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

Just chomping on troll bait...

On Dec 1, 5:09 am, Giles McAndrew <gmcandrew... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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

Hi, "Giles". I see you are new to the group, and are posting from
easynews with Forte Agent.... (O:

Strange how you would pick a shot lit by strong sunlight... It's
always best to avoid questions like what would the result have been in
lower light levels. A hack amateur would ignore such issues. By the
way, nice shot... But I see you had to go back three years to find
something... (O:

So...
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 (even a name changing
gutless troll) can do that in bright sunlight. Yes, "Giles", trolls
manage to convince themselves of anything, no matter how wrong they
might be.

(Is there an echo in here?)
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

On Nov 30, 10:28 am, John Navas <spamfilt....RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:03:48 -1000, Scott W <biph....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote
> in <47505e96$0$2337$4c368...@roadrunner.com>:
>
> >John Navas wrote:
>
> >> To people who lack your level of perfection it's very useful tool, no
> >> matter what the camera.
>
> >Sure it can be a useful tool. The difference between us is that if I
> >need to use it I have no one to blame but myself, if you have to use it
> >you can blame your camera.
>
> Nothing of the sort. You're beating a dead horse.
>
> >So tell me this how long does it take you to blur the background on a
> >portrait?
>
> Depends on the quality of the image and how good it is, but usually less
> than an hour, including whatever other manipulations I might make.
>

Ok, I have done background blurring in the past and it took me a fair
bit of time as well,it just seems to be that if I can spend 5 more
seonds and get a shot with the background already blurred it is going
to same me a lot of time.

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

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:14:37 -0800 (PST), mark.thomas.7 RemoveThis @gmail.com
wrote:

>Just chomping on troll bait...
>
>On Dec 1, 5:09 am, Giles McAndrew <gmcandrew... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 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
>
>Hi, "Giles". I see you are new to the group, and are posting from
>easynews with Forte Agent.... (O:
>

Easynews? Your intellect has been clearly revealed. You don't
even know how to read headers properly. What's that saying,
something about better to remain silent than remove all doubt?
Doubt gone. What's your next trick?

>Strange how you would pick a shot lit by strong sunlight... It's
>always best to avoid questions like what would the result have been in
>lower light levels.

The answer to that is obvious. Only someone that doesn't know
anything about photography and cameras would have bothered to
waste time posing the question. But then that's also obvious by
the "strong sunlight" comment. Trying to get shallow DOF in
strong sunlight is a worse-case scenario for any camera. I
daresay the subject that I posted is the most challenging light
of all out of all those examples posted to show DOF effects.

> A hack amateur would ignore such issues. By the
>way, nice shot... But I see you had to go back three years to find
>something... (O:

I rarely take images of people. Come to think of it I've not
taken any images of people since then. Your point is, what? That
you don't have one? Again, obvious.


I have better things to do than entertain manipulative and
immature trolls. Try someone else.
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

On Nov 30, 12:34 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> > Well yes you would pretty have to agree, since blurring after the fact
> > is about the only way you will get the background blurred.
>
> That's why people spend up to $3,600 for the world famous 58mm f/1.2 Noct
> Nikkor. If everyone wanted Bret's and John's version of bokeh we would all
> be using keygens for fixing a pirated copy of CS3.
>
> Rita

of the shutter button to get, John would be working on his for quite a
while.

And while we are talking about the 58mm f/1.2 Noct, seems to me that
lens is pretty bad wide open, care to shoot a few distance lights at f/
1.2 so we can see just how good it is. It is the stuff off to the
edge of the frame that get pretty bad, if I am remembering right.

Scott


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

On Nov 30, 1:05 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> >> That's why people spend up to $3,600 for the world famous 58mm f/1.2
> >> Noct Nikkor. If everyone wanted Bret's and John's version of bokeh
> >> we would all be using keygens for fixing a pirated copy of CS3.
>
> > of the shutter button to get, John would be working on his for quite a
> > while.
>
> > And while we are talking about the 58mm f/1.2 Noct, seems to me that
> > lens is pretty bad wide open, care to shoot a few distance lights at
> > f/
> > 1.2 so we can see just how good it is. It is the stuff off to the
> > edge of the frame that get pretty bad, if I am remembering right.
>
> No, you're not remembering correctly. It's not as bad as you are trying to
> make it. The Noct has its own signature bokeh. Can't take any more Noct
> shots as I sold it a while back.
>
> Rita

So post one of your old ones taken wide open, I seem to remember
seeing a few in the past.

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

On Nov 30, 1:45 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> > So post one of your old ones taken wide open, I seem to remember
> > seeing a few in the past.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/warbler.htm
>
> Rita

Thanks,

Well it does not look bad there, either I was remembering a different
lens, or it shows up more with point light sources.

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

On Nov 30, 1:31 pm, John Navas <spamfilt... RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:06:00 -0500, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04
> @aol.com> wrote in <13l15tgide74... RemoveThis @news.supernews.com>:
>
> >John Navas wrote:
>
> >>> That's why people spend up to $3,600 for the world famous 58mm f/1.2
> >>> Noct Nikkor. If everyone wanted Bret's and John's version of bokeh
> >>> we would all be using keygens for fixing a pirated copy of CS3.
>
> >> Most serious 35 mm portrait photographers I know prefer a much longer
> >> focal length designed for the task like the 105 mm f/2.0 DC or Nikkor
> >> f/2.0 135 mm DC. Some prefer even longer focal length like the Nikkor
> >> 180 mm f/2.8 ED.
>
> >Not on APS-C sensors.
>
> Hello! I'm talking 35 mm equivalent! Sheesh.
>
> >Even the 84/1.4 Nikkor can be a bit long. The D3
> >will change this, of course. The 58/1.2 is a perfect match for APS-C.
>
> Most of the serious 35 mm portrait photographers I know would disagree.
>

And how many of these "serious 35 mm portrait photographers" that you
know would be shooting wtih a P&S? And how many would be using
Photoshop to blur the background?

And for the record a 58mm lens on an APS camera is the same has having
a 92mm on a 35mm camera, not a bad length at all for a portrait.

Now if you are using a P&S with a really small sensor then 92mm in
35mm equivalent might not be long enough to limit the FOV enough, but
don't put the limits of your camera on others.

Scott

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

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:03:05 -0600, DoItTheRightWayOrNot
<cal971616.TakeThisOut@mailinator.com> wrote in
<2c80l3p8idltle84iruim0s181gqadq741.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>:

>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 01:11:36 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter1.TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>Lens Blur Filter:
>>http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_51/essay.html

>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.

I'm guessing you're thinking of the older Gaussian Blur filter, not the
newer Lens Blur filter. While the Gaussian Blur filter does exhibit the
problem you describe, the Lens Blur filter is much more sophisticated,
described in the first reference I posted.

>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.

Likewise the Lens Blur filter.

>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.

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

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

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:53:44 -1000, Scott W <biphoto DeleteThis @hotmail.com>
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.

By the way, you have to know how the human mind works to use
bokeh to your advantage. Otherwise its just a beginner's cheap
gimmick because they don't know what they are doing. Too much
blur and you may distract your viewer from the subject drawing
their eye away from the subject. Too little blur and your subject
is competing with the background. You have to know how to balance
it properly. Those who go on and on about how shallow of a DOF
they can get quickly reveal that they don't know first thing
about photography. It seems to be an extremely juvenile and
novice fad of late just to prove that their cameras must be
better somehow. People manage to convince themselves of anything,
no matter how wrong they might be.
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:09:44 -0600, Giles McAndrew <gmcandrew103.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:53:44 -1000, Scott W <biphoto.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com>
>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.
>
>By the way, you have to know how the human mind works to use
>bokeh to your advantage. Otherwise its just a beginner's cheap
>gimmick because they don't know what they are doing. Too much
>blur and you may distract your viewer from the subject drawing
>their eye away from the subject. Too little blur and your subject
>is competing with the background. You have to know how to balance
>it properly. Those who go on and on about how shallow of a DOF
>they can get quickly reveal that they don't know first thing
>about photography. It seems to be an extremely juvenile and
>novice fad of late just to prove that their cameras must be
>better somehow. People manage to convince themselves of anything,
>no matter how wrong they might be.
>

I forgot to mention. That's a full-frame just downsized for posting. Just a
slight crop after a small rotation for minor leveling is all.
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:53:44 -1000, Scott W <biphoto.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote
in <47504e2a$0$2391$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:

>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.

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