Depth of field versus post processing
Discussion
The downside of trawling the web for photo ideas is that I very quickly realise how much there is to learn! (Although I suppose that is a good thing, too.)
Take this for example:
Which I have blatantly pinched from flickr. It is part of a really good set of shots. What I really like about them is the use of quite a narrow DoF. What I am wondering, though, is how much of that DoF was determined as the shot was taken and how much was created in post-processing.
That shot and this one look like they could have been created using a large aperture:
However, he has achieved the same effect from a much greater distance, which seems like a long way away to be able to set such a narrow DoF:
Do you think that this could have been created in post-processing and, if so, how?
Take this for example:
Which I have blatantly pinched from flickr. It is part of a really good set of shots. What I really like about them is the use of quite a narrow DoF. What I am wondering, though, is how much of that DoF was determined as the shot was taken and how much was created in post-processing.
That shot and this one look like they could have been created using a large aperture:
However, he has achieved the same effect from a much greater distance, which seems like a long way away to be able to set such a narrow DoF:
Do you think that this could have been created in post-processing and, if so, how?
ThatPhilBrettGuy said:
... Fools the mind into thinking things are almost toy like.
That's exactly what I thought. Unfortunately there is no EXIF data (that I could find, anyway). I quite like the 'toy-like' effect.4hero said:
not sure about the first two, but I'd say the dof in #3 was fake (photoshopped).
It does look almost too powerful to be real. If it is fake, though, it is done amazingly well. I'd love to know how - it could be a really interesting effect when applied to a picture with a lot of DoF. That way, you could chose, in post-processing, which part of the image is interesting enough to be emphasised.
ThatPhilBrettGuy said:
Toy like @ F1.0
Stop showing off. I haven't even got a toy GT, let alone a real one I can make look like a toy. Great picture, though. Iguess that is the advantage of a lens with such a massive aperture.Scho said:
3 is tilt and shift:
i did some once with a canon 24mmts-e:
Those are great pictures and exactly the effect I was wondering about. Having done some searching, i think the lens you mention is this one, which is £i did some once with a canon 24mmts-e:
.A couple of people have mentioned the Lensbaby as an alternative and they seem a good bit cheaper. Doubtless the quality is not as good, but has anyone had a play with one? Having spent some time on PS this morning trying to replicate the effect in post processing, I have had little/no luck. Making that sort of DoF look natural in PS seems very difficult.
Also worth a search for Arsat/Photex and Hartblei.
I have a Photex 80mm f2.8 which is doubtless not as good as a Nikon/Canon TS lens but much cheaper and therefore an interesting addition to the toybox. However to be able to judge focus accurately (these lenses are manual everything) you do need a decent viewfinder.
I have a Photex 80mm f2.8 which is doubtless not as good as a Nikon/Canon TS lens but much cheaper and therefore an interesting addition to the toybox. However to be able to judge focus accurately (these lenses are manual everything) you do need a decent viewfinder.
Bob_Defly said:
Why does having one focus point or a shallow DOF make it look like a model? What is it about T&S lenses that give it that effect?
A photograph of a very small thing involves magnification. The more the magnification, the less the DOF. Hence when we see a photo of car with minimal DOF we think 'Aha, model!'TS lenses can skew the plane of focus. They don't actually reduce DOF; a 2.8 lens is still a 2.8 lens. But skewing the plane of focus can make it look shallow.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff