Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 09:21:50 +1000, "Douglas" <just RemoveThis @the.group> wrote:

>This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
>Microsoft!!!
>
>No doubt about it... Purists will fall in love with a F/1.0 lens that costs
>as much as a small car. They often cite background blur (Bokur) and
>sharpness as the reason. I might state up front that I own such a lens and
>love it!!
>
>My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
>out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much... *IF*
>you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!
>
>I put together a quick and dirty description of how to achieve this " Bokur
>effect" in Photoshop (CS3) from a P&S camera which has a very deep depth of
>field for the same field of view as a FF sensor camera.
>http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Blur.htm
>
>Disclaimer:
>I'm an owner of DSLRs and far too many expensive lenses.
>I use them professionally but I also use an FZ50 Panasonic P&S and an
>Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit
>these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water!
>
>I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
>with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S owners.
>Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
>civil responses... And pigs do fly!
>
>Enjoy,
>Douglas
>


That's bokeh , from the Japanese word boke, but then , accuracy has
never been a strongpoint.
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

On Nov 30, 1:21 pm, "Douglas" <j....RemoveThis@the.group> wrote:
> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
> Microsoft!!!
>
> No doubt about it... Purists will fall in love with a F/1.0 lens that costs
> as much as a small car. They often cite background blur (Bokur) and
> sharpness as the reason. I might state up front that I own such a lens and
> love it!!
>
> My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
> out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much... *IF*
> you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!
>
> I put together a quick and dirty description of how to achieve this " Bokur
> effect" in Photoshop (CS3) from a P&S camera which has a very deep depth of
> field for the same field of view as a FF sensor camera.http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Blur.htm
>
> Disclaimer:
> I'm an owner of DSLRs and far too many expensive lenses.
> I use them professionally but I also use an FZ50 Panasonic P&S and an
> Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit
> these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water!
>
> I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
> with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S owners.
> Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
> civil responses... And pigs do fly!
>
> Enjoy,
> Douglas

Nice job on the background blur.

But then would you really need an f/1.0 lens, I believe my 50mm f/1.8
would have worked rather well, and saved a lot of time in Photoshop,
and the 50mm f/1.8 cost less then $70.

If you happen to have that camera in hand and grabbed the shot while
the grabbing was good then I can fully understand. If you picked up
the P&S when the DSLR was sitting right there next to it, well I don't
believe even you would do that.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

On Nov 30, 6:21 pm, "Douglas" <j....DeleteThis@the.group> wrote:
>
> My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
> out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much... *IF*
> you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!

That may be your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, but of
course it is wrong.
Maybe someday you'll show us tests from a fair comparison instead of
one where the photos are taken at different exposure settings with
different post-processing.
But I ain't holding my breath.
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

On Dec 1, 3:09 pm, Annika1980 <annika1....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:

> No, clueless, FAIR is showing two images from different cameras taken
> with the same exposure settings and processed the same way. That's the
> only way you can compare equipment properly. It's called controlled
> testing ... look it up.

hmmm, I wonder if flash cards would
react well to being souped in developer....


> I'm currently working on a macro pic that'll blow your socks off.

"working"? I thought you shot everything
straight off the 40d sensor?
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

"Scott W" <biphoto.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b12388fe-0b42-4efa-b41f-72c06390b03e@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 30, 1:21 pm, "Douglas" <j....DeleteThis@the.group> wrote:
>> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
>> Microsoft!!!
>>
>> No doubt about it... Purists will fall in love with a F/1.0 lens that
>> costs
>> as much as a small car. They often cite background blur (Bokur) and
>> sharpness as the reason. I might state up front that I own such a lens
>> and
>> love it!!
>>
>> My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
>> out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much...
>> *IF*
>> you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!
>>
>> I put together a quick and dirty description of how to achieve this "
>> Bokur
>> effect" in Photoshop (CS3) from a P&S camera which has a very deep depth
>> of
>> field for the same field of view as a FF sensor
>> camera.http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Blur.htm
>>
>> Disclaimer:
>> I'm an owner of DSLRs and far too many expensive lenses.
>> I use them professionally but I also use an FZ50 Panasonic P&S and an
>> Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit
>> these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water!
>>
>> I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
>> with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S
>> owners.
>> Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
>> civil responses... And pigs do fly!
>>
>> Enjoy,
>> Douglas
>
> Nice job on the background blur.
>
> But then would you really need an f/1.0 lens, I believe my 50mm f/1.8
> would have worked rather well, and saved a lot of time in Photoshop,
> and the 50mm f/1.8 cost less then $70.
>
> If you happen to have that camera in hand and grabbed the shot while
> the grabbing was good then I can fully understand. If you picked up
> the P&S when the DSLR was sitting right there next to it, well I don't
> believe even you would do that.
>
> Scott

I did it to prove a point Scott. Someone asked in rec.photo.digital about
using Photoshop blur for backgrounds from P&S cameras. I did that shot to
demonstrate a quick and dirty proceedure to do this as well as provide a
camera blured version for comparrison. All shots were at between 200 and
300mm FL (35mm equivlant).

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

"Annika1980" <annika1980.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ec351f13-18fe-4b00-851a-510cec725a13@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 30, 6:21 pm, "Douglas" <j....DeleteThis@the.group> wrote:
>>
>> My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
>> out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much...
>> *IF*
>> you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!
>
> That may be your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, but of
> course it is wrong.
> Maybe someday you'll show us tests from a fair comparison instead of
> one where the photos are taken at different exposure settings with
> different post-processing.
> But I ain't holding my breath.
>
>

I wish you would. I'd take a lot longer to produce one.

It seems to me there is an imbalance somewhere in your perverted thought
process.

You do over all your "pics" in Photoshop before posting them. You do mine
over too but that's another story, isn't it?

I never used to bother with "dressing up" my stuff for Internet display and
you rubbished me for putting up your idea of lousy images. So now I do them
over in Photoshop so they "look" as bad as yours ...and you want to see a
"fairer" comparison?

Fair is when you take a photo in conditions beneficial to what? The P&S or
the DSLR?
Fair is when you use exposures a camera is designed for or when they benefit
one of the cameras more than the other?

True fairness is when the final photo is produced. Only then does it matter
and when they both look identical, the comparison is correct. When I showed
a Panel of photographic judges (as I have done recently) a bunch of
Panasonic prints intermixed with 20D prints, they couldn't pick which was
which. Why is it you need to see a lopsided comparison to fortify your
investment in gear you can't find a use for?

Why can you not just accept that your camera is useless underwater but an
Olympus E330 is fantastic and your camera is impossible to hand hold with
shutter speeds of 1/15th but a Panasonic FZ50 is in it's element doing that?
Please do hold your breath while I take the scenic route to pick up the
camera and get you some "fair" comparisons.

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

Douglas wrote:
> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
> Microsoft!!!
>
> No doubt about it... Purists will fall in love with a F/1.0 lens that costs
> as much as a small car. They often cite background blur (Bokur) and
> sharpness as the reason. I might state up front that I own such a lens and
> love it!!
>
> My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
> out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much... *IF*
> you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!
>
> I put together a quick and dirty description of how to achieve this " Bokur
> effect" in Photoshop (CS3) from a P&S camera which has a very deep depth of
> field for the same field of view as a FF sensor camera.
> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Blur.htm
>
> Disclaimer:
> I'm an owner of DSLRs and far too many expensive lenses.
> I use them professionally but I also use an FZ50 Panasonic P&S and an
> Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit
> these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water!
>
> I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
> with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S owners.
> Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
> civil responses... And pigs do fly!
>
> Enjoy,
> Douglas
>
>
I hate to say this Doug, but the grass under the boy's feet should be in
focus, or at least nowhere near as unsharp as you have it. It looks
very unnatural, and nothing like a wide-aperture shot from a good lens
would look like.

I keep out of trouble these days, so I am not inviting a slanging match
here, just a technical observation about that image.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

Colin_D wrote:

> I hate to say this Doug, but the grass under the boy's feet should be in
> focus, or at least nowhere near as unsharp as you have it. It looks
> very unnatural, and nothing like a wide-aperture shot from a good lens
> would look like.
>
> I keep out of trouble these days, so I am not inviting a slanging match
> here, just a technical observation about that image.
>
> Colin D.
>

That could also be taken as an advantage of the Photoshop approach over
the wide-aperture approach - more control over the defocus, instead of
simply focusing on a certain plane.

I've noticed the same thing with laminate flooring - people are so
concerned that it look realistic, meaning like wood. Yet carpet doesn't
have to look like fur, and tile doesn't have to look like stone.

All that said, I suppose often the subject is roughly planar, so
focusing on just that plane is a nice convenience.
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

"Annika1980" <annika1980 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
news:c9a0963f-de09-4973-aec0-8e5e90f40844@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 30, 9:21 pm, "Douglas" <j... DeleteThis @the.group> wrote:
>>
>> Fair is when you take a photo in conditions beneficial to what? The P&S
>> or
>> the DSLR?
>> Fair is when you use exposures a camera is designed for or when they
>> benefit
>> one of the cameras more than the other?
>
> No, clueless, FAIR is showing two images from different cameras taken
> with the same exposure settings and processed the same way. That's the
> only way you can compare equipment properly. It's called controlled
> testing ... look it up.
>
>>
>> True fairness is when the final photo is produced. Only then does it
>> matter
>> and when they both look identical, the comparison is correct.
>

I don't know, Brett. I have seen a few examples of both your stuff and
Douglas stuff is better than yours though yours is funny sometimes (in an
odd way).
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

"Colin_D" <nospam DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4750bb9c$0$25995$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Douglas wrote:
>> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
>> Microsoft!!!
>>
>> No doubt about it... Purists will fall in love with a F/1.0 lens that
>> costs as much as a small car. They often cite background blur (Bokur) and
>> sharpness as the reason. I might state up front that I own such a lens
>> and love it!!
>>
>> My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
>> out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much...
>> *IF* you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!
>>
>> I put together a quick and dirty description of how to achieve this "
>> Bokur effect" in Photoshop (CS3) from a P&S camera which has a very deep
>> depth of field for the same field of view as a FF sensor camera.
>> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Blur.htm
>>
>> Disclaimer:
>> I'm an owner of DSLRs and far too many expensive lenses.
>> I use them professionally but I also use an FZ50 Panasonic P&S and an
>> Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit
>> these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water!
>>
>> I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
>> with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S
>> owners. Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will
>> lead to civil responses... And pigs do fly!
>>
>> Enjoy,
>> Douglas
> I hate to say this Doug, but the grass under the boy's feet should be in
> focus, or at least nowhere near as unsharp as you have it. It looks very
> unnatural, and nothing like a wide-aperture shot from a good lens would
> look like.
>
> I keep out of trouble these days, so I am not inviting a slanging match
> here, just a technical observation about that image.
>
> Colin D.
>
> --
You're welcome Colin. You and I both know the obvious, which is the reason
for the exercise in the first place... To show the difference between PS and
lens blur. I might point out that had I taken more time and used a gradient
mask on the background, you wouldn't have been able to pick it. But then
it's not a contest to see who is the best PS worker but an exercise in what
can be done quickly with the blur tool.

I rather liked the "motion blur" I did first (not published) which made the
boy look a little too "superboy" LOL! Good to see you are still around
Colin. Post some of your pics sometime, don't worry about what the clowns
have to say. Real people are needed here more than ever.

Douglas
Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

Douglas wrote:
> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
> Microsoft!!!

Yes, you newsreader (Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138) does.
Learn how to use it! Look at the third line of the compose message
header! "Follow-up to".

David
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
wrote in message news:Hz74j.55900$c_1.20663@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Douglas wrote:
>> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
>> Microsoft!!!
>
> Yes, you newsreader (Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138) does. Learn
> how to use it! Look at the third line of the compose message header!
> "Follow-up to".
>
> David
>

Indeed it does.
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

Pete D wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:Hz74j.55900$c_1.20663@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Douglas wrote:
>>> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group!
>>> Bloody Microsoft!!!
>>
>> Yes, you newsreader (Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138) does.
>> Learn how to use it! Look at the third line of the compose message
>> header! "Follow-up to".
>>
>> David
>>
>
> Indeed it does.

I find it difficult to raise enthusiasm for reading the rest of Douglas's
post when it starts with (a) a slagging off (b) based on the inability to
use a tool correctly (c) due to lack of knowledge or experience. But am
glad that a discussion ensued.

I'm from a slide-photography background - get it right in the camera - and
I rarely do post-processing, so my preference would normally be for a lens
blur over a software one. But I can appreciate that selective software
blur could be useful at times.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses