Faking it: Who needs a $1900 lens?

[manaheim]

*Notes on 3rd grade report card*

"Chris doesn't seem to use his time wisely."



:lmao:

Maaaaaaaan that's eerily close to the truth of my elementary school report cards.

The comments from my high school teachers were similar, but also paired with "makes out with girls in the hallway too much". I dunno about anyone else, but I consider making out with girls an EXCELLENT use of my time.

 

[manaheim]

Still playing... I think I like this one better... not sure if it's quite right, but it's closer...

 

[PhotoXopher]

Is that emulated at f/.45

 

[GeneralBenson]

Sorry, but it just looks very, very not real to me. I've seen a few examples of the AS bokeh plugin, and I have to say, it never looks anywhere near realistic to me. I don't think it ever looks realistic when you try to add fake bokeh to a background that has depth. The only times I've seen it look decent are when the subject and the background are on two separate two dimensional planes; like a person in front of a brick wall, but it's a 3/4 shot so you don't see their feet or the ground connecting them to the wall.

 

[manaheim]

ppfftt... my fake bokeh was teh awesome!



I'm kidding, it looks like crap. It was just an intriguing challenge.

 

[Montana]

Tharmsen or whatever, just use the 85 1.2 L. Its dreamy...................

 

[inTempus]

I know you guys are probably going to say it stinks, but I like this edit.

It certainly works better where the background is closer and nearly perfectly vertical vs. having a vanishing point. It doesn't necessarily work with the desaturated look... but I was grabbing different images from my SmugMug to play with.

I think I've mastered the masking... time consuming to say the least.

 

[PhotoXopher]

I like that one a lot... I'd never guess it was 'fake' bokeh.

Really makes the subject pop, nice work man.

 

[RONDAL]

again the reason the last one works is because you dont see the perspective point where the ground is.

its getting that gradient down to perfection as you move away from the base of the subject and increase it as the background gets further away from the subject the further up their body you go.

 

[roadkill]

i can't tell what glass you used in the shots with the girl. no exif data

 

[roadkill]

just an aside... wow... manahiem. you might be a little too involved with this forum and all what with all the pact stuff. just MHO

 

[roadkill]

i guess i should add that pretty much anyone could take those shots with a nifty fifty. I don't really get where the 1900 dollar lens comes in.....

 

[manaheim]

just an aside... wow... manahiem. you might be a little too involved with this forum and all what with all the pact stuff. just MHO

meh.

I'm on here a lot. I prefer it when the forum sucks less. Usually that happens went people aren't being loopy. That was just an attempt to keep people from being loopy.

Dunno. Seems to have worked sorta?

 

[inTempus]

i guess i should add that pretty much anyone could take those shots with a nifty fifty. I don't really get where the 1900 dollar lens comes in.....

It's an edit that simulates a Canon 85mm f/1.2L, hence the title of the thread.

 

[Moglex]

I know you guys are probably going to say it stinks, but I like this edit.

It certainly works better where the background is closer and nearly perfectly vertical vs. having a vanishing point. It doesn't necessarily work with the desaturated look... but I was grabbing different images from my SmugMug to play with.

I think I've mastered the masking... time consuming to say the least.

TBH I thought the one in the OP was ghastly, but this ones really impressive.