Re: Using Photoshop to blur the background (like shallow depth of field)

On Nov 30, 9:09 am, Giles McAndrew <gmcandrew...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:53:44 -1000, Scott W <biph...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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

.

Relevant Pages