Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Post Processing
Using Photoshop to simulate narrow depth of field
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="STM" data-source="post: 559483" data-attributes="member: 12827"><p>You can go that way certainly but here is the problem you will run into if you use a lot of blur. When you just make a duplicate layer and blur it, be it with the standard blur, or box blur or Gaussian blur, it blurs EVERYTHING. If you do a lot of blurring you will get a 'halo" around the subject. By using a channel mask, everything that is black will not be blurred. That way there is no cleanup. It sounds like a lot of work but if it takes you 10 minutes to do, 8 of it should be spent on your selection, the other 2 minutes are all you need to do all of the masks and gradients. The more you do, the faster you get but the one step you should not rush is your selection. If you are sloppy with that, everything else you do from that point on will be a waste of time.</p><p></p><p>Below is an image I took several years ago. The image on the left is the minimally reworked RAW file, mostly just cropping. I used my 105mm f/1.8 Nikkor with an 8X ND filter so I could be at f/4 and still keep my shutter speed at 1/200 sec which is the max synch speed for wireless remotes. In hindsight I should have used my 180mm f/2.8 or even my 300mm f/2.8 @ f/4 because the depth of field is WAY too deep for my tastes. Using the technique above, it took me less than 10 minutes to do this and most of it was the selection. She has some flyaway hair and you have to be careful with your selection if you want to preserve it. You can adjust both bottom sliders on the gradient to give you just the right balance of sharp versus blur. The difference is pretty significant and much more aesthetically pleasing, to me at least. Outdoor portraiture with sharp backgrounds is just a pet peeve of mine. I wish I had a dollar for every good location portrait that was <em>ruined</em> by a sharp and distracting background and it is just not limited to hobbyists or amateurs either, I have seen <em>professionals</em> do it too, which is an unforgiveable sin!</p><p></p><p>I always do all the work on the image before I do the blur. In this case I removed the shadow on her left thigh made by the fill flash before I did the selection work</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]213711[/ATTACH]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="STM, post: 559483, member: 12827"] You can go that way certainly but here is the problem you will run into if you use a lot of blur. When you just make a duplicate layer and blur it, be it with the standard blur, or box blur or Gaussian blur, it blurs EVERYTHING. If you do a lot of blurring you will get a 'halo" around the subject. By using a channel mask, everything that is black will not be blurred. That way there is no cleanup. It sounds like a lot of work but if it takes you 10 minutes to do, 8 of it should be spent on your selection, the other 2 minutes are all you need to do all of the masks and gradients. The more you do, the faster you get but the one step you should not rush is your selection. If you are sloppy with that, everything else you do from that point on will be a waste of time. Below is an image I took several years ago. The image on the left is the minimally reworked RAW file, mostly just cropping. I used my 105mm f/1.8 Nikkor with an 8X ND filter so I could be at f/4 and still keep my shutter speed at 1/200 sec which is the max synch speed for wireless remotes. In hindsight I should have used my 180mm f/2.8 or even my 300mm f/2.8 @ f/4 because the depth of field is WAY too deep for my tastes. Using the technique above, it took me less than 10 minutes to do this and most of it was the selection. She has some flyaway hair and you have to be careful with your selection if you want to preserve it. You can adjust both bottom sliders on the gradient to give you just the right balance of sharp versus blur. The difference is pretty significant and much more aesthetically pleasing, to me at least. Outdoor portraiture with sharp backgrounds is just a pet peeve of mine. I wish I had a dollar for every good location portrait that was [I]ruined[/I] by a sharp and distracting background and it is just not limited to hobbyists or amateurs either, I have seen [I]professionals[/I] do it too, which is an unforgiveable sin! I always do all the work on the image before I do the blur. In this case I removed the shadow on her left thigh made by the fill flash before I did the selection work [ATTACH=CONFIG]213711._xfImport[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Post Processing
Using Photoshop to simulate narrow depth of field
Top
