Soft focus

[Newtricks]

Back when one focused their camera manually and with a split prism you could achieve precise focus, I would often use a shear stocking over the objective lens to "soften" or make the image more flattering... it seems that the auto-focus of my D7000 is stringently against using this technique and critical focus without a split prism is damned near impossible (at least with my eyesight).

So... in the 21st century where cameras have more computing power than NASA had when they put a man on the moon, how the hell can this be done?

Be well,

Anthony

 

[Gavjenks]

1) Focus then put the stocking on.
2) You could rig up something that allows you to do #1 more quickly than actually putting a stocking on and off. Like something that just swings in front and then swing out of the way again.
3) There are a couple of soft focus lenses still out there that Autofocus. Like the Nikon 135 f/2 DC AF.
4) Softfocus is easy to do in post processing:

4a) Duplicate image in new layer
4b) gaussian blur a few pixels
4c) set transparency to 10-20%.
4d) erase eyes or any other area you want uncompromising sharpness, with a soft eraser brush

 

[Newtricks]

1) Focus then put the stocking on.
2) You could rig up something that allows you to do #1 more quickly than actually putting a stocking on and off. Like something that just swings in front and then swing out of the way again.
3) There are a couple of soft focus lenses still out there that Autofocus. Like the Nikon 135 f/2 DC AF.
4) Softfocus is easy to do in post processing:

4a) Duplicate image in new layer
4b) gaussian blur a few pixels
4c) set transparency to 10-20%.
4d) erase eyes or any other area you want uncompromising sharpness, with a soft eraser brush

I can see focusing then placing the silk in front of the lens. As I've just stepped into the world of digital photo/editing I really don't know where to begin and I am positive I need to get editing software.

Thanks Gav, I like your input!

Be well,

Anthony

 

[Buckster]

Back when one focused their camera manually and with a split prism you could achieve precise focus, I would often use a shear stocking over the objective lens to "soften" or make the image more flattering... it seems that the auto-focus of my D7000 is stringently against using this technique and critical focus without a split prism is damned near impossible (at least with my eyesight).

So... in the 21st century where cameras have more computing power than NASA had when they put a man on the moon, how the hell can this be done?

Be well,

Anthony

Just change out your focusing screen to what we used back in the day: Nikon D7000 Focusing Screen

Or, you can shoot in "live view" while viewing the screen on the back rather than looking through the eyepiece, and zoom in for more precise focus.

ETA: By "zoom in", I mean the screen, not the lens.

 

[Newtricks]

Thanks Buckster. That screen will do it, not comfortable yet looking at the back of the camera rather than through the eyepiece.

Be well,

Anthony

 

[amolitor]

Focusing with live view is sometimes just the ticket. It solves most of the problems where the AF system can't deal with it, and I think it 100% eliminates all sources of "back focus" and related problems (I think -- hopefully if I have forgotten some factor someone will jump in with a correction), and it's very precise. I don't use it often, and one cannot always use it at all, but it's a powerful trick to have in the bag.

 

[Vautrin]

Personally I hate focusing with live view -- too laggy.

If you want to do any kind of manual focus, you really need to change out your focusing screen.

In a nutshell, for some crazy reason all the major camera makers assume you'll just be autofocusing anything anyways. Because of this they leave out the microprism focusing screen that'll give a good sense of what your focusing looks like.

If you don't change it out, you'll never be able to accurately focus via the viewfinder. If you do change it out, it'll work just like your old film SLR (and depending on your camera model, all the new dslr stuff like choosing focus point will work too)

I recommend the katzeye screen KatzEye™ Optics - Custom Focusing Screens

Installing is not difficult, I did my d700 no problems

 

[Gavjenks]

for some crazy reason

The reason is that matte screens are usually brightest, so if you almost always AF, it allows the most comfortable viewing. Also composition is not interrupted when slightly OOF

 

[Newtricks]

Buckster, I've looked at this product and it seems to be a good option and the price seems fare. How easy is it to install, I've got butchers hands, my little finger rest on the bottom of the battery grip on the D7000, ham fisted one could say. One question... is the Optibrite treatment worth the additional $60?

 

[Derrel]

Diffusion in front of the lens is not the same as re-arranging pixels, after the fact. Many diffusers spill highlights over and into neighboring mid-tone and shadow areas, and as a result, change the image that the sensor actually records. Again...NOT the same thing as dicking around in post-production and re-arreanging pixels. But, you probably realize that already. There are many younger shooters who have never used ANY diffusion filters or screens of any kind, and they will tell you "you can do it in software." Yeah. Uh-huh. Sorry, but "close" or "sorta' like, but not really the same" is not an option if you know what you want.

If all you have is ViewNX and Gimp, you'd probably really enjoy having something simple, yet very efficient and easily applicable, like Lightroom 5. The cost is minimal, and yet the benefits of it are high. Speed, ease of use, and the number of Lightroom pre-sets that are available would make the purchase VERY worth the money, and the time needed to learn how to use LR. I am gonna' guess that you're not yet in need of "pixel-level" editing and merging of multiple images, extensive layer work, and so on, and are more focused on getting things right, in-camera, to a greater degree than many newcomers, so, again, I think Lightroom would be a great application software for you to get.

 

[Gavjenks]

Eh, optical soft focus is pretty much mathematically the same thing as what photoshop can do after the fact.

In real optical situations, what a diffuser does is take every single photon that hits it, and scatters some %age of them with some usually Gaussian type of distribution around the location that it would have hit if going through clear glass. Same goes for diffraction gratings like a stocking. The light bends a sort of random amount around the edge of the threads and will fall in a more or less Gaussian distribution around the point it should have hit.

This can be almost perfectly mimicked by photoshop by taking every pixel, and averaging its value out in a Gaussian distribution around itself, then after doing this for all pixels, adding the results together. I.e. the Gaussian blur filter. The only real difference might be that for some lenses, the effects near the edge of the image might be a little different, since the lens blur originates from glass outside of the image itself, and photoshop only runs its filter on existing pixels. But it's going to be almost impossible to tell the difference.

By blending two layers - one Gaussian blurred and the other not, at different %ages and by changing the radius of the Gaussian, you can mimic almost any real life strength of diffuser, too. If I had a true diffusing soft focus lens on hand, I would set up a challenge gallery for you to try and pick out which one is which, but I don't.

There's a reason they don't sell many diffusion lenses anymore, unlike how they still sell polarizing filters and other things that photoshop can't do as well. It's pretty much obsolete (especially since with photoshop, you can choose to add the effect or not, whereas it is permanent optically. And unlike tilt shift effect,s for instance, there's no real artistic need to preview soft focus in the field. It's easy to imagine what it will be like)

 

[Derrel]

Eh, optical soft focus is pretty much mathematically the same thing as what photoshop can do after the fact.

Um, sorry, but DIFFUSION of the light that actually forms the image is not the same thing as re-arranging pixels.

Get back to me when you can re-create the Tiffen Black Net diffuser's effect on middle-aged and septegenarian or octegenarian women in a portraiture setting. Once again, you show you have a sort of mathematical familiarity with the subject, but no real,actual experience with the materials under discussion at hand. Would love to see your "digital polarization" as well. Lol.

You're right: you can "mimic" the effect. Kind of the same way cubic zirconia mimics real diamond. Except, not as closely! I would also LOVE to see your black window screen imitation in PS, or your diffraction grating effects, and star filter effects, etc.etc.

Have you EVER heard of the concept of vision in photography? You know, actually CREATING something, in the camera, and having an actual artistic vision, one that you are true to? It's different than just shooting something, then dicking around later in photoshop to TRY and hopefully, eke out a picture. But then again, this line of thinking is based on having an actual "vision", a clear, fixed concept, and not being afraid to actually COMMIT to an image that's diffused, or un-sharp, deliberately. It's the difference between actual "photography", and "digital imaging".

 

[Gavjenks]

You misunderstand. I was saying that they DO still sell plenty of polarizing filters, because digital software CANNOT replicate that effect at all.

Soft focus, however, is easy to replicate almost exactly, since there is not really any different or extra information in a diffused image than a sharp one of the same scene. Algorithms can go in the sharp-> blurry direction almost flawlessly, as long as the blurriness is not due to depth information (i.e. diffusion and blurring filters and lenses can be replicated nearly perfectly, as they are evenly and predictably applied across the entire image. DOF cannot, as it requires unknown information about depth of every object).

 

[Derrel]

No, I do not misunderstand...I am aware that polarizing cannot be done in software. JUST the same way as ACTUAL through-the-lens diffusion effects cannot be done by software either.

Sorry dude...I own the 105 Defocus and the 135 Defocus Nikkors, and the Canon 135 2.8 Soft Focus, as well as DOZENS of soft-focus, diffraction, and diffusion, haze, and fog filters, dating back 30 years. I even have some home-made "hairspray" filter sets. I'm pretty familiar with how in-camera soft focus and diffusion effects differ from faked, simulated effects.

I'm just once again pointing out that there is a HUGE difference between light and images that are manipulated through a LENS, with its own imaging characteristics, its own lens drawing characteristics, its own bokeh signature, and its own flare/ghosting, and spherical aberration profile, etc.,etc.. I'm stating categorically that IN-LENS effects are NOT identical to pixel-rearrangement effects. Similar, maybe, at times. But not "equal".

Your unfamiliarity shows up glaringly when you say that the effects in software can be ,"replicated nearly perfectly, as they are evenly and predictably applied across the entire image."

Dude--that is the difference between in-camera, and through-a-real-lens images, and software-created mash-ups; each lens has its OWN characterisitics, and they are typically NOT even, and the effect is variable, subtle, and nuanced. I hope when you get married, you give your betrothed a great big 3-carat cubic ziconia ring, and tell her about how perfect and flawless it is. I'm sure she'll agree.

3.20 TCW Princess-Cut Halo Cubic Zirconia Ring in 10k White Gold at PalmBeach

 

[Gavjenks]

Also, even if it is about the same as the difference between diamond and cubic zirconium, for sake of argument...

Which one is diamond and which one is cubic zirconium? Why is the optical diffusion the BETTER of the two? Simply because it came first? "Different" (assuming they even are noticeably different) does not imply "the earlier one is better." It could be different with an improvement in the new method.

Diffuser material is after all, a manufactured product, which cannot be as perfectly even as a pixel by pixel mathematical algorithm can be (though pretty close). Why would you WANT imperfections that don't necessarily line up with your photo's composition? Etc.