How do I get that dreamy, creamy, soft, buttery, silky, circular, velvety, lovely and luminous bokeh? (BOH-KEH)[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1300Image Height956Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>43354178x10
>>4335417Takumar 50mm 1.8>>4335419Fuck off retard
>>4335419Gonna have to agree with this
Decently fast glass and cropping out the ones that cateye
>>4335422>fuck off retardExplain why he is incorrect, go on.
>>4335417Most non-high end(even some higher end ones) lenses even at low fstops/wide open may not produce super clean bokeh balls and may need to be stepped down slightly.It's a balance of Fstop, distance to subject, focal length, distance of backdrop/background from subject.You can get super creamy backgrounds even at f9 as long as there's nothing around/behind the subject for a while at higher focal lengths.There's a few calculators you can use based on your lens and what aperture you're using to calculate DOF which is a lot better of a explanation and 'guide' to follow. Bokeh balls are primarily glass quality/coatings.
A canon nFD 135mm f2.8
>>4335417zoom in really far and turn the focus wheel
Buy a lens with a wide aperture (f1,8 or f1.4) Focus close to yourself.Bokeh go brrr.
apodization filter
You need the newest full frame sony for the best bokeh
>>4336159>Buy a lens with a wide aperture (f1,8 or f1.4)f/1 is very rare
>>4336191He said 1.8f or 1.4f, hell there's high end 1.2f lenses as well. Are you retarded?There's a ton of cheap 1.8f lenses that usually need to be stopped down to 2.8f for peak IQ, but still work well with getting blended backgrounds if you manage your DOF properly with spacing.
>>4336191While chinkshit, and manual control, there are plenty of f/1.1 and f/0.95 for less than $200. IQ is a mixed bag but there are some reviewed and generally noteworthy options. Corner / side IQ is normally pretty shit but if you center your subject it's much less of an issue.
>>4336211No he literally wrote>f1,8 or f1.4So f/1 or f/8 or f/1.4
>>4336291You might be autistic anon.
You can get perfectly good Bokeh with f4.
Have an f1.4 lens but do not operate it at f1.4.It's probably going to be at it's best around f4 or f5.6But if you are a 16 year old girl whos just become enamoured with bokeh then you won't be particular enough to care about sharpness anyway
>>4336291>>4336350Actually, just retarded.A true autist would know that punctuation marks are used interchangeably in the aperture designation depending on the manufacturer.
