Faking it: Who needs a $1900 lens?

camz · Sep 3, 2009

It's actually fairly easy to do. I would brush or magic wand the smaller area. If the smaller area isn't the area I wanted blurred inverse the selection and then apply a lens blur layer. It makes perfect sense if the background is flat and the whole background has equal distance from the lens. But if the background pans out then I think the $1900 lens might actually come in handy

xiangji · Sep 3, 2009

Again it doesn't look right to me...

Is it because the part your blurred is to the same degree??? I'm guessing it's because of perspective.

Should the top right hand corner of the shot be more blurred than the top left????

Maybe too consistent?

xiangji · Sep 3, 2009

I need to be quicker with my posts lol

Plato · Sep 3, 2009

I'm a real fanatic regarding selective focus. However, this example with the young girl and the clouds looks bad, really bad. The best thing that I can say about it is that it's a great example of how to use PP to ruin a shot.

The old Ford is acceptable except that the out-of-focus antenna detracts significantly from the shot.

camz · Sep 3, 2009

xiangji said:
I need to be quicker with my posts lol

lol we all do it

PhotoXopher · Sep 3, 2009

The car one looks like tilt-shift to me.

Josh66 · Sep 3, 2009

inTempus said:
JerryPH said:

Well, it was a valiant effort, and if you showed it to someone a little less experienced, they may even think it was done by an 85 1.2, but I've seen some shots from that lens, and it would be darn hard to match.

I am guessing Alien Skin Bokeh PS plug-in?

Click to expand...

You're right, yes... Alien Skin Bokeh plug in and about 5 minutes of masking off the area I wanted blurred. I'm sure if I applied myself I could do far better.

Here's another example I did. Just learning the tool really.

Before:

After:

Again, a very quick edit.

Looks more like "miniature faking" than "bokeh faking". I know that's not what you were going for, but that's what I'm seeing. It just makes the car look fake.

Did you go straight for the 1.2, or did you try the 1.8 first? I'd be interested in hearing how those two compare, as far as bokeh goes...

inTempus · Sep 3, 2009

I actually used a custom setting, 12% I believe. The default for the 85L is 20%.

Restomage · Sep 3, 2009

Or you could buy a zoom lens and zoom in to control DOF better....

Derrel · Sep 3, 2009

The car one does look more like the fake miniature effect than real out of focus bokeh. If yo want a great bokeh lens, there's no need to spring for the Canon 85/1.2 L; you'd get prettier bokeh with less green CA from a used Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-D lens. The Canon f/1.2 throws the backdrops out of fous, but has an unfortunate tendency toward double-lining and making hash on real-world items like tree branches, foliage, and anything that has a strong "line" in it.

If you want pretty bokeh,seriously, consider the Nikon 85/1.4 and an inexpensive $17 bronze adapter to plop it onto your Canon. You'll get better bokeh, and the focusing will be pretty fast by hand on a decent Canon body.

Or, if you want a longer lens with *adjustable* bokeh, look into the Nikkor 105mm f/2 AF-D Defocus Control lens. That lens is one of the absolute best Nikon lenses when shooting right toward bright lights--strobes, monolights, or the sun. It is one of the easiest-focusing lenses ever made,and has adjustable background defocus,as well as built-in adjustable soft focus/diffusion.

To me, somebody who's a bokeh fanatic, using adapted lenses on Canon bodies is the way to go to get bokeh that a particular Canon lens simply cannot deliver, or just to use lenses that happen to be for Nikon mount on bodies other than Nikon. The Photoshopped bokeh effects always look faked because,well, they are faked. Each lens has its own drawing style and its own bokeh signature; where the PS fakery really falls flat on its face is when you have point light sources in the background--like Christmas tree lights, or water droplets, or simple light areas coming in through foliage...PS fakery will not work on those situations--it cannot render the point light sources realistically. You ought to consider owning at least 1 or two Canon to M42 thread mount adapters and 1 or 2 Canon to Nikon F mount adapters; there are 50 years worth of older MF Nikkor lenses,some with good,unusual bokeh, that will plop right onto a Canon body, like the 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor-H, and the 35mm f/2 Nikkor O.C. Both have bokeh that can not be replicated by modern lenses.

Antithesis · Sep 3, 2009

There's no actual focusing plane, which makes it look weird. Less so on the one of the girl, but even then, you'd need the perspective from a longer telephoto to make it look realistic at all. Something shot with that focal length from that distance would look far different. I think there needs to be more blurring as you head off towards the horizon.

Moe · Sep 3, 2009

I think the title says it all. Faking it. And it shows. As far as the first pic goes, it probably looks photoshopped to even a beginner. They may not be able to put their finger on it, but they'll say she just doesn't look right. Especially looking at her against the cloudy background. It creates a in-focus/out-of-focus gradient, but bokeh? Nah. One thing for me is the blur getting stronger going from bottom to top. The problem with this is from her ankles to the horizon, the background is getting further, so the blur should increase, like it does. However, starting from the horizon and moving up in the photo, the background (clouds) moves closer. So, shouldn't the background from the horizon up get a little less blurry as you move up in the photo? Man, I hope I'm explaining this right, I think I've gone crosseyed.

The take home point is that this may improve some people's photos. Many of the photos you've posted, however, have been excellent. Too much "gimmicky" PP will only take them down a notch. But you did say you were just learning this, so who knows.