How do I take a photo where the subject is clear
but the background is kind of blurd,if that sound right.

I've just got a FUJI S5700,
Think we need a photography section if any body is listening;)

Not sure if there is a setting on the camera for this, or if you need a special lens.

Your depth of field (how much is in focus) is primarily determined by three things - focal length, aperture, and distance to the subject.

Unfortunately, a lot of point and shoots can't give you much in the way of shallow depth of field, because the sensors are so small. If you have a manual or aperture priority mode, try taking your shot with a wide open lens (small aperture value)

its got an aperture mode :huh: I'll keep practising thankyou.

Digital cam? Point, shoot, Photoshop :) Or any free photo-editing software. It takes time, but it's worth taking the trouble to learn how to edit your pics.

So its the editing then, not the photo taking, I've got microsoft
digital imaging I'll have a play with that, thankyou

If you're good with a cam, then you can achieve what you want, providing you have the right equipment. If you're like me and not one of the greatest photographers on earth, then you can achieve impressive things with photo-editing software.

Do you recommend any.
Think I need to read the instruction book, on mine

Do you recommend any.
Think I need to read the instruction book, on mine

We all have to resort to that eventually :hihi:

If you want to try editing, you might like to try paint.net (http://www.getpaint.net/index2.html) - it's free and powerful, but needs .NET installing if you don't already have it (Windows XP or Vista).

So its the editing then, not the photo taking, I've got microsoft
digital imaging I'll have a play with that, thankyou

You could achieve it in editing (selectively blur the bits you want blurred), but it is quite possible in camera.

marypoppins,

as it's digital camera you can experiment with no cost unlike a film camera.
Set the camera to aperture mode.
Set your subject up, doesn't have to be a person, a dustbin will do, with abackground.
Choose a focal length of the lens, say 6.3mm , set the aperture of your lens , say f=3.5, focus, and take a shot.

Then choose another aperture focus and shoot.
Make a note of the aperture as you go.
repeat ad nauseum.
You can then compare all the shots you have taken to see how the depth of field changes with aperture and which gives you the effect you want.
You can also repeat the whole exercise with subject at different distances from the camera.

These links are more than you need but do give a simple explanation at the beginning (I ignored the maths cos I don't understand it!!!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

http://snodart.com/tutorials.php
HTH.

The lower the number on aperture mode the less background will be in focus.
:)

The lower the number on aperture mode the less background will be in focus.
:)

and if that background blurs nicely then you've got nice Bokeh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh) - fab thread with peoples bokeh photos here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=93122)

There is supposed to be a Photography Group starting on the sheffield forum soon - they have picked the 3 Group Leaders and we're waiting on word when it'll happen :)

How do I take a photo where the subject is clear
but the background is kind of blurd,if that sound right.

I've just got a FUJI S5700,
Think we need a photography section if any body is listening;)

If it's anything like the Fuji S5600 there is a section in the manual which explains how to do this.

EDIT: It does. Start reading from Page 53 - setting SP1 look like the place to start.

You need the lens apeture to be as wide as it will go. The lower the 'f-number' is, the shallower the depth of field - which throws everything behind that focal plane out of focus.

Not sure what options you will have for controlling this with a compact, but you want to get down to f4 or lower really to get the effect I think you're after.

Thankyou so much everybody,
its much easier having things explained than trying to read instructions,

But now I know where to look I will look in the book.
bokeh is exactly what I'm trying to do,
The links everyone has given are realy useful for me.

It would be very helpful for people like me if we do get a photography group

To dafoot I'll keep trying just dont think I'll ever be as good as you though.

...To dafoot I'll keep trying just dont think I'll ever be as good as you though.

:blush: Thanks
Just practise lots...besides, you are already practically perfect in every way...

A couple of other things to add to the above info.
In addition to a wide aperture [i.e. small f number e.g. f2.8] the closer you are to subject, the less is in focus. So if your subject is close but the background is far away then background is more likely to be out of focus.
Also the longer the focal length [i.e. the more telephoto and less wide angle], the less that is in focus. This means you can get less in focus at f5.6 with a tele lens than at f2.8 with a wideangle lens.

And the best way to make things out of focus, is use as big a sensor/film format as possible. Pocket cameras have small sensors and greater depth of field [amount in focus] than sensors as big as 35mm film for instance.
This is also the main reason why footage shoot on video looks cheaper, more in focus compared to using 35mm film.

Digital cam? Point, shoot, Photoshop :) Or any free photo-editing software. It takes time, but it's worth taking the trouble to learn how to edit your pics.
The hard way to do it.
Much easier to get it right in camera. Relying on fixing things in post production is not a good way of working.

The hard way to do it.
Much easier to get it right in camera. Relying on fixing things in post production is not a good way of working.

Yes, perhaps - if you have a camera capable of doing what you want - but certainly not hard… And "post production" (sic) and "working" are not terms I have ever thought of using in the context of taking pics for my own pleasure.

Yes, perhaps - if you have a camera capable of doing what you want - but certainly not hard
Bearing in mind the original question and probable level of knowledge, not that easy. And depending on subject, it can actually be very time consuming and extremely difficult to do. And still not be that good compared to simply using a wide aperture/long lens to start with.
… And "post production" (sic) and "working" are not terms I have ever thought of using in the context of taking pics for my own pleasure.
Talking about how one's camera\software works has nothing to do whether the pictures taken are for business or pleasure. It simply means how it [or you] works/functions/operates.
Post production/post processing are simply phrases that describe what one does to film or digital images after the shutter has been pushed. Again nothing to do with why you takes pictures.
Drifting OT here though. :)

Bearing in mind the original question and probable level of knowledge, not that easy. And depending on subject, it can actually be very time consuming and extremely difficult to do. And still not be that good compared to simply using a wide aperture/long lens to start with.

Talking about how one's camera\software works has nothing to do whether the pictures taken are for business or pleasure. It simply means how it [or you] works/functions/operates.
Post production/post processing are simply phrases that describe what one does to film or digital images after the shutter has been pushed. Again nothing to do with why you takes pictures.
Drifting OT here though. :)

I was offering an alternative - not trying to debate the easiness and hardness of different methods! Hardware, software: a personal choice. I assumed the OP had no lens on that cam that would do what she was looking for, so, by trying free photo-editing software, it was a no-cost option for her -apart from learning time, and I've always found the editing a rewarding experience.

Sorry, but "post-production/post-processing" are not terms that I would ever dream of using!

Sorry, but "post-production/post-processing" are not terms that I would ever dream of using!

Never ever? ;)

They are fairly common terms to use within the context of digital photography as a whole. Whether you're shooting for pleasure, profit or otherwise you can still do "post processing" even if you don't think of it that way. Even simply printing digital shots can involve "post processing" because you sometimes have to crop to get the format right for a 5x4 or whatever.

Sorry, but "post-production/post-processing" are not terms that I would ever dream of using!
So what term do you use then? Editing? As editing is what is often used to describe the task of selecting down or organizing images, before processing/altering/modifying them. Editing usually describes a more reductive process, when darkroom/lightroom work usually a more additive process. Though I do 'develop' my RAW files, before modifying them further. If need be. Photoshopping is another term, but that tends to mean more heavily manipulated image work. But an PS is often referred to as a bitmap editor, editing makes sense there too.

Did you develop your films, rather than process them too?:P Both equally valid terms. If you ever used film, that is.
Post production is more a film term admittedly, that's as in feature film production, not stills photography.

Never ever? ;)

They are fairly common terms to use within the context of digital photography as a whole. Whether you're shooting for pleasure, profit or otherwise you can still do "post processing" even if you don't think of it that way. Even simply printing digital shots can involve "post processing" because you sometimes have to crop to get the format right for a 5x4 or whatever.

Yes, never ever! And I have never heard others I know who have cams use them either! It's an unnecessary phrase, to my mind. What's wrong with good, plain English words?!

So what term do you use then? Editing? As editing is what is often used to describe the task of selecting down or organizing images, before processing/altering/modifying them. Editing usually describes a more reductive process, when darkroom/lightroom work usually a more additive process. Though I do 'develop' my RAW files, before modifying them further. If need be. Photoshopping is another term, but that tends to mean more heavily manipulated image work. But an PS is often referred to as a bitmap editor, editing makes sense there too.

Did you develop your films, rather than process them too?:P Both equally valid terms. If you ever used film, that is.
Post production is more a film term admittedly, that's as in feature film production, not stills photography.

Yes, I edit… I touch up… but I certainly never post-process! You mean you really use that phrase in conversation?!

"I've taken a great pic, but I just need to go and post-process it…" :huh:

And as for "As editing is what is often used to describe the task of selecting down or organizing images"… that just sounds like more unnecessary technobabble to me. What's wrong with plain English? The words are already there, so why invent new phrases? It's certainly not for clarification!

Hey! I most certainly did develop my films! :P Or, at least, get the chemist to develop them :P That's what we did in my day: not post-processing, not developing and printing - just developing: that was supposed to describe the whole process. It may have been inaccurate terminology, but it worked :)

I had a Kodak Brownie, you know - I'm no novice :hihi:

Most people these days that I know of say that they Photoshop an image (regardless of what software they actually use). Bit like people Hoover even if they use a Dyson or Xerox even if its a Canon copier :P

Personally I always call it 'tinkering' with an image :D

Always best to fiddle around with camera and get desired image before taking photo rather than after I find, saves much 'work' on it afterwards :)

And yes I take for pleasure and for 'work' !

And as for "As editing is what is often used to describe the task of selecting down or organizing images"… that just sounds like more unnecessary technobabble to me. What's wrong with plain English? The words are already there, so why invent new phrases? It's certainly not for clarification! They aren't new phrases. English has more words in it than any other language and the different words have [at times]subtly different meanings. Selecting and organizing is hardly techno babble, they are ordinary, quotidian English, to use a word of French origin.:D

Yes, never ever! And I have never heard others I know who have cams use them either! It's an unnecessary phrase, to my mind. What's wrong with good, plain English words?!
Er, they are good plain English words.:confused: Post processing describes exactly what you do, it the processing of the image which is done, after taking the picture.
That's what we did in my day: not post-processing, not developing and printing - just developing: that was supposed to describe the whole process.I had my films processed by a lab for years, so hardly a new term either. I had slide films developed and print films developed and printed. There is a difference as they are different processes.

I should also say that I've never heard or seen anyone write the word 'cams' before to describe camera equipment.:P

oooh its all getting a bit technical for me now,must say some of these phrases
and wording are a bit beyond me,
just wish I was that photo knowledgeable.

But I've took all the advise and been having a try today
just good job its digital must have taken hundreds of pics.
but I've nearly got it.

Er, they are good plain English words.:confused: Post processing describes exactly what you do, it the processing of the image which is done, after taking the picture.
I had my films processed by a lab for years, so hardly a new term either.

I should also say that I've never heard or seen anyone write the word 'cams' before to describe camera equipment.:P

Well… "post" is actually Latin in this context…but we'll ignore that, eh? :) And shouldn't "post-processing" mean something that is done after processing? Shouldn't it be "post-filming processing"? Or maybe "post-capture processing"? Just gets uglier and uglier :hihi:

"cams" is a new word? Obviously you have never experienced the world of webcams, then :roll: Not a particulary nice word, perhaps - but no worse than photo/photograph?

just wish I was that photo knowledgeable.

But I've took all the advise and been having a try today
just good job its digital must have taken hundreds of pics.
but I've nearly got it.

Well done, Mary!!
All it needs is practice to understand how you and your camera work together to get the results you want.

Mel and Bel,
the camera that mary has is capable of doing what she wants.

Lens Fujinon 10x optical zoom lens, F3.5 - F3.7
Lens focal length f=6.33mm - 63.3mm, Equivalent to 38-380mm on a 35mm camera
Aperture F3.5- F13.6, 7 steps in 1/3 EV increment.
I looked it up before I posted my earlier reply

Well… "post" is actually Latin in this context…but we'll ignore that, eh? :) No it's English and also has the same meaning as the Latin word it derived from. Most words in 'English' are of foreign origin originally anyway. That does not make them any less 'English' now. And so what anyway, it doesn't matter? We speak a Germanic language, with a smattering of French and Latin words, mixed in with those from countries we conquered. A bungalow is far less 'English' a word than 'post', again not that it mattters, yet everyone knows exactly what it means - and that is the important bit.

And shouldn't "post-processing" mean something that is done after processing? Shouldn't it be "post-filming processing"? Or maybe "post-capture processing"? Just gets uglier and uglier :hihi: Post-processing does means processing done after taking the picture and simply developing it. Everyone else knows that, so there is no confusion normally, bar with you.:P .
Your daft suggestions like "post-capture processing" are clunky and go against the normal natural language evolution of simplifiing/condensing words phrases. And ignores the fact that there are terms already used that others understand.

"cams" is a new word? Obviously you have never experienced the world of webcams, then :roll: Not a particulary nice word, perhaps - but no worse than photo/photograph? 'Webcam' is not 'cam', two different words and a webcam is different from a film camera or DSLR, neither of which I have heard 'cam' being used about, bar yourself. And I mix a lot with people who talk about various types cameras both on and offline. Nor have I come across webcams being refered to other than webcams. Even the word 'camera' is normally qualified, by video, DV, HDV, HD, Beta, film, digital, web, security.....etc, unless context establishes what sort of camera is being talked about. In a similar vein, people don't say they had food for lunch, they say 'I had a chicken sandwich' or 'a bowl of mushroom soup and a cream cake'.


All this is a bit OT, but it makes a nice change from camera based conversations.:)

No it's English and also has the same meaning as the Latin word it derived from. Most words in 'English' are of foreign origin originally anyway. That does not make them any less 'English' now. And so what anyway, it doesn't matter? We speak a Germanic language, with a smattering of French and Latin words, mixed in with those from countries we conquered. A bungalow is far less 'English' a word than 'post', again not that it mattters, yet everyone knows exactly what it means - and that is the important bit.

Post-processing does means processing done after taking the picture and simply developing it. Everyone else knows that, so there is no confusion normally, bar with you.:P .
Your daft suggestions like "post-capture processing" are clunky and go against the normal natural language evolution of simplifiing/condensing words phrases. And ignores the fact that there are terms already used that others understand.

'Webcam' is not 'cam', two different words and a webcam is different from a film camera or DSLR, neither of which I have heard 'cam' being used about, bar yourself. And I mix a lot with people who talk about various types cameras both on and offline. Nor have I come across webcams being refered to other than webcams. Even the word 'camera' is normally qualified, by video, DV, HDV, HD, Beta, film, digital, web, security.....etc, unless context establishes what sort of camera is being talked about. In a similar vein, people don't say they had food for lunch, they say 'I had a chicken sandwich' or 'a bowl of mushroom soup and a cream cake'.


All this is a bit OT, but it makes a nice change from camera based conversations.:)

This has got way OT!

OK, so you don't want to ignore it… "post" is not an English word in this context; yes, it's part of the English language now, but it is not a word in English: it is a prefix and has no meaning on its own (unlike Latin, where it is a word). So, when you use a phrase like "post production", that is incorrect because it should be (if anything) "post-production" or "postproduction"

Just because a phrase is in use does not mean it is grammatically correct. Has this "postprocessing" come from the US? Look... you have pre-processing... then you have processing... then you have post-processing... "post-" means "after": it has to say what it is after! Think of "post-war"… "post-mortem"…

Unlike you, I am not entirely sure that "everyone" knows what that word/phrase means! As I asked before, do you use it in everyday speech?

"I've just taken a great photo, but I'll just go and postprocess it a little"?

Can you point me to a definition of "post(-)processing" as you are defining it? I seem unable to find one on Google! If it's such a widely-used and understandable word, then I would have thought I could find a definition! I must be looking in the wrong place? :huh:

"webcam" is obviously short for "web camera"! You words suggest that you use the latter term? We obviously mix in very different circles! Trust me, I am not the only one who uses "cam"! :roll: Photography obviously plays a much bigger part in your life than it does in mine. I just enjoy taking pics when it suits me, enjoy editing them… and refuse to postprocess! :hihi:

I think we've hijacked this thread for too long :) But you're welcome to reply, of course :thumbsup:

This has got way OT! You think?:D

OK, so you don't want to ignore it… "post" is not an English word in this context; yes, it's part of the English language now, but it is not a word in English: it is a prefix and has no meaning on its own (unlike Latin, where it is a word). So, when you use a phrase like "post production", that is incorrect because it should be (if anything) "post-production" or "postproduction"
Post-production and post-processing bring up an enormous no. of hits on Google, both with and without a dash. Language changes constantly and the 'rules of English' are bogus nonsense. Some words have had their meaning do a complete volte-face over time. Does it matter, not really? As long as the majority understand what we are communicating, it's not an issue.
Trying to object to change is a waste of time. And it always amuses me when people moan about Americanisns. American English is actually more like old English than modern British English, much like Quebecois French is more like Old French than French French.

Just because a phrase is in use does not mean it is grammatically correct. Has this "postprocessing" come from the US? Look... you have pre-processing... then you have processing... then you have post-processing... "post-" means "after": it has to say what it is after! Think of "post-war"… "post-mortem"… Being completely literal with the meaning of individual words within a phrase, will only lead to confusion! Balls, Brass, Monkey for example.
But post processing or post-processing does specifically mean work after the image has been initially developed/processed.
As for the grammar of it. Nothing wrong with it at all, with or without a dash. Grammar in English is like spelling, variable and subject to change, much like our weather.;)

Unlike you, I am not entirely sure that "everyone" knows what that word/phrase means! As I asked before, do you use it in everyday speech?

"I've just taken a great photo, but I'll just go and postprocess it a little"?
Using it like that that is a bit awkward and clunky.
What would be a more likely usage is - 'Have you done much post-processing on this one or do the colors match the original closely? Often found when people want to know how a photographer did something.

Can you point me to a definition of "post(-)processing" as you are defining it? I seem unable to find one on Google! If it's such a widely-used and understandable word, then I would have thought I could find a definition! I must be looking in the wrong place? :huh: It's become widely used in photography over the last 3-4 years. One of the many words/phrases that have arisen with the advent of digital photography. And the words used in specialities are less likely to be picked up on by the arbiters of what should be defined officially.

"webcam" is obviously short for "web camera"! You words suggest that you use the latter term? No I use Webcam. Or Camcorder or BetaCam or DVCam, but not 'cam'.

We obviously mix in very different circles! Trust me, I am not the only one who uses "cam"! :roll: Photography obviously plays a much bigger part in your life than it does in mine. So a bit odd that I've never heard 'cam' used on it's own as you have. Maybe it's a phrase you use with your mates and maybe it is a very local term. If I was to say to I've been scrammed, would you know what I was talking about? I only recently realised people outside of where I originate from, don't use it.

But I just enjoy taking pics when it suits me, enjoy editing them… and refuse to postprocess! :hihi: Lots of people on photography forums [fora is technically 'correct', but forums has now become more 'correct'], will talk about post processing their work and not mind.

To get back to photography, as oppose to neologisms, some people sneer at those who spend time in Photoshop doing post-processing/editing - normally those who cannot use PS very well. Discuss....
Not implying you here BTW, as I think you mentioned you like pixel editing.

Well done, Mary!!
All it needs is practice to understand how you and your camera work together to get the results you want.

Mel and Bel,
the camera that mary has is capable of doing what she wants.

Lens Fujinon 10x optical zoom lens, F3.5 - F3.7
Lens focal length f=6.33mm - 63.3mm, Equivalent to 38-380mm on a 35mm camera
Aperture F3.5- F13.6, 7 steps in 1/3 EV increment.
I looked it up before I posted my earlier reply

You could also step back and use maximum zoom and maximum aperture (F3.5).Although your focus would have to be accurate.But if you could use a tripod should be no problem.You do not say what the subject is or type of background.Is it something like this (http://picasaweb.google.com/bigdave92/HeronSInHillsboroughPark/photo#5061352613938955298) you want to do?This was taken at FL 200mm and F5.6 and was a spur of the moment shot.
As every one says practice, if possible make a note of your settings.Or download Irfan view and all plug ins which will give you all the information you need including what you had for breakfast :hihi: it is a free download.

How do I take a photo where the subject is clear
but the background is kind of blurd,if that sound right.

I've just got a FUJI S5700,
Think we need a photography section if any body is listening;)
I have a Canon 510 & there is a programme on there that allows you to take the kind of photo you want.If you go to the portrait mode it should give you the effect you want,that is if you have a digital camera with this function on. Hope it helps.

Yes, perhaps - if you have a camera capable of doing what you want - but certainly not hard… And "post production" (sic) and "working" are not terms I have ever thought of using in the context of taking pics for my own pleasure.

I have this vision that the end results in any photo-editing software is going to have some sort of uniform and ugly halo around the subject.

I have this vision that the end results in any photo-editing software is going to have some sort of uniform and ugly halo around the subject.
No it is possible to defocus backgrounds to fake shallow depth of field. As to whether there is a halo [a sharp halo, I guess you mean], well that simply despends on the subject and your selection skills.
It'll be harder with an afro than a beachball! A lot harder.

As every one says practice, if possible make a note of your settings.
Best thing about digital - no need to do that anymore.:thumbsup:

Or download Irfan view and all plug ins which will give you all the information you need including what you had for breakfast :hihi: it is a free download. Actually you can find this info out in Finder [Mac] or Explorer [Windows] - right click/properties/summary.
Actually scratch using Finder, just tested to find out. It doesn't display this info, at least not in any way I can think of, not even iPhoto displays the details in info. Macs being easier yeah right! :suspect:

Irfan as it's free is certainly worth trying, a lot of people rate it highly.

You could also step back and use maximum zoom and maximum aperture (F3.5).Although your focus would have to be accurate.But if you could use a tripod should be no problem.You do not say what the subject is or type of background.Is it something like this (http://picasaweb.google.com/bigdave92/HeronSInHillsboroughPark/photo#5061352613938955298) you want to do?This was taken at FL 200mm and F5.6 and was a spur of the moment shot.
As every one says practice, if possible make a note of your settings.Or download Irfan view and all plug ins which will give you all the information you need including what you had for breakfast :hihi: it is a free download.

This is exactly what I mean, I'm still trying though,
After reading everything on here I've certainly learned alot.

Although some of it has gone way past what I want ,but thanks to every one
This must show even more the need for a photograohy section
with the ammount of people who have replied to me.:)

You could also step back and use maximum zoom and maximum aperture (F3.5)
Actually you want to be a close as possible to your subject for minimal depth of field and the background needs to be as far behind the subject as possible for maximum difference between sharp/non sharp areas.

Moderately wideangle lens + wide aperture produced this, I was also quite close to subject.
http://www.imajez.com/faces/faces_futt_futt_futt_photography_07.html

Telephoto lens + Wide aperture produced this, again quite close to subject.
http://www.imajez.com/faces/faces_futt_futt_futt_photography_16.html

Both shot on 35mm film, so far less depth of field [amount in focus] compared to a compact digital camera.

Digital cam? Point, shoot, Photoshop :) Or any free photo-editing software. It takes time, but it's worth taking the trouble to learn how to edit your pics.
'Oldster' Henri Cartier-Bresson would be turning in his grave :D ;)
He never photographed with flash, a practice he saw as 'impolite' ...like coming to a concert with a pistol in your hand." He believed in composing his photographs in his camera and not in the darkroom, showcasing this belief by having nearly all his photographs printed only at full-frame and completely free of any cropping or other darkroom manipulation -- indeed, he emphasized that the entire negative had been used by extending the area reproduced on the print to include a thick black border around the frame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson#Technique

I still like to frame the photo in the viewfinder to avoid cropping afterwards but my days of messing about with lenses, shutters speeds and darkrooms are long gone.

With my little Pentax Optio I just frame the picture and click.

Digital photoraphy forever :thumbsup:

Some types of work, should not be manipulated, others need to be, to achieve their vision. No point everyone shooting like HCB.
And sometimes you cannot frame as you would like, so a bit of cropping is required. Some of HCB's work is brilliant. Some of it isn't. And using B+W rather than colour is drastic manipulation to my mind, as it shows us a world we cannot see.