Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth..

John Navas wrote:
> The basic process is (a) masking off everything but the background and
> (b) blurring the background. The Extract Tool is typically the best way
> to do the masking, but other masking tools can be helpful as well,
> depending on the image.
>
> Lens Blur Filter:
> http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_51/essay.html
> Extract Tool tutorials:
> http://www.ps6.com/Tutorials/Extract/intro.html (intro)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Tvrdvs_vw (basics)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osDYbvYtNe0 (more advanced)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SppdE4mduU (good on hair)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y13QRSIyaJA (last half)
> Tips on hair:
> http://www.graphic-design.com/Photoshop/remove_backgrounds/ (hair)
> http://photo-tutorials.net/html/Special_Effects/20070406/412.html (hair)
>
> When just blurring a background (not extracting), and not spending a lot
> of time on masking, my own tip is to avoid a hard edge, which is much
> more obvious than a bit of mask error, so when you've made a quick mask,
> Feather the edge. (Experiment for the right amount of feathering.)
>

I rather like the look of this photo, and it took no time in photoshop
faking a shallow DOF.

http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89667038

Could you do the same in Photoshop, given enough time I guess you could,
but it is so much faster to just do it with the lens.

But to each their own, for me I would much rather do it with the lens.

And my camera is not as good at this as I would like, someday I will get
a FF camera and have even more control.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:32:57 -1000, Scott W wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> The basic process is (a) masking off everything but the background and
>> (b) blurring the background. The Extract Tool is typically the best way
>> to do the masking, but other masking tools can be helpful as well,
>> depending on the image.
>>
>> Lens Blur Filter:
>> http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_51/essay.html
>> Extract Tool tutorials:
>> http://www.ps6.com/Tutorials/Extract/intro.html (intro)
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Tvrdvs_vw (basics)
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osDYbvYtNe0 (more advanced)
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SppdE4mduU (good on hair)
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y13QRSIyaJA (last half)
>> Tips on hair:
>> http://www.graphic-design.com/Photoshop/remove_backgrounds/ (hair)
>> http://photo-tutorials.net/html/Special_Effects/20070406/412.html (hair)
>>
>> When just blurring a background (not extracting), and not spending a lot
>> of time on masking, my own tip is to avoid a hard edge, which is much
>> more obvious than a bit of mask error, so when you've made a quick mask,
>> Feather the edge. (Experiment for the right amount of feathering.)
>>
>
>I rather like the look of this photo, and it took no time in photoshop
>faking a shallow DOF.
>
>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89667038
>
>Could you do the same in Photoshop, given enough time I guess you could,
>but it is so much faster to just do it with the lens.
>
>But to each their own, for me I would much rather do it with the lens.
>
>And my camera is not as good at this as I would like, someday I will get
>a FF camera and have even more control.
>
>Scott

Just learn to not overdo it as a crutch like most every newbie photographer
does. If you remove the subject from the environment too much you might as well
just do studio photography, where none of that matters because you can control
it to your heart's content with any fake backdrop.

Let us know when you acquire the talent for composing a scene and learn how to
do real photography, not a manipulated and isolated single subject in a square
of blur, anyone can do that. Doing it right requires a mind that can embrace
more than the number 1. Maybe you'll want to start on 2 items to learn
composition and then work your way up from there. You might eventually "get it".

Your level of talent has been revealed clearly, all by yourself.
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:24:37 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

>John Navas wrote:
>> The basic process is (a) masking off everything but the background and
>> (b) blurring the background. The Extract Tool is typically the best way
>> to do the masking, but other masking tools can be helpful as well,
>> depending on the image.
>>
>> Lens Blur Filter:
>> http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_51/essay.html
>> Extract Tool tutorials:
>> http://www.ps6.com/Tutorials/Extract/intro.html (intro)
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Tvrdvs_vw (basics)
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osDYbvYtNe0 (more advanced)
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SppdE4mduU (good on hair)
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y13QRSIyaJA (last half)
>> Tips on hair:
>> http://www.graphic-design.com/Photoshop/remove_backgrounds/ (hair)
>> http://photo-tutorials.net/html/Special_Effects/20070406/412.html (hair)
>>
>> When just blurring a background (not extracting), and not spending a lot
>> of time on masking, my own tip is to avoid a hard edge, which is much
>> more obvious than a bit of mask error, so when you've made a quick mask,
>> Feather the edge. (Experiment for the right amount of feathering.)
>
>Or you could use a camera that allows for a shallow DOF?

My camera allows for shallow depth of field, but since I'm human
( unlike the dSLR jockies , I sometimes have to compensate in post
processing. And I sometimes want special effects that no camera can do.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

On Nov 30, 12:42 pm, John Navas wrote:
> My camera allows for shallow depth of field
But your camera only has a sensor size of 1/2.5". Cameras with larger
sensors, even just the better prosumers that have sensors of 1/1.8"-
1/1.6", can be capable of much shallower d-o-f and a wider range of
usable apertures. (Not to mention DSLR's. Not to mention full-
frame. or medium format, or larg... oops. Sorry, I wasn't going to
mention those) A sensible purchaser considers such things.

> but since I'm human ( unlike the dSLR jockies

Now that is a *very* interesting comment from someone who continually
decries anyone who "attacks" others. You're a hypocrite, John. Which
is why *you* get attacked. You deserve it. And may I point out I'm
not (currently) a DSLR 'jockie' (sic).

> And I sometimes want special effects that no camera can do.
Your choice. Not necessarily others. Others, ie those who use more
capable cameras, may be entirely satisfied with the depth of field
range they have. They also may not particularly enjoy the photoshop
work required to get a rough facsimile of what they can instantly
achieve by simply moving the aperture ring..

A sensible purchaser buys a camera that gives the best possible
starting point for the imagery they desire. If high-level control of
d-o-f, low noise, shooting in low-light, large prints, or action
photography are important... the FZ8 would not be a particularly good
choice.
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

John Navas wrote:

> My camera allows for shallow depth of field, but since I'm human
> ( unlike the dSLR jockies , I sometimes have to compensate in post
> processing. And I sometimes want special effects that no camera can do.
>

Your camera is very limited on DOF. I shoot for a number of years with
a Sony F828, which used a 2/3 sensor and had a lens that was f/2 on the
wide angle end and f/2.8 on the tele end.

For you to even match the DOF you would need to be able to go to f/1.3
on your camera, due to the smaller sensor.

But even the F828 was very limited in what it could do with shallow DOF,
about the only way was to shoot from a distance and use the lens at the
longest.

If you can't see the limit you camera has with DOF then you really don't
under stand it very well at all.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

On 11/29/07 7:11 PM, in article 9louk31fljk1ab91bdhnfhkt1et5ime9f8.RemoveThis@4ax.com,
"John Navas" wrote:

> The basic process is (a) masking off everything but the background and
> (b) blurring the background. The Extract Tool is typically the best way
> to do the masking, but other masking tools can be helpful as well,
> depending on the image.
>
> Lens Blur Filter:
> http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_51/essay.html
> Extract Tool tutorials:
> http://www.ps6.com/Tutorials/Extract/intro.html (intro)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Tvrdvs_vw (basics)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osDYbvYtNe0 (more advanced)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SppdE4mduU (good on hair)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y13QRSIyaJA (last half)
> Tips on hair:
> http://www.graphic-design.com/Photoshop/remove_backgrounds/ (hair)
> http://photo-tutorials.net/html/Special_Effects/20070406/412.html (hair)
>
> When just blurring a background (not extracting), and not spending a lot
> of time on masking, my own tip is to avoid a hard edge, which is much
> more obvious than a bit of mask error, so when you've made a quick mask,
> Feather the edge. (Experiment for the right amount of feathering.)

Gone are the days of giving bullshit useless info about cell phones.

Now, NavAss is trying to act like he is an expert in Photoshop and
photography, because they ran his useless ass out of those groups.
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

wrote in message


>
>> but since I'm human ( unlike the dSLR jockies

Pot. Kettle. Black.

>
> Now that is a *very* interesting comment from someone who continually
> decries anyone who "attacks" others. You're a hypocrite, John. Which
> is why *you* get attacked. You deserve it. And may I point out I'm
> not (currently) a DSLR 'jockie' (sic).
>
>> And I sometimes want special effects that no camera can do.

I rest my case.

> Your choice. Not necessarily others. Others, ie those who use more
> capable cameras, may be entirely satisfied with the depth of field
> range they have. They also may not particularly enjoy the photoshop
> work required to get a rough facsimile of what they can instantly
> achieve by simply moving the aperture ring..
>
> A sensible purchaser buys a camera that gives the best possible
> starting point for the imagery they desire. If high-level control of
> d-o-f, low noise, shooting in low-light, large prints, or action
> photography are important... the FZ8 would not be a particularly good
> choice.

Now you've done it. You've insulted the Holy Order Of The Small But Just As
Good As A Big Sensor Church! Prepare to be trolled by the great and powerful
Navas!!!
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 01:11:36 GMT, John Navas wrote:

>The basic process is (a) masking off everything but the background and
>(b) blurring the background. The Extract Tool is typically the best way
>to do the masking, but other masking tools can be helpful as well,
>depending on the image.
>
>Lens Blur Filter:
>http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_51/essay.html
>Extract Tool tutorials:
>http://www.ps6.com/Tutorials/Extract/intro.html (intro)
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Tvrdvs_vw (basics)
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osDYbvYtNe0 (more advanced)
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SppdE4mduU (good on hair)
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y13QRSIyaJA (last half)
>Tips on hair:
>http://www.graphic-design.com/Photoshop/remove_backgrounds/ (hair)
>http://photo-tutorials.net/html/Special_Effects/20070406/412.html (hair)
>
>When just blurring a background (not extracting), and not spending a lot
>of time on masking, my own tip is to avoid a hard edge, which is much
>more obvious than a bit of mask error, so when you've made a quick mask,
>Feather the edge. (Experiment for the right amount of feathering.)

Actually, that's not the best way. When blurring the background you are drawing
in tones from areas that are not part of the blurred background. You need to
smudge the areas from the cut-out background into the missing areas behind the
non-blurred subjects, so when blurring the background you draw back again from
those same background tones only, instead of from your main subject that you
want isolated from those background tones. For example. Say your background is
all greens. Your subject is all reds. You isolate your subject on top, then blur
the background. The blur now draws in colors from that original red subject,
creating a blurred red-halo around your subject. making it look like a perfectly
bad edit job. It's not as simple as just making an blank area behind your
subject the same size and shape. This will cause transparencies. You can't just
fill it with grays or white, that will change the tones also. You need to
duplicate the background edge-tones internally and perpendicular to those edges
for its whole circumference in that area behind the main subject.

If you want to do it right you should look into a plugin called "Depth of Field
Generator Pro" by Richard Rosenman. His plugin has the added benefit of allowing
you to define the amount of blur in any region by using a gradient mask. This
allows you to alter the CoC depending on the background objects' distances from
the main subject. Allowing you to create nearly perfect DOF effects in
post-processing. Given enough of your own time and talent that is.

I am reminded of one of the great benefits of shooting images with extremely
deep DOF in the digital age. You can always alter the bokeh effect today in
editing, making it as realistic as if you had used a shallow DOF when first
taking that image. You can even alter the lens design causing that bokeh effect
from the one you had originally used. But you can't go back and add detail that
you blurred away on the original image. This gives you infinitely more latitude
on what you want to eventually do with any image. Why throw away that detail
until you are sure it is something that you don't need anymore. That's my new
take on the subject.
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

DoItTheRightWayOrNot wrote:

> I am reminded of one of the great benefits of shooting images with extremely
> deep DOF in the digital age. You can always alter the bokeh effect today in
> editing, making it as realistic as if you had used a shallow DOF when first
> taking that image. You can even alter the lens design causing that bokeh effect
> from the one you had originally used. But you can't go back and add detail that
> you blurred away on the original image. This gives you infinitely more latitude
> on what you want to eventually do with any image. Why throw away that detail
> until you are sure it is something that you don't need anymore. That's my new
> take on the subject.

But in a very small fraction of the time it takes you to blur the
background in Photoshop I can take two photos, one with the background
in focus and one with it blurred.

All that Photoshop work blurring seems to me to only have value if your
camera simply can't get a shallow enough DOF to blur the background.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

grant K wrote:
> ...much you might as well
> just do studio photography, where none of that matters because you can control
> it to your heart's content with any fake backdrop.

You say that like it's invariably a bad thing.

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

On Nov 30, 7:31 pm, Scott W wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:53:44 -1000, Scott W wrote
> > in :
>
> >> John Navas wrote:
>
> >>>> I am reminded of one of the great benefits of shooting images with extremely
> >>>> deep DOF in the digital age. You can always alter the bokeh effect today in
> >>>> editing, making it as realistic as if you had used a shallow DOF when first
> >>>> taking that image. You can even alter the lens design causing that bokeh effect
> >>>> from the one you had originally used. But you can't go back and add detail that
> >>>> you blurred away on the original image. This gives you infinitely more latitude
> >>>> on what you want to eventually do with any image. Why throw away that detail
> >>>> until you are sure it is something that you don't need anymore. That's my new
> >>>> take on the subject.
> >>> Well put. I agree.
> >> Well yes you would pretty have to agree, since blurring after the fact
> >> is about the only way you will get the background blurred.
>
> > [bzzzt] Ohhh ... I'm so sorry, Scott, but the correct answer was *can*
> > produce a blurred background, as images easily show. But thanks so much
> > for playing -- we do have a small consolation prize for you.
>
> Do you really think you have good control of DOF with your 1/2.5 sensor?
>
> Take the photo I posted in this thread, it was shoot at 28mm, to get the
> same field of view you would have to shoot at about 7.5mm, with me so far?
>
> Now to get the same DOF as in my shot you would need to scale the
> f/number by the same ratio of the lens focal length. Since I was
> shooting at f/2.8 you would need to shoot at f/0.75.
>
> There is simply no way for you to get that shot with your camera.
>
> Your only choice would be to back up and go to a much longer FL, but
> then you would loss much of the background and the photo would loose is
> sense of place.
>

Has it not occured to you that you're being professionally played
here? Look at the argument set up in this thread: compacts get less
DOF for the same field of view and so on. The background may be
blurred in an image editor, so a shallower DOF can be simulated. It
doesn't work the other way round, though: a large DOF can't be
obtained from a photo with a shallow DOF. Conclusion: images with
large DOF are better!

Think about it: to someone who has no practical experience with all
this, it all makes perfect sense and now you're just arguing to
argue.

It's a good tactic if you want to appear to win usenet arguments.
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

acl wrote:
> On Nov 30, 7:31 pm, Scott W wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:53:44 -1000, Scott W wrote
>>> in :
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>>> I am reminded of one of the great benefits of shooting images with extremely
>>>>>> deep DOF in the digital age. You can always alter the bokeh effect today in
>>>>>> editing, making it as realistic as if you had used a shallow DOF when first
>>>>>> taking that image. You can even alter the lens design causing that bokeh effect
>>>>>> from the one you had originally used. But you can't go back and add detail that
>>>>>> you blurred away on the original image. This gives you infinitely more latitude
>>>>>> on what you want to eventually do with any image. Why throw away that detail
>>>>>> until you are sure it is something that you don't need anymore. That's my new
>>>>>> take on the subject.
>>>>> Well put. I agree.
>>>> Well yes you would pretty have to agree, since blurring after the fact
>>>> is about the only way you will get the background blurred.
>>> [bzzzt] Ohhh ... I'm so sorry, Scott, but the correct answer was *can*
>>> produce a blurred background, as images easily show. But thanks so much
>>> for playing -- we do have a small consolation prize for you.
>> Do you really think you have good control of DOF with your 1/2.5 sensor?
>>
>> Take the photo I posted in this thread, it was shoot at 28mm, to get the
>> same field of view you would have to shoot at about 7.5mm, with me so far?
>>
>> Now to get the same DOF as in my shot you would need to scale the
>> f/number by the same ratio of the lens focal length. Since I was
>> shooting at f/2.8 you would need to shoot at f/0.75.
>>
>> There is simply no way for you to get that shot with your camera.
>>
>> Your only choice would be to back up and go to a much longer FL, but
>> then you would loss much of the background and the photo would loose is
>> sense of place.
>>
>
> Has it not occured to you that you're being professionally played
> here? Look at the argument set up in this thread: compacts get less
> DOF for the same field of view and so on. The background may be
> blurred in an image editor, so a shallower DOF can be simulated. It
> doesn't work the other way round, though: a large DOF can't be
> obtained from a photo with a shallow DOF. Conclusion: images with
> large DOF are better!
>
> Think about it: to someone who has no practical experience with all
> this, it all makes perfect sense and now you're just arguing to
> argue.
>
> It's a good tactic if you want to appear to win usenet arguments.

I think it is more of John's attitude that it is not a bug, it is a
feature. No mechanical zoom on his camera? buttons are better, can get
shallow DOF, large DOF is better.

If John owned a car that would not go over 10 mph it would not be a bad
car, it would be a safty feature.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

On Nov 30, 9:09 am, Giles McAndrew wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:53:44 -1000, Scott W
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >John Navas wrote:
>
> >>> I am reminded of one of the great benefits of shooting images with extremely
> >>> deep DOF in the digital age. You can always alter the bokeh effect today in
> >>> editing, making it as realistic as if you had used a shallow DOF when first
> >>> taking that image. You can even alter the lens design causing that bokeh effect
> >>>from the one you had originally used. But you can't go back and add detail that
> >>> you blurred away on the original image. This gives you infinitely more latitude
> >>> on what you want to eventually do with any image. Why throw away that detail
> >>> until you are sure it is something that you don't need anymore. That's my new
> >>> take on the subject.
>
> >> Well put. I agree.
>
> >Well yes you would pretty have to agree, since blurring after the fact
> >is about the only way you will get the background blurred.
>
> >Scott
>
> Huh. Really. I would have never guessed that from all the images
> I've taken with my P&S cameras.
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2361/2075747745_0b5837a79c_o.jpg
>
> I guess I shouldn't have been able to get this photo at f/4.0
> from a P&S camera. No critique wanted, it's just a snapshot of a
> friend I was visiting. Nothing special about it. The camera has
> f/2.0 available (2 full stops more) but I didn't like that much
> blur because it destroyed the scene, totally losing that
> structure in the background. Not unlike that other snapshot
> someone posted earlier. Being able to see what that background
> structure is becomes important so it wasn't just some unknown
> blur. The viewer would be drawn to it trying to figure it out
> instead of being able to vaguely recognize it and then quickly
> dismiss it to look at the subject. It's another mechanism to
> bring the viewer's eye back to the subject when they want to
> wander out of the image instead. It also places the subject in
> the proper context of the environment. As I said, I could have
> blurred the background with f/2.0 so you couldn't tell what
> anything was, but it would have ruined it so I used f/4.0
> instead. My P&S camera must be broken I guess, according to you
> and everyone just like you, just as ignorant, just as foolish,
> just as misinformed and just as outspoken as you. I'm not
> supposed to get any nice DOF field out of any P&S cameras.

I have a lot of shots like that, in fact I also used a Sony Cybershot,
a F828. And I got my shallow DOF the same way you did, shooting at
the long end of the zoom range, almost 50mm in your shot. I don't
know what model you have but at a guess that would be something like
200mm on a 35mm film camera. This works in some cases but the narrow
field of view makes it pretty limiting. Partly because you loss so
much of the background, just a bit in the frame. And partly because
in many cases you simply can't get back far enough to use such a long
FL.

Oh, as to your f/2.0, yeah my F828 will do that as well, but not at
48.5mm fl, there I would be limited to f/2.8.

So try and take a photo of a person with a FL of around 12mm.

BTW here is a shot that is just about the same as your on what might
be the same camera.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/38703029/original

Backing up works, but it is limiting in many ways.

If I backed up and shot with a longer lens on this one the effect
would have been very different.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89667038

And keep in mind John's camera has a 1/2.5 inch sensor, what size is
yours, my F828 has a 2/3 sensor.


Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth..