Best DOF blurrrrr

[mckc]

what is the best way to get a Depth of field blur effect in CS3? Lens blur looks too glamourish.

[spphoto]

A lens with a large aperture :P

Seriously though, a combination of the right lens blur and good masking should do the trick.

[BCRose]

Use a gradient mask so the blur gradually gets more dense towards the top of the image, this will make it look like real DOF blur and much more natural.

[Phil V]

A lens with a large aperture :P

Seriously though, a combination of the right lens blur and good masking should do the trick.

Seriously though! the photo takes less than a second, the photoshop takes thousands of seconds (if you're quick) to be even remotely plausible. :confused:

The idea that Photoshop is there to make up for a lack of technique irritates me greatly and is half the reason people think that anyone can shoot a wedding and produce 'stunning' results from PP.:D

[BCRose]

Seriously though! the photo takes less than a second, the photoshop takes thousands of seconds (if you're quick) to be even remotely plausible. :confused:

The idea that Photoshop is there to make up for a lack of technique irritates me greatly and is half the reason people think that anyone can shoot a wedding and produce 'stunning' results from PP.:D


What does that have to do with the question? He asked a CS3 specific question...I don't understnd why you feel the need to make a general negative judgement like this for no good reason...Yervant, Bussink etc. ALL use PS to enchance images by the way.

I think forum rules dictate that if you cannot add anything useful to the thread then don't add anything at all...so I will take that cue and say no more.

Cheers

[Bobster]

sorry peeps ;)

[Banbert]

Bobster, if you think what Phil has said is out of order then hot linking an image from his site is definitely not the way to deal with it, your effectively stealing bandwith from him.... 2 wrongs dont make a right and all that.

[sando]

Bobster, if you think what Phil has said is out of order then hot linking an image from his site is definitely not the way to deal with it, your effectively stealing bandwith from him.... 2 wrongs dont make a right and all that.

Bobster's got a point though! :lol: Best way to be a good photographer is to get it right 'in-camera' rather than relying on PS to correct your mistakes.

[th3r0m]

Bobster's got a point though! :lol: Best way to be a good photographer is to get it right 'in-camera' rather than relying on PS to correct your mistakes.

actually I think that that was Phil's point. As far as the image goes, I agree with Banbert.

[NFRs2000NYC]

Filters>Blur>Lens Blur is the closest thing to a replication of real bokeh.

[mizuno]

Geez there's some muppets on here.

You wonder why the pros don't hang around... :rolleyes:

[sando]

Geez there's some muppets on here.

You wonder why the pros don't hang around... :rolleyes:

Agreed, sadly...

[sando]

actually I think that that was Phil's point. As far as the image goes, I agree with Banbert.

No, I said Bobster, as he made the point about the bad PP. Cutting and sarky...? Yes.

[cdifoto]

what is the best way to get a Depth of field blur effect in CS3? Lens blur looks too glamourish.

I would use Quick Mask, add gaussian blur to the mask, then gaussian blur the desired area for DOF. To do it convincingly, make sure to mask very carefully, and exclude items on the same plane of focus from the gaussian blur. In other words, you don't want to have 2 people in focus, and then a tree next to them all blurred out. That isn't how depth of field works. You also don't want to go overboard with the fake bokeh. It has to be appropriate to the subject. You can't have super creamy gaussian blur on everything except a dancer. Some of the dancer would be outside of the plane of focus if using THAT fast of glass, so the Photoshop blur should be appropriate as well.

It truly is easiest to do it with the proper lens though, because DOF is gradual. Unless you're really really really good and patient, almost anything in Photoshop will be too abrupt to be believable.

EDIT: I saw a mention of Lens Blur. I don't have CS3...only PS7, so I wasn't aware of such a feature or how good it is.

[Bobster]

when i worked at an agency, we used to gaussain blur stuff all the time to stick in brochures etc, to the untrained eye it looks real, with the addition of Lens Blur, it gives a better effect still.. with a good photo editor behind the keyboard some stuff will look fantastic - with a novice it will look poor to average..

sure it pays to get it right in camera, but when you've done a shoot and you feel that something might just need that little extra push with PP to get just right, photoshop is the right tool for the job ;) and with computers the speed they are these days, it takes 217.3 seconds to lens blur a 16bit 30x20in image - 6 blade, radius of 52 and a blade curve of 5 (CPU usage doesn't go above 34% so i'm sure they can optimise it some more for SMP) :)

[Phil V]

sure it pays to get it right in camera, but when you've done a shoot and you feel that something might just need that little extra push with PP to get just right, photoshop is the right tool for the job ;) and with computers the speed they are these days, it takes 217.3 seconds to lens blur a 16bit 30x20in image - 6 blade, radius of 52 and a blade curve of 5 (CPU usage doesn't go above 34% so i'm sure they can optimise it some more for SMP) :)

As CDI put it in many more words than I did, it's rare that one simple pass like that would do it. Because in real life there isn't just 'in focus' and 'out of focus' a typical image might show objects at 6ft 8ft, 15ft and infinity (or an infinite number of points inbetween).
But all of this is MHO and I'm far from a Photoshop expert;)

I appreciate it's not what the OP asked, but this is an open forum and I expressed an opinion (without being personal) that the OP can take or leave. The fact remains that some people come into photography and beleive that all the great pics they see have been created in PS, rather than being due to photographic skill, I did my bit to balance that view.:)

[Bobster]

Because in real life there isn't just 'in focus' and 'out of focus' a typical image might show objects at 6ft 8ft, 15ft and infinity (or an infinite number of points inbetween).
but many people won't know that, they will just see a nice pic with someone/something that just pops out of the background because of a simple effect ;)

The fact remains that some people come into photography and beleive that all the great pics they see have been created in PS, rather than being due to photographic skill, I did my bit to balance that view.
yeah had this discussion at camera club last week, if someone sees something that is complex and they can't work out how it was taken, the first thing they say is Photoshopped..

[mckc]

Thanx Everyone for the reply!

To those who mentioned getting it right in camera...I think it is everyones goal to get something right in camera which would be the point of using L lenses, flashes, gels, and everything else we use. Everyone has a desire to get it right in camera, but when you get wedding pictures back and you want to add a blur to a certain part of the image, but do not want it to look overdone, I think it is ok to add a little pop to a image. I am a intern under Nick Vedros ( www.vedros.com ) who is a commerial photographer and every images he takes goes through his "digital" or photoshop guy before it goes out. Even the best cannot not ALWAYS get it the way they want it in camera. I would love to see a working pro who doesn't use PP and is making a good living.

[canonpink]

I have seen a technique by Vincent Versace (Welcome to Oz) create imitation depth of field blurring, by applying a 20-40 pixel Gaussian blur, then apply a black mask to that layer, then depending on the speed of the fall away for the DOF, you begin to paint in 10% opacity increments beginning with 10% opacity close to the subject, 20% a little further, etc.... You can even use 25% increments. I have done this and gotten very realistic effects:

http://canoflan.exposuremanager.com/p/flowers_and_plants/mistymarigolds0

What will happen as you have painted in light to dark shade of gray in your mask, you are revealing more of the blurring. After I am done, I will apply a 50-80 pixel gaussian blur to the actual mask itself so there are no hard transitions because there are no hard transitions in real shallow/medium depth of field pictures.

Hope this helps.

[cdifoto]

Thanx Everyone for the reply!

To those who mentioned getting it right in camera...I think it is everyones goal to get something right in camera which would be the point of using L lenses, flashes, gels, and everything else we use. Everyone has a desire to get it right in camera, but when you get wedding pictures back and you want to add a blur to a certain part of the image, but do not want it to look overdone, I think it is ok to add a little pop to a image. I am a intern under Nick Vedros ( www.vedros.com (http://www.vedros.com) ) who is a commerial photographer and every images he takes goes through his "digital" or photoshop guy before it goes out. Even the best cannot not ALWAYS get it the way they want it in camera. I would love to see a working pro who doesn't use PP and is making a good living.

Post Processing is one thing. Getting realistic bokeh by having the proper lens for the job is another.

It's a whole lot easier and faster to spend $350 on an f/1.4 prime to shoot 100 images at f/1.4 and get the real DOF than it is to shoot a slower zoom at f/5.6 and Photoshop in the DOF.

[mckc]

Post Processing is one thing. Getting realistic bokeh by having the proper lens for the job is another.

It's a whole lot easier and faster to spend $350 on an f/1.4 prime to shoot 100 images at f/1.4 and get the real DOF than it is to shoot a slower zoom at f/5.6 and Photoshop in the DOF.

yup...totally agree, but unfortunatly right now I do not have $350 for another lens so I have to stick with photoshop. I do not apply this to every image either...just sometimes you are looking at an image and you dont like how the cake is distracting from the b and g eating the cake so a little blur (not overdone) can take your eye away from the cake. Its just making a good image better not making a horrible image good.