Welcome to DigiForumz.com!
FAQFAQ   SearchSearch      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in

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

 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
   Digital Camera Community (Home) -> Software RSS
Related Topics:
colour background workfield Paint Shop Pro XI - How can i change the colour of the of the workfield of Paint Shop Pro XI? Now it's darkgrey but i prefer to see my pictures on a black Thanks

Macro photography: software for extreme depth of field? - One of the big issues with macro is the narrow depth of field. Is there any software that will take a stack of images, each at a slightly different focal point and extract the sharpest areas and assemble one image with greater depth of field?..

preventing "auto focus" (automatically comming to the fore.. - Hi, I recently installed CS2 on my computer and overall it has been quite nice but there is one thing that is really bugging me. When i have multiple photos open photos come to the when my mouse passes over them. I have been trying to figure..

Photoshop CS2 and RAM? - Hi, I'm thinking of buying CS2 (I have PS6). I'm concerned about RAM I have a 2.4GHz P4 with 512Mb RAM. I suspect a memory upgrade may be tricky due to the age of the PC. Is anyone out there running CS2 on a similar spec machine? Also is..

Using Photoshop To Get The Best Out Of RAW Images - I have quite a few RAW images on my PC, however I haven't learnt how to get the best out of them when them yet. Any on good Photoshop books (focusing more on the side of things) for learning how to mainly get the..
Next:  Photo editing software recomendation  
Author Message
Kevin Weaver

External


Since: Nov 30, 2007
Posts: 6



(Msg. 46) Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth of field) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>photo>digital (more info?)

"John Navas" <spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:6dt0l35cnb7katib5llrg1ndf3ggd728tm@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 04:44:58 -1000, Scott W <biphoto RemoveThis @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 Smile, 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. Smile
>
>>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. Smile
>
>>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.

Now I've seen it all.

> 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. Smile
>
> --
> 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.. 
Back to top
Login to vote
SMS 斯蒂文&bull; 夏

External


Since: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 209



(Msg. 47) Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:23 pm
Post subject: Re: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth of [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Kevin Weaver wrote:

>> Always the insult, when your argument sputters out.
>
> Now I've seen it all.

In the alt.cellular groups, his continuous content-free responses,
usually consisting of a single line that indicated he had lost the
debate, was enough to convince everyone that he had no idea what he was
talking about. Virtually everyone kill-filed him, and once he no longer
got the reaction he was looking for he eventually gave up. He now only
posts a weekly FAQs about why a specific Motorola charger takes too long
to charge some phones--bizarre but harmless (and ironically he didn't
even get that one right!).

There were several posters that had collections of his content-free
responses and what his responses actually meant (I can't claim credit
for these, but they're still good)

Asked and answered (when he didn't answer)

Do keep up (when he can't follow the thread)

False (when it's true)

Good Scramble (when you expand on a previous post that he pretends
not to understand)

Google is your friend (when he doesn't have an answer)

Grow up (when he's acting like a second grader)

Grow up and get a life (when he's acting like a second grader _and_
when he needs to get a life)

You're just speculating (you have first hand knowledge that has
proven him wrong)

How sad (when he's sad that you've proved him wrong)

I rest my case (when he's lost the debate and given up)

I'm not going to waste any more time on this (when he's lost the
debate and doesn't want to dig himself in any deeper)

I've got to assume you're just being argumentative (when you've
repeatedly shown that he's wrong)

Nonsense (you've accurately explained your position and he can't
come up with any thing you wrote that was wrong)

Nope (Yep)

Not True (True)

Pity

Pot, Kettle, Black (when you've chided him for his misbehavior)

Rubbish (when what' you've posted is true beyond debate)

Thanks for proving my point (when you haven't proven his point)

We'll just have to agree to disagree (when he's lost the debate and
given up)

Always the insult, when your argument sputters out (my argument's
sputtered out so I better accuse you of insulting me so others will feel
sorry for me)

Wrong again (when you're right again)

Wrong on all counts (when you're right on all counts)

You've described yourself quite well (when you've chided him for his
childish behavior)


Always followed by "Best Regards" of course.

 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 
Back to top
Login to vote
karl griffon

External


Since: Nov 30, 2007
Posts: 1



(Msg. 48) Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:23 pm
Post subject: Re: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth of field) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

And this resident-troll's reply is all about digital photography ... how?

Look! Up in its sky, it's a turd, it's mundane, no, it's SUPER TROLL! Able to
leap to huge conclusions in a single bound. Able to steer the strongest topic to
attention for itself and into endless off-topic bickering. Able to ...

You get the drift.

A <yawn>

and a ...

<PLONK>



On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:11:44 -0800, SMS ??? ? <scharf.steven.TakeThisOut@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Kevin Weaver wrote:
>
>>> Always the insult, when your argument sputters out.
>>
>> Now I've seen it all.
>
>In the alt.cellular groups, his continuous content-free responses,
>usually consisting of a single line that indicated he had lost the
>debate, was enough to convince everyone that he had no idea what he was
>talking about. Virtually everyone kill-filed him, and once he no longer
>got the reaction he was looking for he eventually gave up. He now only
>posts a weekly FAQs about why a specific Motorola charger takes too long
>to charge some phones--bizarre but harmless (and ironically he didn't
>even get that one right!).
>
>There were several posters that had collections of his content-free
>responses and what his responses actually meant (I can't claim credit
>for these, but they're still good)
>
> Asked and answered (when he didn't answer)
>
> Do keep up (when he can't follow the thread)
>
> False (when it's true)
>
> Good Scramble (when you expand on a previous post that he pretends
>not to understand)
>
> Google is your friend (when he doesn't have an answer)
>
> Grow up (when he's acting like a second grader)
>
> Grow up and get a life (when he's acting like a second grader _and_
>when he needs to get a life)
>
> You're just speculating (you have first hand knowledge that has
>proven him wrong)
>
> How sad (when he's sad that you've proved him wrong)
>
> I rest my case (when he's lost the debate and given up)
>
> I'm not going to waste any more time on this (when he's lost the
>debate and doesn't want to dig himself in any deeper)
>
> I've got to assume you're just being argumentative (when you've
>repeatedly shown that he's wrong)
>
> Nonsense (you've accurately explained your position and he can't
>come up with any thing you wrote that was wrong)
>
> Nope (Yep)
>
> Not True (True)
>
> Pity
>
> Pot, Kettle, Black (when you've chided him for his misbehavior)
>
> Rubbish (when what' you've posted is true beyond debate)
>
> Thanks for proving my point (when you haven't proven his point)
>
> We'll just have to agree to disagree (when he's lost the debate and
>given up)
>
> Always the insult, when your argument sputters out (my argument's
>sputtered out so I better accuse you of insulting me so others will feel
>sorry for me)
>
> Wrong again (when you're right again)
>
> Wrong on all counts (when you're right on all counts)
>
> You've described yourself quite well (when you've chided him for his
>childish behavior)
>
>
>Always followed by "Best Regards" of course.
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 
Back to top
Login to vote
Kevin Weaver

External


Since: Nov 30, 2007
Posts: 6



(Msg. 49) Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:23 pm
Post subject: Re: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth of field) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"SMS 斯蒂文• 夏" <scharf.steven.TakeThisOut@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4750983a$0$84188$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Kevin Weaver wrote:
>
>>> Always the insult, when your argument sputters out.
>>
>> Now I've seen it all.
>
> In the alt.cellular groups, his continuous content-free responses, usually
> consisting of a single line that indicated he had lost the debate, was
> enough to convince everyone that he had no idea what he was talking about.
> Virtually everyone kill-filed him, and once he no longer got the reaction
> he was looking for he eventually gave up. He now only posts a weekly FAQs
> about why a specific Motorola charger takes too long to charge some
> phones--bizarre but harmless (and ironically he didn't even get that one
> right!).
>
> There were several posters that had collections of his content-free
> responses and what his responses actually meant (I can't claim credit for
> these, but they're still good)
>
> Asked and answered (when he didn't answer)
>
> Do keep up (when he can't follow the thread)
>
> False (when it's true)
>
> Good Scramble (when you expand on a previous post that he pretends not
> to understand)
>
> Google is your friend (when he doesn't have an answer)
>
> Grow up (when he's acting like a second grader)
>
> Grow up and get a life (when he's acting like a second grader _and_
> when he needs to get a life)
>
> You're just speculating (you have first hand knowledge that has proven
> him wrong)
>
> How sad (when he's sad that you've proved him wrong)
>
> I rest my case (when he's lost the debate and given up)
>
> I'm not going to waste any more time on this (when he's lost the debate
> and doesn't want to dig himself in any deeper)
>
> I've got to assume you're just being argumentative (when you've
> repeatedly shown that he's wrong)
>
> Nonsense (you've accurately explained your position and he can't come
> up with any thing you wrote that was wrong)
>
> Nope (Yep)
>
> Not True (True)
>
> Pity
>
> Pot, Kettle, Black (when you've chided him for his misbehavior)
>
> Rubbish (when what' you've posted is true beyond debate)
>
> Thanks for proving my point (when you haven't proven his point)
>
> We'll just have to agree to disagree (when he's lost the debate and
> given up)
>
> Always the insult, when your argument sputters out (my argument's
> sputtered out so I better accuse you of insulting me so others will feel
> sorry for me)
>
> Wrong again (when you're right again)
>
> Wrong on all counts (when you're right on all counts)
>
> You've described yourself quite well (when you've chided him for his
> childish behavior)
>
>
> Always followed by "Best Regards" of course.

Oh so true.
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 
Back to top
Login to vote
John Navas

External


Since: Nov 04, 2007
Posts: 1328



(Msg. 50) Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth of field) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:34:15 -0500, Rita Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04
@aol.com> wrote in <13l143bhk88pcd9 DeleteThis @news.supernews.com>:

>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.

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.

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

External


Since: Apr 16, 2006
Posts: 1035



(Msg. 51) Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth of field) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Back to top
Login to vote
John Navas

External


Since: Nov 04, 2007
Posts: 1328



(Msg. 52) Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:27 pm
Post subject: Re: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth of field) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:06:56 -0800, nospam <nospam.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <301120071506566621%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <u6v0l3prtk2nikc8qo06plll3pu7qt0k3s.RemoveThis@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> I did. My camera gives me the depth of field I want, which is all that
>> matters to me. Smile
>
>and having more of it matters to others. different strokes for
>different folks.

Of course.

>> 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.

That's a ridiculous claim.

>> 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?

I don't do that.

>some people *want* the additional capabilities of a dslr. if you
>don't, that's fine.

Some people keep trying to claim their choices are better. They're not.
They're just *different*.

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

External


Since: Nov 04, 2007
Posts: 1328



(Msg. 53) Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth of field) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:06:00 -0500, Rita Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04
@aol.com> wrote in <13l15tgide74v4a.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.

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

External


Since: May 09, 2007
Posts: 380



(Msg. 54) Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth of [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On 11/30/07 5:31 PM, in article 0871l3te0qup6rr7c5f2g3t4lust3bt4f0.DeleteThis@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamfilter1.DeleteThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:06:00 -0500, Rita Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04
> @aol.com> wrote in <13l15tgide74v4a.DeleteThis@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.
>
> Most of the serious 35 mm portrait photographers I know would disagree.
Zero by any other name = 0

You really ARE the Perfect Idiot, ya know?!?
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 
Back to top
Login to vote
Scott W

External


Since: Apr 16, 2007
Posts: 394



(Msg. 55) Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:41 pm
Post subject: Re: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth of [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

John Navas wrote:
> 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. Smile
>> 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?
>

Your whole thing the last few days is that a P&S is just as good as a
DSLR. No one has said that a P&S is all bad, most of us use them from
time to time. But when we point out that there are areas where a DSLR
is far better you just can't seem to accept it. First you tell me that
you are not limited in using shallow DOF, and when I give examples where
you are then you are a bit vague but it sounds like you are trying to
say you don't find a need for shallow DOF, in which case why oh why
would you go through all the work to blur the background.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 
Back to top
Login to vote
mark.thomas.7

External


Since: May 06, 2006
Posts: 285



(Msg. 56) Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:42 pm
Post subject: Re: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth of [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Dec 1, 7:22 am, John Navas <spamfilt....TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:51:42 -0800 (PST), mark.thoma....TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote
> 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.
So it's ok for you, but no-one else. We agree on that aspect of your
approach, anyway.

> >> 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.

SUPERB example of your problem. Just re-read that last section
carefully, and identify exactly where I made a 'value judgement' for
you. That's how your mind works - *everything* is about you.

> >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.
Which is EXACTLY what I said. Yet to you, I was making value
judgements for you. You're not the centre of the universe... Sorry
to be the one that informs you.

> >A sensible purchaser buys a camera that gives the best possible
> >starting point for the imagery they desire.
>
> We agree on that at least. Smile But...

Why the but? Familiar....


> >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
*YOU* disagree. Stop speaking for others.

> since my FZ8 gives me:
> * the depth of field I want
...despite having less d-o-f than other cameras in it's category, and
*much* less than a basic DSLR..

> * sufficiently low noise for my purposes, even in darkness
... it is very well-known as one of the noisiest sensors out there, and
one of the worst processing engines. Show me any recognised review,
and I'll point out the relevant text.

> * excellent large prints, even without stitching
... it begins to show noticeable problems at 11 x 14 or larger for any
image containing fine detail.
If you use your methodology (stand back until it looks sharp, only use
non-detailed images), a bad phone-cam will do good large images,
too...

> * outstanding action photography, a main reason I chose it
For a start, that button zoom of yours takes 2.6 seconds to go from
wide to tele. Then the shutter lag inc. af takes about 0.7 seconds
(and that's in high-speed af mode). Over half a second. Yep, great
for action.

Would be purchasers might like to compare those numbers with a DSLR
and a manual zoom ring..
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 
Back to top
Login to vote
mark.thomas.7

External


Since: May 06, 2006
Posts: 285



(Msg. 57) Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:44 pm
Post subject: Re: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth of [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Dec 1, 9:27 am, John Navas <spamfilt....TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Some people keep trying to claim their choices are better. They're not.
> They're just *different*.

That is perhaps the stupidest utterance I have heard from you so far,
John.

Hoist by your own petard.
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 
Back to top
Login to vote
John Navas

External


Since: Nov 04, 2007
Posts: 1328



(Msg. 58) Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth of field) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:11:44 -0800, SMS ??? ?
<scharf.steven RemoveThis @geemail.com> wrote in
<4750983a$0$84188$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>In the alt.cellular groups, [FICTION SNIPPED]

FACT: Steven has a longstanding grudge against GSM in general and
Cingular/AT&T in particular (simply because of poor coverage at his
wife's workplace), and has been spending a great deal of time trolling
and disrupting the Cingular newsgroup I created, attacking the company
and technology with posts that are wildly wrong, sometimes out of spite,
but often just out of ignorance. He's added me to his hate list because
I so often shown him to be badly misinformed or simply dead wrong, just
as he is here. Very sad, very unfortunate.

Now back to digital photography.

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

External


Since: Nov 30, 2007
Posts: 6



(Msg. 59) Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth of field) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"John Navas" <spamfilter1.TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:rp71l3d5oq4sk29o740r8320fa3nlurd9g@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:11:44 -0800, SMS ???. ?
> <scharf.steven.TakeThisOut@geemail.com> wrote in
> <4750983a$0$84188$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>In the alt.cellular groups, [FICTION SNIPPED]

Truth hurts.

> FACT: Steven has a longstanding grudge against GSM in general and
> Cingular/AT&T in particular (simply because of poor coverage at his
> wife's workplace), and has been spending a great deal of time trolling
> and disrupting the Cingular newsgroup I created, attacking the company
> and technology with posts that are wildly wrong, sometimes out of spite,
> but often just out of ignorance. He's added me to his hate list because
> I so often shown him to be badly misinformed or simply dead wrong, just
> as he is here. Very sad, very unfortunate.

You created ? hahahahahaha Too funny.
How can a phone that does not work in an area he clams does not work be his
ignorance ?
Sounds like a Cingular problem to me.

Extended GSM : )

> Now back to digital photography.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas
> Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 
Back to top
Login to vote
Giles McAndrew

External


Since: Nov 30, 2007
Posts: 4



(Msg. 60) Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:13 am
Post subject: Re: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth of field) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:47:13 -0800 (PST), Scott W <biphoto.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>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.

It's only limiting to someone that doesn't realize the only difference is
subject to camera distance. You're of the interment-mindset that if you just sit
in one spot that you can bring all the world to you. This is why people like you
miss so many good photos.


> 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.

How do you know that any other background was important in that image? (for the
record it was not, not at all) I could say the same that you aren't able to
isolate your subject from a busy background as easily because you have to get
closer with a wider-angle to achieve the same effect. Subject vs. background is
relative to the subject and the scene at the time and has absolutely no bearing
on the functionality of any lens design nor sensor size. Just some more of the
usual red-herring bullshit that you netizens are so proud of perpetuating
ad-nauseam.

Can't back up enough? Then use a larger aperture with shorter f.l. I'll use
f/2.0, that's plenty close enough to f/1.8 or even f/1.4 in the right hands of
someone that knows what they are doing.

>
>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.

Then you shouldn't have bought that camera. At full zoom on mine it's f/2.4.

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

No problem. I use an excellent wide-angle adapter for that camera that not only
rivals but beats a $2,200 Nikkor.

>
>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

So? It's still a piss poor photo no matter how close or far you would have been
or how shallow the DOF.

>
>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.
>

This is why I specifically bought a camera with a 1/2.5" sensor this year. For
its capabilities that a larger 2/3" sensor could not do, deeper DOF. My range of
photography-needs demanded it. Perhaps his needs do too.

You can't make a case for larger sensor when I know photography, I know what I'm
doing, and I know the capabilities of all of those things. I WANTED a smaller
sensor this year to achieve what a 2/3" sensor could not, and which no DSLR on
earth could even come close to accomplishing.

But then you'll never figure this out. Outside of a few "snapshots" that you do
you have no idea of the vast range of capabilities needed by someone that is
actually a photographer.

Enjoy your armchair-photographer & snapshot experience. I'd rather choose
cameras based on real photography needs rather than some ignorance being
parroted by fools on the internet.
 >> Stay informed about: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth.. 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
   Digital Camera Community (Home) -> Software All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 4 of 5

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]