduction of newer equipment and computer programs? Does someone take their Sony 200-600 out or their 600 f/4. Of course the 600 because of the nice creamy blur and that costs much more money. If you want to win contests, you better be rich or willing to go in debt because more expensive equipment gets you there easier and faster. But photo conditions do vary from state to state. A bear in Yellowstone will give you hours to reposition and get a better background. A bear in PA runs away instantly so you get what the animal gives you. But I did enjoy the video. Thanks for taking the time to make it.
I don’t believe that blurring a background is that grave of a crime compared to other photos that I have seen where someone has put in the background the Milky Way which they never photographed.
Fixing in post is not an issue with me unless the photographer is making the claim there was no editing done. But too often 'fixing it in post' becomes a crutch in an attempt to save a mediocre photo because the person had a severe case of James Popsys calls 'being microlazy' in the field.
It's funny I see that all the time. I watch people who could easily reposition for a better background absolutely skip it because they can fix it in post. I just don't understand that at all. It's so so much easier to me just to do it right in the field.
It's a lot of work blurring out a background in photoshop using masks to mask out a furry subject unless you are doing it in ACR. Masking in PS with a furry subject can be tedious. I would rather get it blurred out in the field so as to not have a lot of work in PS. I do pet photography and there are some pet photographers who just automatically blur out the background. The dog could be sitting in front of a garbage pile and the viewer would never know it because the background was blurred out. I think that goes a bit too far in my opinion. There would be screams of despair if PS ever got rid of the gaussian blur.
my opinion! if you plan to enter a photo into a restricted edits contest dont tweak the backgrounf in post! otherwise do what you think looks good! We all know that even the best edited content rarely is better than what our eyes/brains saw in person...... Now addig content TO a photo that wasn't there is worse to me than removing un-wanted content like some dumb trash on the ground or sign, wire etc.!
I think a fundamental question is just what constitutes a fake? When you observe a scene the background doesn’t have a creamy bokeh. The bokeh is a departure from reality and represents a pleasing optical artifact. I would suggest that the introduction or augmentation of background blur if performed tastefully in post processing is perfectly acceptable and can significantly enhance an image. So why dispute the origin of the bokeh if it augments the image? Optically it will not be identical to that produced by an f/4 prime but a close second for those who cannot afford to spend $15 K for a lens. The term fake is a poor choice of words as it is actually a comparison of techniques that produce different background renderings, and both representing a departure from what is actually observed. What is actually being compared is how well the blur introduced in post approximates that of an f/4 prime. A better comparison would be how well the blur enhances the image and not how closely the image simulates one taken by an f/4 prime.
What drives me bonkers is all these people who change the background of a perched bird, and both the bird and clouds are in focus, as though they shot it at f/10000000
Agree 100% . While I don't mind adding a little blur to an existing background, I really don't agree with background replacement. At that point, I feel like you're just making graphic art and not photography.
Another great video. Shooting tips and post tips. The tools now at our disposal are just amazing. Why not embrace what is possible. The trick is making it look believable. I often browse forums looking at photographs only to see post processing failures. I enjoy pushing the envelope.
Another information packed Video. Thank you, Steve !!
I’m no purist and think of photography as art. I try to make images that are appealing not just documenting. I do blur backgrounds in post processing when necessary, but when out shooting I’m always looking for that clean background.
Great video again as always, Steve! I do use slight background blurring only if needed and not worried about being a purist or not. Love for the suggestion about adding grain and will be trying that soon. Thank you!
Another good tutorial Steve. 1-4 were familiar to me. As to 5, I see nothing wrong with slight post processing to blur and darken or lighten the background to emphasize the subject. I find that often I can't move enough to increase the distance from subject to background. The subject doesn't often get the message that it should stay in place while I move around. The key here, as you note, is to make the adjustments subtle. Some photographers routinely add a vignette to darken the edges of the frame and, to me, often over-do the effect.
Great video, Steve. I enjoy Photoshop and Lightroom almost equally as much as being in the field taking photos so I appreciate new Adobe tips and tricks. As I mentioned to you before, I've become a big fan of the Field Blur tool. I am not a professional, simply an advanced amateur and can't justify the expense of 600mm f4 glass. THANKS!!
Thanks Steve. Another useful video. I agree with your suggestion to being subtle with any post-processing blurring.
Another fabulous video. Thanks for helping me become a better wildlife photographer!
Another outstanding clip! Again, so professionally well done!
Great video, Steve! I completely agree on filling the frame. When it comes to background, then it depends on the object and distance and your point on the background being too busy is well taken. The best photos I have taken so far are where I need to reposition myself because the background was too busy. Always appreciate your videos!
Steve, great video always, watching your videos can learn so many of different techniques ,Thank you so much.
Thanks for your tutorials, Steve. Yes, AI and other tools are here to help us, why not take advantage of them. All we need to do is used them wisely as you correctly pointed out. Thanks.
Another great video. Shooting tips and post tips. The tools now at our disposal are just amazing. Why not embrace what is possible. The trick is making it look believable. I often browse forums looking at photographs only to see post processing failures. I enjoy pushing the envelope.
I totally agree-background blur in post is just fine if it's done right. There are times when you don't have the right lens or you're not in the right location to capture a potentially fleeing subject and you need to get the shot before it's lost forever.
This is a very useful video. I love to blur the background whenever possible, I find those type images most appealing. As for crossing the line with "lens blur", I don't have a problem with it all. My favorite tip was to position yourself close to the subject, AND position the subject far from the background.
Excellent tips, Steve. Thanks for continuing to share your knowledge and experience..
Short simple but oh so useful. Well done Steve.
Always great information. The tools in editing programs are there for me to use as my artistic eye would like to. I have no problems at all making images as any artist would paint a picture from a photograph. This subject is very personal and subjective. Why wouldn't I want to create something that I truly love since I have the tools.
Another fantastic video!! Thanks Mr. Perry!
Love the video and especially what you address in this one. I felt so guilty for using post to add bit of blur to the backgrounds, when I can't afford the long, fast glass to do it in the field. Great tip to add a bit of grain, and also to work my position to distance the background from the subject. These videos really help me remember this in the face of a potentially exciting opportunity to photograph something special, LOL. Thank you!!
How did I miss this one? New to me! 🙂 Super tips here, thanks! 👏🏻🦅
Steve, another great video of tips and advice for us camera buffs. I like to use the longer glass anytime I can and you mentioned one tip , “Always quick check those settings “, it’s one thing that I find myself guilty of not doing. I get caught up in staying on my wildlife and sometimes forget that I just got through doing a landscape photography shoot, guess it comes from getting older.
I put it in there because I see it happen all the time on workshops - and I'm guilty of it myself sometimes :)
@@backcountrygallery thanks Steve, I think it’s something few will admit to. As for my opinion on the blurry background, “I don’t rely much on LightRoom Classic for adding blur, I prefer to get my f stop where my subject is the main focus point and keep my background only if it adds to the overall picture.
Great tips Steve. I think there are situations where totally blurred background, somewhat blurred background and in focus background can all be useful and can keep a person's portfolio from all looking the same. Example your Elk photo. Great shot by the way. I probably would have kept the background just a little in focus to provide a sense of time and place and the vastness of the mountains where these beauties live. I frequently shoot "environmental" shots where I use a wider angle lens or zoom out a bit to capture more of the background. By the way, I really like the way you present your tips both here in TH-cam and in your eBooks. Always something to consider and work with.
Great tutorial Steve. I like you do not have a problem with using a small amount of blurring in post to get a little closer to what I want. Sparingly is the right way to look at it. I never have thought of using a little grain to take a little softness away. Really like that one. Have several photos that I want to try this on. Thanks again
As always Steve, excellent tips. On post-processing blurring, my rule is : "if needed, just enough but not too much". The idea is that photography is a capture sport ! The better your source, the better the output, but occasionnaly a bit of digital assistance makes the difference. It's like adding salt to your meal, too much ruins the dish,.
That’s kind of how I feel about it too. Basically don’t rely too much on the tool and try to get it right in the field. However, if it just needs a little push, it’s OK to ask software for help :-)
Excellent information. Always appreciate your presentations.
These are also excellent tips for sports photographers. Having a full stadium as a background is a huge help, and shooting in goal-line situations when the crowd is 100 yards behind the player are sports applications of these tips Thanks!
I agree with all you say about using Photoshop's background blur to enhance what's already a little blurred. Using layer masks you can make it perfect.
I support background blur because not everyone can go out and buy a 400 2.8 or a 600 F4. Now that being said it has to be done with some finesse and not over done. I've actually got a photo of a cow moose and bull moose on my Flickr account showing how it can be used to where it doesn't look fake.
Thanks Steve for another great vid!
Thanks Steve ! These are great tips to keep in mind to improve your subject isolation!
I'm not a big fan of using background blur in post, but I would consider using it sparingly in special circumstances.
Good video.. To background blur or not.. really depends on is the location an important part of the story you are trying to tell.
If you photograph a Lion in a Zoo, the zoo is probably not a major part of the story, but if you are on a once in lifetime trip to Africa and photograph a lion in the wild, the fact you are in Africa may well be an important part of the story you want to tell
In my opinion, every photo is different and tells a different story. So the amount of background blur is really going to depend on the photo itself - I agree, 100%.
Excellent work as usual Steve ! I shared your video with my camera club here in Sun City Arizona. I think they will find it very useful.
Thank you so much!
Great video............and I thought I knew everything
It depends on the scene, sometimes I prefer to show some of the environment; for BIF it is my goal to have the bg as blurred as possible, but bears, moose and perched birds I prefer some definition in the bg. I haven't played with the blur in Lightroom but I use a blur in PS for blurring if it helps the image. I look at it as I am not a photo journalist so editing the bg is not an issue, I process images to make me happy.
Another great video, Steve. I look at (pun intended) adding background blur in post like photogs who lean heavily on Topaz. I'm honing my skills and only use Lightroom for editing. If I missed the shot, that's on me.
Great video and useful tips. For me it’s definitely a mixed bag as far as backgrounds go. Depending on subject, available options and my own preference at the time I pick and choose between close detailed backgrounds and further away ones. As far as editing backgrounds to be smooth, I don’t really have a problem with it. Photography is art and as long as people don’t try to lie about it or pass it off as natural it’s just a tool to create.
Hi Steve, I enjoyed this video very much!
My first super-tele lens is coming in two weeks and I can't wait to start shooting birds and wildlife. I dreamed of it since I was a kid. I frequently watch your videos over the years, and I am sure that I will buy some of your educational materials once I dip my toes into birding and wildlife photography.
Thanks for sharing you knowledge!
Edit:
I think that background blur should be used wisely, but I would never solely rely on it to make my photos look good.
I will use this to tell you my opinion of the Secrets To The Nikon Autofocus System DSLR Edition-v162. The only thing I don't like about the book is that I should have got it sooner. However, the book in combination with the videos is the right recipe for success. I just want to wish you the best of luck in 2024 and hopefully, I will be able to join you in one of your workshops. Thanks for all the great information.
Thanks so much!
Thanks, Steve!
I guess I fall into the purist camp on bokeh.Im working with 500mm at f5.6 so im used to a less than ideal background..But if wind conditions and the sun are right, i try to setup as to where I can shoot BIF against some tress or some brown grass and it can actually make some pleasing backgrounds. ..Good tips Steve! I think the best thing to do is keep saving your spare money for a 600f4 and most problems are solved ( which is what im doing )
Steve. I agree when possible a natural background blur is preferred. However. Photography is art and many things are fair game to achieve the artistic perspective desired by the artist. Changing skies,etc. in my case I shoot streakshots of launches. I use numerous shot and stack them vs use an ND. It’s all good.
Those are great tips, now if I can only talk Santa into that 600mm Prime lens! 🙂
LOL good luck :) You'll have to see what Emily...err Santa brings!
I like to incorporate the bokeh blur in the field as you mentioned and I haven’t tried it post processing. As you mentioned, a little fine tuning might be good at times.
Great information and I took advantage of your recent sale for a couple of E-books!
Thanks so much!
Awesome job as always, and as always, you cover the one question / answer I wanted to hear right at the end: This time, when to add grain back in and why. ;-) Does blurring in post cross the line? Well, I don't do it often, but I have no problem with people who do - as long - as you say - it is done well. It's just another part of the "development" process. I'm am sure there are many darkrooms that have hidden a secret or two about that in the past. As long as your an artist and not an achiever or photojournalist, I don't see the problem. AI is certainly going to seriously add to this type of debate in the future (or even present). Thanks Steve!
Thanks for the great tips.
Very best as always!😊
shooting in the swamps of florida, you really dont get much chance to move around.. so yes I have been known to add a bit of blur . but note I never go over 3.0 blur in PS. usually 2.5 or so. adds just a bit and you really dont know that I did it. ( most of he time) . keep up the good work. I originally found you on UHH web sitre, glad I did.
Although I shoot the Sony a1 , I greatly enjoy your videos.
I have an a1 as well - I think some of the samples in that video were from the a1 - I think...
Great tips Steve and you had me laughing at the one that you just slipped in towards the beginning because while it should be routine, it's bitten me on a couple of really cool shots I missed -- check the settings when bringing it up to your eye. It's amazing how often a knob or dial can get bumped when walking... :) As for background blur it depends on the background, yes most of the time I love the separation with a nice sharp subject and a buttery background but there are times when I'm out looking at wild horses and can get an epic mountain range in the background that just sings to me... As for working the background in post...proceed with caution...too many times it just doesn't look right and throws off flags even if you don't immediately realize what's wrong...but tweaking little bits done well can save an image too.
Great content as always!
Hey Steve, I have been veiwing a lot of your editing videos. I have been fortunate to be travelling to Kenya - 3-5 times per year the past 3 years and have spent 3-5 days in the field - yes, way too many photos and the learning curve has been steep. I was trying to find a video where you talk about the pros/cons/honesty of removing distracting objects for a photo. This past December I went to the Maasai Mara and we spent time with a Cheetah and her little ones - soooooo cute. I managed to get some nice shots, but there were so any flies. In some case where I used a fast shutter speed some of the flying around with their iridescent blue looks interesting, but in many case they are all over the little ones face and eyes. So 2 questions: 1. What is your favourite editing technique to remove them from the face and 2. Even if I could de a good job such that when the photo is blown up it still looks good (so far that has been out of reach for me) should I even be doing this? Please direct me to one of your videos where you discuss these questions. Thanks for all you do!!!
I am going to split hairs here, or play with semantics, whichever you prefer. Blurring the background slightly does not mean the shot is not pure - in fact, there is nothing "pure" about digital (or film) images. With in-camera processing of even RAW photos, what does it mean, "pure"? In the film days we manually dodged and burned images as needed, even tilted the easel to correct for perspective (or blur something more!), etc. Every time you use a piece of software it is making adjustments which are not "pure". Pure images are a sliding scale, and so adjust to what you feel comfortable with. For me, I will make little adjustments to emphasize a subject (which, when done in camera, is not "pure" either!), but will not, for example, change out a sky or put a subject in an entirely different location. I have no problem with removing things, but adding things like a sky or an ocean etc., is beyond my comfort level. But to each his own!
Superb as usual 😊❤
Good vid as always. Background is important, but for me not critical, if I'm try to show behavior of birds/ animals. May not have time to worry about BG when exciting action happens.
Excellent video with great tips, Steve. For the most part, I prefer a blurred background with just a little definition over a totally blurred background. But, of course, that also depends on the subject and the setting. A little blurring in post os fine with me. I recently bought your BIF and Wildlife ebooks. I just started the BIF book and am anxious to learn a lot from it. I’ll read the wildlife book next.
Thanks so much!
To me, acceptable background blur depends on the image. Like you I am typically moving around to isolate the background from the subject, but, as a non professional I'd rather get the image than not whether or not I have a great background. I do not believe in artificial blur, maybe because it is not permitted in my photo club competitions, but too it's a bit of a personal line that I do not like to cross. It raises the question, when is something a photo vs. just a piece of created art??
As always fun to watch 😊❤. At 2:15, how do I explain it to the rabbit? 😅
I absolutely prefer a blurred background for stills of songbirds , but do like a little more clarity for larger wildlife. On the subject of this new blur background option in Lightroom, I’m still sitting on the fence, how far do we go before eventually our work is so altered that we lose our originality, we might as well just use AI to generate the image. However I agree that if used minimally, maybe it’s ok. This is a hard one Steve !
#5 If it works it works.
Great video Steve! The most important takeaway from your video that I really focus on is assessing the subject and background and then move when I need to. Also this depends where I am at shooting, e..g. not so easy to move around from the boardwalks at Wakodahatchee and Green Cay Wetlands. Also, you did not mention in this this video that shooting low makes a huge difference on the background. It would be useful to me if you had a video how to process a photo in Lightroom/Photoshop to blur the background to make it realistic. Thanks again!
Thanks for the suggestion. As for shooting low, I have a whole video on proper height here that takes a deep dive:
th-cam.com/video/8AGoCNG1hcQ/w-d-xo.html
@@backcountrygallery thanks Steve, I was going to edit my comment and mentioned that I have seen your videos and ebook about this. You beat me to it!
Using Nikon 500mm pf some PS work is sometimes necessary. I use the blur bg technique you posted on youtube some years ago. Not in all image but now and then. Hopefully I´m not override it.Adjusting the level curve in bg can also have some nice effect on the bg.
Another good video, Steve. One of the issues that pops up occasionally is when you enter photos in a contest and the rules restrict any sort of photo manipulation, including background blurring via post processing. You would think that it wouldn’t be a big deal but sometimes they will disqualify your entry unfortunately.
Some of those contests are incredibly restrictive. I would think that most would prohibit any kind of background blurring in post (and some are far more extreme).
What ever it’s takes to get a pleasing background which may or may not be blurred … as I’m a developing my wskills as nature ( bird) photography and if you have time absolutely get right in camera but software manipulation is tool one should use.
I have a question, being on budget sigma C 100-400, which is nice lens but 6.3 wide open I found my self even more often not shooting, knowing that my positioning or my target position won't make for nice blurry background.
I'm planning to buy 300mm f4 but PF is quite a stretch for my budget (like in saving for 2-3 years) and I'm thinking abaut older 300mm f4D, but I heard that it is very bad for BIF in terms of AF. Is it true from Your experience?
when I look at those few shots I consider good in my portfolio - I never think of 'I wish I had a shallower dof for this one' . Making the most of out what Steve says - subject to background distance - even my bloody f6.3 m43 equivalent of f12+ did just enough of a good job. On the contrary there's photos with busy backgrounds, close backgrounds etc - where I would wish for 600 f1.2 lol, even though I am not sure if that would help either.
I prefer smooth backgrounds. I don’t tend to get them but I do prefer them.
I generally find wildlife 'portrait' photography with completely blurred out backgrounds a bit boring, whereas photos which show some habitat without distracting too much from the subject are much more interesting.
Yip, bob & weave to get the background clean and get most done in camera where possible.
I feel a bit guilty when I use background blur in Lightroom, but I use it to make my 500 PF f5.6 images look more like my old 600mm f4 images looked. Just a touch. Like you, the first thing I do is look for a better angle when shooting. Especially with birds in trees. You didn't mention getting lower, as in not shooting down when in a safari vehicle.
I have another video that goes into getting lower :)
th-cam.com/video/8AGoCNG1hcQ/w-d-xo.html
And sometimes kneeling down will push the background further away or change it altogether.
When I blur the background in post, I use 50px denoise on the background which doesn't look fake like a blur filter. Depending on the setting, I may want to show the surroundings to "tell a story".
Steve, Great content, as always. I use a Sony A1+200-600 lens in the sunny Phoenix area. My problem is that at times, when I try to do proper exposure (exposure compensation is almost at 0), the birds eye seems a little too mushy. I have tried 7.1 instead of 6.3, but when I underexpose a bit, everything comes in good focus. Heat wave is something I have no control over, but this seems a little odd. Any comments? I did buy your book to go over techniques I might be otherwise overlooking.
It's tough to say without seeing the photo. You might want to post it over at the BCG Forums so we can see the problem and I'm sure we can figure it out :)
@@backcountrygallery Awesome sir. Will do it today :). Thank you, as always. I always wait for your videos with real tips that contain no fluff whatsoever! No Fluff, Just Stuff :D
@@trystwithlight lol I should put that on T-shirt :-)
Forget entering in photo contests if you are going to blur the background in Photoshop or Lightroom (or any other editing software). Photo contests generally require a purest approach. Blur in camera based on the first 4 ideas.
Not sure that "wide open" is always good advice. I've seen quite a few beginner wild life images where a good portion of the subject is soft, because they shot wide open.
I prefer having a blurred background but it depends on the subject.
About the software blur I guess it doesn't matter as long as it feels natural.
Idk Steve I think my z7II is the problem now. I got myself the 180-600mm and I shoot with it on a tripod but still most of my photos Doesn’t have ton of detail.. only when I m shooting in direct sunlight at f11 I obtain nice risulta with it. Instead when I look at others experience with the same lens I notest that they all use z8 or z9 which both cameras have better autofocus and I see way better photos then mine in term of sharpness. ( I m still super beginner but I was just wondering why )
It's really hard to say - I'd have to see photos. If you want to post some over at the BCG Forums, the group (and probably me as well) will take a look :)
@@backcountrygallery wow thanks a lot 😁🙏
I am still working on my skills. I love the soft background I see coming from the 400 f2.8, but I can't justify its cost. I just transitioned from the 500 5.6 to the 600 6.3. I shoot wide open and try to position myself for a good background. But this proves difficult on moving subjects. Sometimes I get it, sometimes I don't. Depending on the photo, post processing can sometimes make a nice improvement. I'm not really happy with Lightrooms automatic blur tool, but there are other techniques that work ok.
It's tougher with slower glass and there are definitely times you're just not gonna be able to pull it off. However, I find when I'm using a slower lens if I really pay attention to subject and background distance and really try to fill the frame just those two things alone are usually enough to get me the kind of background I want.
That SOUNDS great, in theory. In practice it's hard, especially when you shoot skittish birds at parks :-)
@@debrapeasley2606 For me, the challenge is what makes it fun :) It also helps to know that when you go out, 99% of the subjects aren't going to work :)
@@backcountrygallery I don't know, half the time it's a challenge to find any birds at all! A crow, a Canada Goose, (surprisingly abundant here in Southern California 😀) I'll take anything that moves.
What does it matter which devise you use to blur the background? The lens or the computer.
The computer tends to blur in an all-or-nothing way much of the time, so the transitions can look unnatural. In addition, if you have a photo with a heavily blurred but close background, it can look "wrong" to the viewer. Done with care I think it's fine, but some disagree.
@@backcountrygallery thank you for that helpful response
On backgrounds, I like variety, so long as they’re not too busy and complement the subject.
And, yes, I have used the various blur tools in LR and PS. Just don’t swing the sliders too hard. Not using all the tools available, in camera or post, is kinda dumb in my opinion. Kinda like the purist who shuns modern AI subject detection and features like pro-capture and sticks with his old manual focus lenses. Using advances in post processing, whether for wildlife photography or other forms, is exactly the same as using the in-camera advances.
Background blurring is an acceptable took and should not be ruled out if needs.
What are you mounting to that Really Right Stuff tripod?
My 600 F/4, usually.
@@backcountrygallery I was referring to the gimbal. Is that RRS as well?
@@martharetallick1150 It's a Wimberley WH-200 - I've used them for years and highly recommend them.
@@backcountrygallery Thank you! I've been feeling like my RRS has been, well, missing something like this.
Of course there has to be someone spilling the beans 🤣🤣 I typically don’t use software to blur out my BG but I completely agree. Don’t make it so fake LOL
How much background blur do I like? I like enough to remove any distraction. How much is that? I know what I like. If it's too much for you (or not enough), just move along. Nothing here for you to see. There's enough subjectivity in photography for everyone. As far as post processing background blur, knock yourself out. Haters will hate. If you like it, go for it. It's not fatal. If you don't like/do it, don't. Is this a great country or what?
LOL, it is indeed :)
AI can really help sometimes, however. We always need to be mindful about keeping it real!
I think people that use sky replacement for birds in flight. Is worse than BG blur.
agree 100% - background replacement is over the line IMO.
Using AI to tweak images is just another editing tool. Although, when used for altruistic purposes, it feels unethical. My pet peeve is stacked images. As much as I love an image with amazing clarity , it’s impossible to produce that image out of our camera in a single frame.
Thanx for your tutorials, always helpful/ useful tools.
Woody Allen's 1973 Sleeper movie, are we there yet? Soon people won't even have to go outside to take a wildlife photograph, they'll just piece together something in a computer. I feel that humans take anything fun and ruin it. Create rules and contests around it and make people hurry to get it done. I think the standards that are created are limiting. You can't win a contest unless it looks just like this because the good stuff always looks like this and of course the best equipment accomplishes those goals better than the rest. Maybe photographers shouldn't judge photo contests. Try to win a judge over by creating a feeling or emotion rather than having the right blur or the same settings the judge would use in that situation. The world has sticks and weeds and animals live in that environment. It seems like it gets too anal when every little distracting black spot or line needs to be removed to make a great photo. Who determines what is great and does that change with the introduction of newer equipment and computer programs? Does someone take their Sony 200-600 out or their 600 f/4. Of course the 600 because of the nice creamy blur and that costs much more money. If you want to win contests, you better be rich or willing to go in debt because more expensive equipment gets you there easier and faster. But photo conditions do vary from state to state. A bear in Yellowstone will give you hours to reposition and get a better background. A bear in PA runs away instantly so you get what the animal gives you. But I did enjoy the video. Thanks for taking the time to make it.
I don’t believe that blurring a background is that grave of a crime compared to other photos that I have seen where someone has put in the background the Milky Way which they never photographed.
LOL, I gotta agree!
Fixing in post is not an issue with me unless the photographer is making the claim there was no editing done. But too often 'fixing it in post' becomes a crutch in an attempt to save a mediocre photo because the person had a severe case of James Popsys calls 'being microlazy' in the field.
It's funny I see that all the time. I watch people who could easily reposition for a better background absolutely skip it because they can fix it in post. I just don't understand that at all. It's so so much easier to me just to do it right in the field.
I fake background flur a bit, to a realistic amount. Way cheaper than an expensive prime lens.
It's a lot of work blurring out a background in photoshop using masks to mask out a furry subject unless you are doing it in ACR. Masking in PS with a furry subject can be tedious. I would rather get it blurred out in the field so as to not have a lot of work in PS. I do pet photography and there are some pet photographers who just automatically blur out the background. The dog could be sitting in front of a garbage pile and the viewer would never know it because the background was blurred out. I think that goes a bit too far in my opinion. There would be screams of despair if PS ever got rid of the gaussian blur.
my opinion! if you plan to enter a photo into a restricted edits contest dont tweak the backgrounf in post! otherwise do what you think looks good! We all know that even the best edited content rarely is better than what our eyes/brains saw in person...... Now addig content TO a photo that wasn't there is worse to me than removing un-wanted content like some dumb trash on the ground or sign, wire etc.!
I think a fundamental question is just what constitutes a fake? When you observe a scene the background doesn’t have a creamy bokeh. The bokeh is a departure from reality and represents a pleasing optical artifact. I would suggest that the introduction or augmentation of background blur if performed tastefully in post processing is perfectly acceptable and can significantly enhance an image. So why dispute the origin of the bokeh if it augments the image? Optically it will not be identical to that produced by an f/4 prime but a close second for those who cannot afford to spend $15 K for a lens. The term fake is a poor choice of words as it is actually a comparison of techniques that produce different background renderings, and both representing a departure from what is actually observed. What is actually being compared is how well the blur introduced in post approximates that of an f/4 prime. A better comparison would be how well the blur enhances the image and not how closely the image simulates one taken by an f/4 prime.
What drives me bonkers is all these people who change the background of a perched bird, and both the bird and clouds are in focus, as though they shot it at f/10000000
Agree 100% . While I don't mind adding a little blur to an existing background, I really don't agree with background replacement. At that point, I feel like you're just making graphic art and not photography.
Please stop with the emojis.
Just trying new stuff.
Another great video. Shooting tips and post tips. The tools now at our disposal are just amazing. Why not embrace what is possible. The trick is making it look believable. I often browse forums looking at photographs only to see post processing failures. I enjoy pushing the envelope.