SquamishPhoto said:
The funny thing here is that tcole recently purchased the perfect lens for portraits on DX, the 300mm f4. Got try it with a model standing on a small hill and even a full body shot will have a wonderfully washed background.

+1

This is where experience trumps assumptions. If you have the space to separate your subject, Telephotos are great - they slim the subject as well.

Too many new photographers stand too far away and don't pay attention to the background until they get home. Good Bokeh is achieved by being able to see in your mind what the photo will look like before you press the button. It is just being aware of the total environment.

Larger formats help for sure, but you can achieve excellent bokeh with even a digicam if you take the time to learn the system you are using. I think too many don't actually take the time to learn the system, and then assume moving to a larger format or a different lens will solve their dilemma. They are just tools. Dilemma resides in the person choosing to do what it takes to become a craftsman or continuing to be an apprentice.

SquamishPhoto said:
The funny thing here is that tcole recently purchased the perfect lens for portraits on DX, the 300mm f4. Got try it with a model standing on a small hill and even a full body shot will have a wonderfully washed background.

:) I have taken some of my daughter that have turned out pretty well with it.

Edit: And the 105 F2.8 seems to work very well I think...if you don't want to be in the next county while shooting ;)

The funny thing here is that tcole recently purchased the perfect lens for portraits on DX, the 300mm f4. Got try it with a model standing on a small hill and even a full body shot will have a wonderfully washed background.

trevisthomas said:
Other than something like the Brenizer method (http://www.slrlounge.com/the-brenizer-method-ryan-brenizer-photography-tutorial) what else could be done to get a more shallow dof on a dx with enough fov to shoot head to toe? The fastest lens i ever shot is f1.4 and in a single dx frame the dof never really got me what i wanted at the distance needed for shooting a person full length. Are you thinking bokeh plugin's in post?

Nope...just the suggestions previously in this thread (although some are post processing options). It can be done with a lens though. Mostly being mindful of the distance to the background. It might not always be easy, but it can be done is all I am saying. The photographer the OP mentions does just that. All the body shots are outside in open areas where there is lots of distance behind them. Obviously it is easier for head or upper body shots when you can be closer to the subject, but it isn't impossible for a single body shot. If you have a group or something like that then it might make it near impossible or if you are inside, but that isn't the case that the OP was referring to in the photographer they pointed out.

tcole1983 said:
It might be easier with FX, but it isn't as impossible as you make it sound with DX. Might take a little technique, but doesn't all photography?

Other than something like the Brenizer method (http://www.slrlounge.com/the-brenizer-method-ryan-brenizer-photography-tutorial) what else could be done to get a more shallow dof on a dx with enough fov to shoot head to toe? The fastest lens i ever shot is f1.4 and in a single dx frame the dof never really got me what i wanted at the distance needed for shooting a person full length. Are you thinking bokeh plugin's in post?

trevisthomas said:
amelaj,

You are feeling the pain and frustration that that drove me to Nikon. I'd been shooting and loving my pentax gear until getting serious about portrature last year. I tried to solve the problem by throwing dof at it. (buying more and more faster, longer primes) but no matter how fast and long i got DoF on crop sensor cameras just sucks. Head and shoulders, it's gorgeous and creamy. At 3/4 length it's deteriorated to the point that i don't want the shot anymore. as Gareth and others have pointed out, Full Frame is the route to getting the look that you're after. Longer lenses, and distance to between subject and background also play a role in it, but FF brings it home. Do a goodle search for Full Frame fov and dof for some explanations of why this happens.

I just picked up the Nikon D600 and i'm now getting used to the FF dof characteristics. For the first time i feel like it's possible to have too little dof at portrait distances. Even as "wide" as f4 can be creamy and gorgeous.

It might be easier with FX, but it isn't as impossible as you make it sound with DX. Might take a little technique, but doesn't all photography?

trevis thomas said:
amelaj,

Full Frame is the route to getting the look that you're after. Longer lenses, and distance to between subject and background also play a role in it, but FF brings it home.

if you want to go the whole hog get a Hasselblad and the 210mm f/4.0
( no I cant afford one ether)

amelaj,

You are feeling the pain and frustration that that drove me to Nikon. I'd been shooting and loving my pentax gear until getting serious about portrature last year. I tried to solve the problem by throwing dof at it. (buying more and more faster, longer primes) but no matter how fast and long i got DoF on crop sensor cameras just sucks. Head and shoulders, it's gorgeous and creamy. At 3/4 length it's deteriorated to the point that i don't want the shot anymore. as Gareth and others have pointed out, Full Frame is the route to getting the look that you're after. Longer lenses, and distance to between subject and background also play a role in it, but FF brings it home. Do a goodle search for Full Frame fov and dof for some explanations of why this happens.

I just picked up the Nikon D600 and i'm now getting used to the FF dof characteristics. For the first time i feel like it's possible to have too little dof at portrait distances. Even as "wide" as f4 can be creamy and gorgeous.

Looking at Audrey Woulard Photography confirmed what I thought - medium tele with a lot of distance behind the subject.

I did see some photoshop or maybe one of the "Bokeh" software work in some images. Very tastefully done but almost all of the images did utilize the subject separation from the background.

msmoto said:
Oh, this is a member on NRF, but will remain anonymous at this time.

My vote is that it's NikoDoby. Man of mystery.

Hi, again, just shot some wide angle with bokeh, this AM with a Zeiss 28mm, f/2. This is a head/shoulder shot, but with children, a similar bokeh can be achieved ...

Oh, this is a member on NRF, but will remain anonymous at this time.

Thanks so much again. This forum is great, and you're all so patient!
I'm not in the market for a new camera yet. So the full frame is out for now.
But I do have an 85 1:8. So, I'll keep practicing. I rented the 85 1:4 for a week.
It was great! I am confident that I will get it right, especially with all the advice I got here.

That 85mm f1.4 looks quite good but pricy ($1,600.00). Some reviews:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1357/cat/12
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/85mm-f14-afs.htm

Other Nikon options are the two f2 DC Nikon lenses at 105mm and 135mm which are also pricy.

Reviews of them:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105mm-f2-dc.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/135mm-f2-dc.htm

her stuff is very similar to some of what I do, hense me liking her work.

it should be noted that it is much easier to get good bokeh on a full body child shot than it is on a full body adult.

i should really look at getting the 85 1.4, i'm sure id use it more than my 105, but the 105 is pretty handy, and a possible 135 1.8 looks pretty sweet too.

I looked at the website too. Good work. As we all suspected moderate to medium telephoto lens with large aperture, careful consideration of what is in the background and as much distance between subject and background as possible. Anyone can do this. The 85mm f1.8D shot wide open is a cheap start. The 85mm f1.4G is the expensive Nikon option and some reviews of that lens do think it "magical," contrary to what I first said about no "magic lens" producing the effects desired by the OP.

I looked on Audrey Woulard Photography, the website, and saw a lot of photos, the DOF similar to this

And, this is a full frame D4, 135mm f/2.0 at f/2.0 and 1/250th sec. ISO 1000. From what I saw on her webs tie, this bokeh is very similar. And the full length shots with lots of bokeh are most likely shot with at least a 135mm or 200mm on full frame.

She posts some of her photos with exif data, pamelaj. I went through the first five or so full body shots and here are her settings:

D700 (full frame sensor—discussed above)
85mm f/1.4 set at f/1.6

The D700 is a bargain these days, but still not really inexpensive. You might also want to look into the D600 if you're serious about this. The full frame sensor gives you 2.25 times more area, so you can be closer to the subject and still have a full body shot without affecting the bokeh. (Sorry I missed your post about the Brenizer method, too, Gareth!)

Audrey Woulard Photography...

TaoTeJared said:
These are the two main things to look at.

If you use a wider angle lens, you will not be able to get bokeh as the physics of the lense will add too much DOF.

Telephoto lens (200-600mm) will get you there as well. Many fashion photographers use that focal length to achieve the bokeh.

You can get good bokeh with almost any lens, you just need to set the subject relative to the background at enough distance.

In reality you need your subject probaby 30-60 feet away from the background with a full body with a 50mm at 1.4. Stand them up on a soap box and shoot the lens at about their waist high so you can knock the ground out as well. The issue is not the lens or camera it is the working distance you need in relation to the distance of the background. My general rule is to try to get 3x the working distance from the subject behind them to the background.

Brenizer method is a good way as well, but you need Photoshop or another stitching program. Youtube has many videos on how to do this.

I was going to write something along these lines last night, but didn't want to on my phone. So as TTJ is saying...once you move back to say 10 feet...now you need like 30 feet behind the subject. So if your subject is standing near something and you back up then everything behind them is going to come into focus.

proudgeek said:
While the lens is an important part of the equation, a budget solution would be to change the position of the subject relative to the background.

Gareth said:
4th, seriously consider the Brenizer method, as this is most likely what you have seen that you are trying to emulate.

These are the two main things to look at.

If you use a wider angle lens, you will not be able to get bokeh as the physics of the lense will add too much DOF.

Telephoto lens (200-600mm) will get you there as well. Many fashion photographers use that focal length to achieve the bokeh.

You can get good bokeh with almost any lens, you just need to set the subject relative to the background at enough distance.

In reality you need your subject probaby 30-60 feet away from the background with a full body with a 50mm at 1.4. Stand them up on a soap box and shoot the lens at about their waist high so you can knock the ground out as well. The issue is not the lens or camera it is the working distance you need in relation to the distance of the background. My general rule is to try to get 3x the working distance from the subject behind them to the background.

Brenizer method is a good way as well, but you need Photoshop or another stitching program. Youtube has many videos on how to do this.

pamelaj: I don't think the effect is due to a "magic lens" as much as it is due to a certain technique. E-mail the photographer and ask them how they do it. It may require a certain location which gives a great distance between the foreground where the subject is standing and the background which is out of focus. For example, subject on a slight hill or rock outcropping which isolates them against a wooded area some distance away. You may have to find a good location (or two) and take your subjects there for the best effect. It looks like SquamishPhoto shoots many of his portraits in the same place which he found gives good subject to background distance for his 100mm lens.

@jonny

I don't have video but here is a fairly good written tutorial on the subject with some helpful links at the bottom:

http://johnhpanos.com/epcalib.htm

@pamela

If it's not a commercial link then mods would generally allow it. At any rate, most of us here follow the rule of "when in doubt post it anyway and a poor mod will clean up after us" :p

Are you allowed to mention a photographers name on this forum? It would be easy for you to see what I'm wanting to do, if you would see her work. I'm needing to back up from the subject, to get full body, and then I'm losing the bokeh. Just wondered what lens might be good for this.. Thanks so much for all the responses and suggestions.

I love this place! 6 hours and look at the great responses.

If you have a lot of time on your hands, you could try this, pamelaj. It takes some serious post processing to stitch them all, but it's like shooting large format, so you could probably get by shooting the 85 you mentioned or even maybe the 50, but the closer you get the more you'll have to be careful to avoid parallax. (Do you have a good video for parallax, iris?) The shorter the lens, the less stitching you'd have to do later.

http://blog.buiphotos.com/2009/07/the-brenizer-method-explained-with-directions/

Discussed on the forum here:
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=4778

Welcome to the forum. Let us know what you do and how it goes.
EDIT: just noticed you mentioned the method I offered, iris.

Oh boy! I hope I haven't stepped on somebody's tail without knowing it -_-

Anywany, like what tcole said, lenses can be either prime or zoom. A prime is a lens that has only one focal length while a zoom is a lens that has a range of focal lengths where you can zoom in between those lengths. Now, focal lengths themselves range between wide, normal and telephoto. There is also ulltra-wide and super-telephoto but those can be considered subsets of the previous ranges. For example, a 50mm focal length is considered a normal lens and a 24mm focal length is considered wide while a 135mm focal length is considered telephoto regardless if the lens is a prime or a zoom.

The effect you're trying to achieve is called small depth of field. There are a couple of ways to achieve that effect. Using a telephoto lens and a low f number is probably the easiest way however the tradeoff to this is that most of your shots will be tight (tighter than your 50mm or 85mm obviously). The Brenizer method is one way to work around this problem but it will require additional work like taking multiple shots of the scene and the person you're photographing and then combining all the shots together in post processing to create one image.

Another workaround for the telephoto problem is to back away until you can see the whole body of the person you're trying to photograph. The downfall to this workaround though is that as you back further away from your subject, your depth of field becomes larger and you begin to lose the bokeh you were trying to create in the first place. So then again, what you'll have to do is position your subject with enough space between them and their surroundings so that their surroundings would still be outside of your depth of field and therefore still blurred or "bokeh'd out" : D

Now, if we go to the wide end of lenses coupled with a low f number as well then it becomes a bit easier to achieve the separation you want in one shot while still being close to your subject. You'll still face some difficulties as wider lenses tend NOT to create much separation to begin with. So for this reason you have to offset by using a lower f number and being closer to your subject.

Here is a really good and clear crash course on depth of field btw:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34jkJoN8qOI