A nifty picture from my engagement shoot.

[MyNameIsChris]

I thought this turned out pretty cool. There are more but this is the only one I'm going to post for now. C & C

 

[Wyjid]

what kind of PP? or any? i've been trying something that ends up looking very similar with multiple focal planes. (before PP)

 

[Yahoozy]

it looks like you just blurred around a feathered selection (the ring) ya?

 

[MyNameIsChris]

I duplicated the layer > gaussian blur > screen > opacity about 60% > layer mask and unblurred the ring > merge layers. Then adjusted the levels and that's about it.

How do you get that look without PP?

 

[tirediron]

I like the idea, but to me, this execution looks exactly like what it is; a Photoshop job, and somewhat 'synthetic'. Unfortunate that the detail of the stone is lost in the highlights.

 

[K8-90]

I think it is beautiful. It has a very surreal and calming feel to it.

You may have been able to obtain a similar feel if you had a shallow depth of feild, with focus on the ring. Then the hands would have been blurred by the bokeh.

To me, I don't really care if it is a "photoshop job" or not. I guess it is because I think of this kind of thing as art, where you do what it takes to capture your intended feel or purpose.

 

[tirediron]

You may have been able to obtain a similar feel if you had a shallow depth of feild

Exif data reveals the image to be shot at f1.8

Then the hands would have been blurred by the bokeh.

The term 'bokeh' actually refers specifically to the appearance of the out-of-focus area, not simply to the fact that it is out of focus.

 

[K8-90]

Sorry, should have checked the exif. It was only a suggestion of how they may have been able to produce a similar effect in camera. Regarding the bokeh... Huh? Did I just phrase that wrong? I don't understand your point there, but I'd like to if you could explain it to me...

 

[tirediron]

Sorry, should have checked the exif. It was only a suggestion of how they may have been able to produce a similar effect in camera. Regarding the bokeh... Huh? Did I just phrase that wrong? I don't understand your point there, but I'd like to if you could explain it to me...

I'll link to this very good explanation of bokeh on Ken Rockwell's site:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

Sorry, on re-read, I may have incorrectly assumed that you misunderstood the term (A lot of people believe that "bokeh" simply means an out of focus area, or the degree to which something is out of focus).

 

[K8-90]

Thanks for the link
It confirmed what I knew, but greatly expanded on it. Link is now bookmarked