Now THIS IS some cool shizznit

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Aharami
this is pretty cool. I've been doing something like this in photoshop using alpha channels and lens blur. But its a rather tedious process drawing the masks. Im gonna give this a try and see how it looks compared to my manually done ones

IMO manually will be better. You have much more control of the masks.

maybe. But it takes me forever to create the masks

No it doesn't.
Try Verus Fluid Mask.
It has a bit of a learning curve, but it's worth it.
I'm a graphic designer and it saves me loads of time.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Well the second one looks kinda cut and pasted to me, but yeah in the cases people are brining up the DoF picture often does look better. However the original website still isn't doing it for me, the effects are way overdone imo. However I will be quick to admit that I am not one who likes all the "artsy" type image transformations that alot of people do. Especially when its done so blatantly, if it is very subtle then it can often add to the scene, but I feel that people tend to overuse them often.

yea i could've done a better job with the edges. but looks pretty natural when printed on 5x7

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Aharami
this is pretty cool. I've been doing something like this in photoshop using alpha channels and lens blur. But its a rather tedious process drawing the masks. Im gonna give this a try and see how it looks compared to my manually done ones

IMO manually will be better. You have much more control of the masks.

maybe. But it takes me forever to create the masks

No it doesn't.
Try Verus Fluid Mask.
It has a bit of a learning curve, but it's worth it.
I'm a graphic designer and it saves me loads of time.

i gave it a try. how does one retain the background also? i tried the free version couple months back and i could make a cutout of the foreground, but couldnt figure out how to retain the background for a separate layer so I can blur it

 

[laurenlex]

<rant> Depth of Field does not mean anything by itself. You are trying to create a SHALLOW depth of field. This is useful for isolating a subject against a busy background. If you are shooting landscape, you want a DEEP depth of field. You want everything in focus. </rant>

 

[E equals MC2]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Aharami
this is pretty cool. I've been doing something like this in photoshop using alpha channels and lens blur. But its a rather tedious process drawing the masks. Im gonna give this a try and see how it looks compared to my manually done ones

IMO manually will be better. You have much more control of the masks.

maybe. But it takes me forever to create the masks

That's some very elaborate masking job and you did a good job, but some objects you just calculated their depths wrong. Those red maples leaves on top right are NOT in the same depth as the people. But you masked it that way... yielding a weird unnatural superimposed look.

Very nice attempt though.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Aharami
this is pretty cool. I've been doing something like this in photoshop using alpha channels and lens blur. But its a rather tedious process drawing the masks. Im gonna give this a try and see how it looks compared to my manually done ones

IMO manually will be better. You have much more control of the masks.

maybe. But it takes me forever to create the masks

No it doesn't.
Try Verus Fluid Mask.
It has a bit of a learning curve, but it's worth it.
I'm a graphic designer and it saves me loads of time.

i gave it a try. how does one retain the background also? i tried the free version couple months back and i could make a cutout of the foreground, but couldnt figure out how to retain the background for a separate layer so I can blur it

Duplicate the layer before using fluid mask.

 

[EGGO]

Oh so now I can do it with a few clicks rather than just doing it the long way in Photoshop? Hooray, another "Lens Flare" discovery!

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Nice, It meant that I don't have to pay through the nose for a large aperture/heavy lens just to get decent DOF.

Pardon my scientific background, but since when is a tiny depth of field "decent"?

I would love to be able to have a nice big depth of field under the microscope, that's for sure.

It just seems strange that you pay more to intentionally castrate the performance of your optics...but then again, I'm not a professional photographer.

 

[E equals MC2]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Nice, It meant that I don't have to pay through the nose for a large aperture/heavy lens just to get decent DOF.

Pardon my scientific background, but since when is a tiny depth of field "decent"?

I would love to be able to have a nice big depth of field under the microscope, that's for sure.

It just seems strange that you pay more to intentionally castrate the performance of your optics...but then again, I'm not a professional photographer.

Sorry but you're right. You don't know what you're talking about. Good luck taking wedding pix with a telephoto lens.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Nice, It meant that I don't have to pay through the nose for a large aperture/heavy lens just to get decent DOF.

Pardon my scientific background, but since when is a tiny depth of field "decent"?

I would love to be able to have a nice big depth of field under the microscope, that's for sure.

It just seems strange that you pay more to intentionally castrate the performance of your optics...but then again, I'm not a professional photographer.

Sorry but you're right. You don't know what you're talking about. Good luck taking wedding pix with a telephoto lens.

Actually, you can take gorgeous wedding pics/portraits with a tele lens.
I've taken some great portraits with my 70-200 F4L IS.
Gives you great bokeh and pleasing shots.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
You can really do this with a lens blur and layer masks.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

The only advantage I see to this standalone is batch processing (which, without masks, what's the point?) and keyframing, presumably for video processing (not useful to me).

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

Nice, It meant that I don't have to pay through the nose for a large aperture/heavy lens just to get decent DOF.

Pardon my scientific background, but since when is a tiny depth of field "decent"?

I would love to be able to have a nice big depth of field under the microscope, that's for sure.

It just seems strange that you pay more to intentionally castrate the performance of your optics...but then again, I'm not a professional photographer.

It has to do with final intent for the image. From your perspective (based on your microscope example), you want everything in perfect focus. You need to be able to examine all parts of the image in great detail.

That's not necessarily what makes a good photograph. For instance - the photo of the couple in the park isn't served by having the foliage in focus - it's distracting from the erm, focus, of the photo - the people. You don't need to examine the trees behind them - they're just a distraction.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Duplicate the layer before using fluid mask.

DUH! so simple!
/slaps forehead