What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
70 Comments
- beelz, on 07/06/2009, -4/+44Or just learn to use your camera? f stop maybe?
- JYoungest1, on 07/06/2009, -1/+33Needs about 3 more lens flares
- inactive, on 07/06/2009, -0/+19Those blurs look kind of fake,
- BossKey, on 07/06/2009, -0/+14You didn't read all the way through the article. The second of the "2 Ways" does use the Lens Blur.
Still didn't digg the article since the effects did not look "realistic" as claimed. - YaDiggMe, on 07/06/2009, -0/+14Meh.
- ksgant, on 07/06/2009, -2/+14not all cameras can do effective depth-of-field blurs...especially compact cameras that have small apertures. This is a cheap way to do it...though still not as effective as the real thing.
- inactive, on 07/06/2009, -1/+13lots of people only get stock photos to work with because their company does not want to pay for a photo shoot.
- ajiva, on 07/06/2009, -0/+11The reason your cousin's camera goes down to F/1.4 is because of his lens not his camera. I also own a Rebel XT and own several fast Fstop lenses (50mm F1/.8, 17-50 F/2.8, etc). Dump the stock lens and pick up a nice prime lens and you'll see that even the Rebel XT can take amazing photos.
- AgentRoyIV, on 07/06/2009, -1/+9And that's why ad photographers (and other advertising artists) like myself are starving in this economy =(
- thebeginning, on 07/06/2009, -1/+9They forgot option 3:
Buy a fast lens and stop trying to fake it. - foofoobee, on 07/06/2009, -0/+7DOF is effective because objects at different depths have different levels of blurring. By applying a "flat" blur to the entire background, the result looks really fake. The only way this could work is if you repeat the procedure for several different depth levels.
- megaton, on 07/05/2009, -1/+8Or use Photoshop's built-in "Lens Blur" filter which actually looks real, unlike Gaussian Blur, which does not.
- Colinho22, on 07/06/2009, -1/+7Hi, I'm Johan Marcus Guy.
You may remember me from such buried comments as "How to be hated in 10 different ways" and "Why I'm such a jackass."
I'm here to show you why everyone on digg hates me. Trust me, I'm a pro.
Yours sincerely,
Johan Marcus Guy
Professional Douchebag. - jakeshdaddy, on 07/06/2009, -0/+5The person who wrote that article clearly does not know anything about photography or optics. The effect he should be referring to is "a shallow depth of field". The Gaussian blur is not a realistic simulation of how out of focus elements in an image will look because the blur or bokeh is affected by the lens elements and the shape of the aperture.
- megaton, on 07/06/2009, -0/+5Indeed, you are correct. Thank you, sir!
- kreb, on 07/06/2009, -0/+4wow that's a bit arrogant.
- mason092, on 07/06/2009, -0/+4That's because the author didn't make the gradient go the direction of the perspective. It's much more realistic if you do the same thing they did but that one step.
- voze, on 07/06/2009, -0/+4Sorry, you're not funny.
- voze, on 07/06/2009, -0/+3You tried too hard :(
- paulvq, on 07/06/2009, -2/+5You're not funny, and your stupid comments aren't either.
Paulvq - finista, on 07/06/2009, -1/+4Doesn't matter what DSLR camera you are using. The difference in this case is in lenses.
For example 50mm 1.4 will go as wide as 1.4 aperture, while XT's kit lens EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 will go only to 3.5.
But you can put 50mm 1.4 on both cameras and both will be able to go to 1.4 easily. - AgentRoyIV, on 07/06/2009, -0/+3Yeah there's really only one way to get realistic depth of field, and that's in-camera...
- nhansen, on 07/06/2009, -0/+3Depth of field works both ways: Shallow and Deep. For example, f2.8=blurry background with foreground subject in focus, f22 = the subject, and the grand canyon for miles behind the subject are all in focus. Obviously light and glass have everything to do with making these situations even possible. Faking it in PS doesn't really replicate it that well, IMO.
- Calebh09, on 07/06/2009, -1/+4Doesn't look real at all.. Just get a fast prime and do it in camera. It will look better and save time.
- laxative, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2People should try out Alien Skin Bokeh .. I own the 85mm f/1.2L and this plug-in gets really close to real bokeh.
- mason092, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2It doesn't look real because he didn't apply the gradient in the right direction.
- patm1987, on 07/06/2009, -1/+3I don't know why, but I was hoping for something more along the lines of http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/PUBLICATIONS/2004/CCS ...
- leethefilmer, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2or just shoot at a low aperture...
- skit4king, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2If a poor photoshop job is applied and people can tell, why do it in the first place? If the photo is left as it is people will know that your camera is ***** and won't comment on your ***** photoshop skills
- Philbert, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2You could probably recreate the scene in 3D, even if it's simple primitive objects, render out a DoF pass, then use that image as a mask for applying blur in Photoshop or After Effects That way you get the full range of focus.
- jezsik, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2Finally! I was wondering if anyone picked up on the fact that they're not creating depth of field with this tutorial.
- AndrewJC, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2I know this really sounds like nitpicking, but it's not a "low" vs. "high" aperture. It's a "wide" vs. "narrow" aperture. The whole low/high thing only serves to confuse people as to how aperture works inside a lens.
Also, shooting with wide apertures only works for actual photos. If you're dealing with a rendered 3D image, sometimes you want to make it more photorealistic, in which case you're probably going to have to resort to creating the effects yourself. - 2of8, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2It made it look like a game screenshot..
- MisterOh, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2lol at realistic depth of field. What's the opposite, unrealistic depth of field?
- HelplessSEAL, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2or you can learn to anticipate the moment while shooting M...or if you're not that fast, then It's not that hard to change your aperture value to something like f/1.4 on the fly and let the camera choose a shutter value in AV mode. What you are suggesting is plain lazy and unprofessional. I'm highly against altering a photo the way that they are trying to teach here, it's a poor workflow and the end product doesn't even look half decent...
- cosworth99, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2Lots of misinformation above....
http://www.dofmaster.com
You'll find that there ARE differences betweens SLRs and the DOF they create. SLRs differ from P&S and medium format as well. Crop factor, circle of confusion and sensor size etc. come into play. Look at what a medium format camera produces compared to a point and shoot.
As for the Canon 50mm f/1.8 - it creates quite horrible bokeh. It's due to the number of the shutter blades (5) and blade shape. The Nikkor 50mm 1.8 has 7 straight blades and creates somewhat better bokeh than the Canon at a bit more of a price.
Nothing beats getting it right "in camera". - nightowl313, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2lol that's not quite a tutorial though. more like a peer-reviewed journal article.
- inactive, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1True, but if you were using it in an ad, people would just see car and not post production.
- inactive, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1Even though I have a "fast lens" or five, dicking around with settings can mean that you miss something, or miss the shot. It's safer to just add it after if you need a particular effect.
- TnTBass, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1I bet they were photoshopped.
- Spartandog, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1Exactly. A lot of amateurs are adding "depth of field" to their images with Photoshop, thinking it will make them look good, but they end up creating what looks like bad tilt-shift photography. Nothing looks more fake than pictures taken in bright sunlight with wide lenses and infinite focus are modified to look like this.
- inactive, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1Yeah, I have found it near impossible to do blurs effectively using only the lens.
The only time I find it possible is if I don't have a moving target, so that means product photography.
Let's be honest here, even if the lens does it, what are the chances that you can get everything set properly on the camera to take the shot. And if there is action in the photo, you are probably doing multiple shots and just holding down the shutter.
Although I thought this tut was really basic and common, it is still a good trick for post-processing that people should know. - inactive, on 07/06/2009, -1/+2I'm sorry guys, as I read these comments I am shocked that people are suggesting "just do it on the camera".
I use photography as a tool for my design work, and if you are sitting out in a field waiting for a dog to jump for a frisbee, or something like that, the last thing you want is to be dicking around with camera settings.
You take the perfect shot, and the DOF is off you have messed up the photo. That moment will never come by again. Sure you can shoot the dog jumping for the frisbee again, but if the shot was what you wanted, you messed it up.
Shoot on auto and add some things later, it can save you some photography time. - inactive, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1Lazy and unprofessional?
I guess if you are doing it for the sake of making art.
Or perhaps showcasing your photography skills.
Although, I will tell you that if at 1:00 monday I have to make an ad to be put in a publication by tuesday night, I'm not going to spend time dicking around while daylight vanishes, the dog loses interest, and the owner gets bored of Frisbee.
It's not unprofessional, it's a realistic/practical approach in the realm of communication (or applied) arts.
"anticipate the moment" is a funny concept, which I get. However I can tell you when I have done photography at weddings, I shot the kiss in the most foolproof way possible. Because you can "anticipate the moment" all you want, but if you miss that one kiss, your whole series is a failure.
And it's rarely acceptable to rely on your quick camera skills as most professional photography is done in controlled environments.
Using layers and masks to enhance images is fine if it is done well. That's actually why photoshop exists.
Poor workflow is spending excessive time on something which can be made simple for the sake of artistic value.
Dollars to dimes: you are a hobbyist or 'artistic' photographer. - jonmon6691, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1What was the point of the liquify? Expanding the selection before blurring it would have done the same thing.
- foofoobee, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1that's an interesting approach... especially for blocky buildings, etc it would probably work quite well.
- mrBitch, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1For those that don't know what "bokeh" means (in the photographic field) :
" .. coined the bokeh spelling to suggest the correct pronunciation to English speakers, replacing the previous spelling boke that derived directly from the Japanese word for "fuzzy" and had been in use at least since 1996. It can be pronounced /ˈboʊkeɪ/ or /ˈboʊkə/ (boke-aay or boke-uh).
The term bokeh has appeared in photography books at least since 2000."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
Also, for those with Macs (or OSX installed via hackintosh) :
" .. can also be simulated using the Quartz Composer Defocus filter in Mac OS X Leopard, though Gaussian blur is often used to save time or when realistic bokeh is not required." - jakeshdaddy, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1Most 3d application will allow you to simulate a shallow depth of field.
- HelplessSEAL, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1The car modification looks odd...almost tilt-shift styled photography.
- Megatronz, on 07/06/2009, -1/+2That last one was a bit painful too look at. Mainly due to the gradient.
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is