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

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:01:30 -1000, Scott W <biphoto RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote
in <47504ffc$0$2308$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:

>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.

Except you may not, and then the moment is lost forever.
Other than tripod still life, no two shots are *ever* the same.

>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.

To people who lack your level of perfection it's very useful tool, no
matter what the camera.

--
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:

> 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.

So tell me this how long does it take you to blur the background on a
portrait?

Scott
 >> 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 11/30/07 5:45 PM, in article 13l189qmrhndmc6 DeleteThis @news.supernews.com, "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
THAT has to be one of the most truly magnificent works that I have ever seen
on Usenet!

What marvelous composition, color, camera angle, close-up and cutting is
exhibited here in this exquisite demonstration of pure ART. (only 3 of the
*real* 5c's are used here-the rest are cheap subs).

Thank you "Rita".

Thank you for enlightening the unwashed masses like myself and countless
others in this vast wasteland of rank amateurs.

I'm SURE that "Helen" will also thank you as well. That is - If "she" comes
back from a long absence for some reason that is unexplained.

Your dedicated admirer,

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

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:13:44 -1000, Scott W <biphoto.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote
in <475060ea$0$2337$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:

>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.

'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:07:26 -0800 (PST), Scott W <biphoto.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com>
wrote in
<22516cec-007c-4635-8e61-b76cec65aecb.TakeThisOut@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:

>On Nov 30, 10:03 am, John Navas <spamfilt....TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:13:44 -1000, Scott W <biph....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote
>> in <475060ea$0$2337$4c368...@roadrunner.com>:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
>> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
>
>I have presented my evidence, where is yours?

We both have. You just disrespect my evidence. So be it. I'm tired of
the endless and pointless argument.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> 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 13:09:44 -0600, Giles McAndrew
<gmcandrew103 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in
<dmm0l3tj0njmas5ple2rcu1u3ae1ks6pko RemoveThis @4ax.com>:

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

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.

Very well put. I agree completely.
What matters is the image, not special effects.

I'm reminded of a friend who bought a Cokin filter system years ago.
For quite a while afterwards all his shots were much more a matter of
showing off his filters than getting good images, a kid with a new toy.
Eventually he tired of the special effects, mostly stopped using the
filters, and started getting good images again.

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

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:03:48 -1000, Scott W <biphoto.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote
in <47505e96$0$2337$4c368faf@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.

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

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:31:04 -1000, Scott W <biphoto RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote
in <475056ea$0$2327$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:

>John Navas wrote:

>> [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?

What I think is that I have the depth of field control I need. In fact
I know it.

>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?

Sorry, but I really don't care about your taste in images -- I care
about my taste in images.

>There is simply no way for you to get that shot with your camera.

I don't want your shot.

>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.

That you like your own shot is OK with me even though I think my shot
would have been as good or better, to my taste at least. Can we just
leave it at that, or will you again feel the need to insult me simply
because I disagree with you?

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

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 04:44:58 -1000, Scott W <biphoto.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote
in <475021ef$0$9607$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:

>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.

It's not limiting to me, which is all that matters to me.

>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.

I don't want to match your depth of field.
What I have is enough for my needs.

>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.

Always the insult, when your argument sputters out.

You're like a sports car owner bragging how his car can do 180 MPH even
though it takes you just as long to drive to work as it does me. Just
like depth of field, what matters is not how fast your car can go, but
how fast you need it to go.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:51:42 -0800 (PST), mark.thomas.7 DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote
in <7d68cc8e-0326-42e3-a210-c95d8c7699be DeleteThis @i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:

>On Nov 30, 12:42 pm, John Navas <spamfilt... DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> 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.

I did. My camera gives me the depth of field I want, which is all that
matters to me.

>> 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).

That was actually meant to be light -- hence the smiley -- and "jockey"
is anything but an insulting term. You're trying to twist what I said
into something negative, but it just doesn't wash. Sorry.

>> And I sometimes want special effects that no camera can do.

>Your choice. Not necessarily others.

Indeed, and they should choose accordingly.

>Others, ie those who use more
>capable cameras, may be entirely satisfied with the depth of field
>range they have.

In terms of my needs my camera is actually "more capable" -- don't
presume to make value judgements for me.

>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..

Then they should choose according to their needs, just as I do.

>A sensible purchaser buys a camera that gives the best possible
>starting point for the imagery they desire.

We agree on that at least. But...

>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.

we disagree on all this, since my FZ8 gives me:
* the depth of field I want
* sufficiently low noise for my purposes, even in darkness
* excellent large prints, even without stitching
* outstanding action photography, a main reason I chose it

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

In article <u6v0l3prtk2nikc8qo06plll3pu7qt0k3s.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1.DeleteThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> I did. My camera gives me the depth of field I want, which is all that
> matters to me.

and having more of it matters to others. different strokes for
different folks.

> >> 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).
>
> That was actually meant to be light -- hence the smiley -- and "jockey"
> is anything but an insulting term. You're trying to twist what I said
> into something negative, but it just doesn't wash. Sorry.

if calling cameras 'point and shoot' is pejorative, a term commonly
used by many, including those who buy the cameras as well as the
manufacturers themselves, then 'dslr jockie' is also pejorative. you
can't have it both ways.

> >Others, ie those who use more
> >capable cameras, may be entirely satisfied with the depth of field
> >range they have.
>
> In terms of my needs my camera is actually "more capable" -- don't
> presume to make value judgements for me.

but it's ok for you to do the same to others?

some people *want* the additional capabilities of a dslr. if you
don't, that's fine.
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth..