What is Digg?43 Comments
- phidong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15quamb,
The lens blur filter provides a more realistic bokeh and is a lot less uniform than gaussian blur. You can change the properties of the blur based on how round you want your diaphragm blades to be (more = smoother blur), you can fake specular highlights, you can blend it more (with noise) all in one filter. So while you could fake thin DOF prior to CS, it wouldn't be nearly as realistic. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15The stem should not be blurred into the background.
- TomP, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Why bury this guy?
- goingstuckey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8comments that say this technique is no substitute for a good lens are getting dugg down. however, it's the truth. the look of an f/2.8 or below (especially if the focal length is shorter) lens cannot be replicated by a photoshop filter. his final product looks like he just combined two separate photographs.
- MrIso, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6If the whole stem was blurred, then the middle to rear of the flower would be blurred as well.
- Dinosaurus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You can't get this type of shallow DOF with point and shoots mostly because of the tiny CCD. I wouldn't characterize this as a quick fix, more a creative post-production choice.
- john608, on 10/12/2007, -14/+18An excellent tutorial. For those who do not know, Fake Depth is when they keep the focus on the subject in a picture (In this case a flower), and blur out any other objects that have sharp focus. This way your eye is drawn to the subject of the picture. The results are awesome.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+91) select background
2) blur
Wow, who would have thought of that? This guy should write a book or something. - moore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The point of this isn't to "pretend" you have equipment you don't. Depth of field isn't some fancy $3000 camera feature--every camera has depth of field, and any camera with manual aperture/focus has a very adjustable depth of field. Most people with cameras don't know how to use these features, but anyone with a need to do an effect like this probably does. Therefore it's far more likely to be used on photos where the deph of field is incorrect than to add it to a photo because their camera "couldn't do it".
- quamb, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13umh, this could have been done in versions long before CS.
MASK OBJECT
BLUR BACKGROUND
easy. - dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's easily sorted by going over the stem with a soft grey-ish brush...
As to all the people saying "it looks awful!! just do better in camera!11" : Sure, it's good to get it done in camera, but there are times when you can't get decent DoF for what ever reason (The lens that was attached to the camera at the time, you can't go closer to it), and knowing how to do this would be very useful..
As for the example looking awful : That is not the point! It's the tutorial.. Most tutorial's are (variably) rushed, but put over the what you have to do, and that's all that matters..
- Ben - vbsurfer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And I just want to add. This isn't a discussion about how to use a camera. This is a link to a tutorial for Photoshop.
- Chexee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He should have included a feathered amount of the stem for a better sense of realism.
- peorth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Don't give him ideas :P
- riverside71, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Not a new technique, it's been around for a while.. nevertheless TRL's tutorials are always fun to read..
for those who only got .. 1. select background .. 2. Blur photo from this article.. you need to RTFA again to understand the power of the Lens Blur filter using the alpha channel mask as the source... this is not your ordinary gaussian blur.. it let's you have much more creative control over the intensity and quality of bokeh u need to recreate..
a must read for point 'n shooters who get 'all in focus' shots from their tiny sensors and short focal lengths. - vbsurfer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think you undstand the point...
Just because you have the greatest camera ever made, dosn't mean the greatest photo will come out of it everytime. Their are many factors to this. (like life) your best shot needs tweaking due to the lack of light, too much motion, flash exposure problems, etc. Thats why we have photoshop to make a photo into the shot of the year. I don't care how good you are as a photographer, time is money! Photoshop will save you time and money.
Is this a good tutorial? No. The steps are scattered and the layout of the site is bothersome. People don't want to read through a book to describe one step that could have been expained in a couple of sentences. - vbsurfer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Uhm, the stem should'nt be blurred. Bad tutorial.
- TheKingInYellow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2finally, someone is using masks!
- Machine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I agree with you . But the point of these kind of tutorials is to make it look like you're using equipment that you don't have... so I found it ironic that someone would use a $600 program to make an inferior version of what I can do with a $300 lens... and I'm far from being the greatest photographer in the world. I'm not sure why I'm being modded down for it.
- JohnBM, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Disagree - if you had a wide aperture on the camera, both the stem and background would be blurred as they would outside the depth of field.
- SuseZ, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Agree, it doesn't look very relalistic..., maybe aplying blur to some parts of the flower can do the trick better, but never as cool as using true depth of field
- w1ras, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4That was the first thing I thought of too. It looks like the flower is just floating there.
- DanielKongos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1In cs2 you can create a new alpha channel and mask out what you want in it and then use that channel in the lens blur filter. This way you can get a gradual more realistic blur.
- biddessa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Amazing. Things never change.
- mebob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm not much of a photo shop guy put I've always had trouble quickly producing a similar effect in PS7.
For quick edits I'm always unhappy with the edge, either the blur is not close enough to the subject or the blur is to close and in the case of something like this flower created a dreamy haze.
Is there a better way to mask maybe? - InternetUser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@sixlocal: that's technically a lie.
- Clemenceau, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Ha, cool stuff. I guess it no longer seperates the boys from the men. Or does it make the boys into men?
- matija, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1it only works when your front most objects are in the foreground, otherwise the blur is no good :(
- angryredplanet, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Cameras don't shoot flowers... people do
- NinjaJedi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Well spotted. Didn't notice until you said. It's still pretty useless in the real world. For example if you wanted to apply fake DOF to a picture of, say, a busy road this method is too simplistic.
- co72, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Hi,
I think since his bg was not distinct he just used a solid value for his bg round the mask.
But as for what you're saying, a gradient would do the job? Also, you could use gradients even on the focused subject for subtle effects.
The article was an introduction, so he kept it simple. There are much more in depth tuts that show more complex depth masks. You can get as complex as you like with the depth map, as long as you maintain the darker = more in focus rule
like:
http://www.geocities.com/r_polit/varios/onthenet/tut1/depthmapsharp_s1_thumb.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/r_polit/varios/onthenet/tut1/LensBlur_s1_thumb.jpg - lefragileebouy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10realistic? looks awful
try learning how to use a camera instead perhaps?
everything is a quick fix these days. fix the source of the problem! - InternetUser, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Useful for a one-off fix. But you'd be better off buying the right camera.
- dj_sea2005, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6http://www.duggmirror.com/design/How_to_Create_Realistic_Fake_Depth_of_Field_in_Photoshop_CS/
- ozziegt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1The guy is full of himself..."it took all of a half-dozen clicks of my Wacom tablet pen to select the entire background..."
Ooh, big man with the Wacom tablet pen.... - Machine, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2You know... if you can afford to buy Photoshop... then you can probably afford a decent camera / lens that will give you nice depth of field in the first place. :)
Not that I'm accusing anyone of anything... - 500freestyle, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3I'm confused. Is the depth real or fake?
- oktobr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1It goes without saying, but the photographer should never do anything in post that he could have done on location with the camera. This may be a handy compensatory technique, but lacks the gradual variation real DoF has.
Gradient masking techniques can be used to create more realistic DoF if you're going for an effect that's simply impossible with the camera, such as this excellent fake-macro effect which was on Digg recently: http://recedinghairline.co.uk/tutorials/fakemodel/ - sixlocal, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Any camera can shoot wide open.
- caliform, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Err... Google provided those who read the 'new features' list of Photoshop CS with links to video tutorials on this. This is a very old feature of Photoshop CS, CS2 is out, and there are over 20 tutorials about this that are better. Buried.
- davdav, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Nevermind a low f/stop.
- dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2[delete]
- osa777, on 10/12/2007, -16/+0words still fail me
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
