How can I make a subject appear to blur away into the distance?
Asked 5/17/2021
1 views
2 answers
0
I want to photograph a tall subject, like a pole or similar object, so it appears to disappear into the distance by becoming progressively blurrier as it recedes. I first tried shooting multiple frames and stitching them into a panorama, using a Canon M6 Mark II with a 35mm f/3.5 lens focused at about 6 feet, but the result didn’t give the strong effect I wanted. What shooting approach works best for this look? Is this mainly about lens choice, aperture, and focus distance, or would I need to fake it later with something like a graduated blur filter in Photoshop?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
5y ago
2 Answers
1
Sounds like you're basically trying to create a 'bokehrama', i.e., the Brenizer method, where you stitch together several shots to simulate otherwise impossible shallow depth of field, such apparent apertures wider than f/.5.
Because you're stitching images to create a wider field of view, thereby reducing the apparent size of distant points, you need to start with as wide an aperture as possible, with a long focal length lens (that is, narrow field of view).
And because the "infinity" subject (the top of the pole) is really only about 50' away (guessing), you need to focus about as close as you can. Think of it this way: in macro photography, just about everything beyond a couple focal lengths or so is pretty much completely out of focus (which is what you're goin after).
So:
- Longer focal length. At least 100mm.
- The wider the aperture, the better.
- Closer focus. Probably 3–4 ft if you can.
Because of those constraints, your best results will be with a prime portrait lens, perhaps a macro lens (but macros tend not to be as fast as good prime portraits).
Originally by user11924. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user11924
5y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
This effect is best created in-camera, not with a Photoshop graduated blur.
The key is to get very close to the near part of the subject and use depth of field creatively. Stitching a panorama makes the field of view wider, which tends to reduce the apparent blur effect unless you start with a very wide aperture and a longer focal length. That’s why Brenizer-style stitching can work, but only if you use a long lens, the widest aperture possible, and focus very close.
For a simple approach, skip the panorama and move much closer to the subject. Use a lens that focuses close, focus on the nearest usable part, and let the rest fall out of focus as it extends away from the camera. Getting physically closer was the successful solution in the community example.
So, try:
- get very close to the nearest part of the subject
- use the lens’s closest practical focus distance
- use the widest aperture available if possible
- avoid panorama stitching unless you’re deliberately doing a Brenizer-style shot
A graduated blur filter may look artificial because real defocus follows subject distance, not a simple top-to-bottom gradient.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI5y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why does depth of field exist in photography?
Would an 85mm lens blur the background more than my 24-70mm f/2.8 for this DJ photo?
Why can depth of field stay the same while background blur looks stronger with a longer focal length?
What’s the difference between blur captured in-camera and blur added in post-processing?
Can I estimate subject distance in an old photo without knowing the lens or camera distance?