 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / December 2007Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses
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 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! Amen. Except that last bit. ;)  SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) >This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody >Microsoft!!! [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >Enjoy, >Douglas That's bokeh , from the Japanese word boke, but then , accuracy has never been a strongpoint. > This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody > Microsoft!!! [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > 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 >> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody >> Microsoft!!! [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > 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 > 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. >> 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... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 > 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. Uh, no, that doesn't make any sense. You aren't trying to make the photos look alike. You take the photos with the same settings so that the differences between the cameras can be noted. Geez, even you can't be this thick. I think you're just trolling me. Nobody is that fuckin stupid. Are they? >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. I don't doubt that. I'm sure all of them were equally wretched. >Why is it you need to see a lopsided comparison to fortify your > investment in gear you can't find a use for? Once again you are confused. I want a fair comparison. You are the one who makes it lopsided by underexposing one and overexposing the other. Then you try to sharpen up your Crapasonic pic and declare it the winner. Whatever. Keep shooting with your shitty cameras. Who cares? Keep pretending that you have a 5D or a fleet of 20D Canons. Matters not to me. As for my finding a use for my gear, I do OK. I'm currently working on a macro pic that'll blow your socks off. Just wait till my new motherboard comes in next week and I get my computer back up and running. > 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? > > 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? Well, first ya got to get it on the sensor and then sometimes you have to process it. The pic I'm working on will be a tough one requiring extensive processing. I am currently handcuffed by having to use laptops with their crappy screens... UGH! When I get my puter put back together and working properly I'll show you a good macro, I promise. Until then, here's a quick grab I made this morning using the MP-E Macro with the 40D's Live View mode, which Rita said couldn't be done. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89720884 > > > I'm currently working on a macro pic that'll blow your socks off. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89720884 It's clear when the 40D is in the right hands, stunning images are abound! I don't think my optometrist can see my eye this close! LOL. Helen > to process it. The pic I'm working on will be a tough one requiring > extensive processing. don't want to burst the surprise bubble, but: why? > I am currently handcuffed by having to use laptops with their crappy > screens... UGH! hook up the laptop to a good monitor! mine at work is hooked to a superb Dell 24 and it's just magic. > When I get my puter put back together and working properly I'll show > you a good macro, I promise. what's wrong with the puter? > Until then, here's a quick grab I made this morning using the MP-E > Macro with the 40D's Live View mode, which Rita said couldn't be done. > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89720884 pretty good. I'd leave it exactly as is: looks much better like this than the other ultra-processed stuff. > > to process it. The pic I'm working on will be a tough one requiring > > extensive processing. > > don't want to burst the surprise bubble, but: > why? DOF enhancement. > hook up the laptop to a good monitor! > mine at work is hooked to a superb Dell 24 > and it's just magic. Not an option. The crappy Dell laptop I'm using won't even run CS3. Ever try opening RAW 40D files with CS? > what's wrong with the puter? Bad motherboard. > Not an option. The crappy Dell laptop I'm using won't even run CS3. > Ever try opening RAW 40D files with CS? Bullshit! Your fixed copy of CS3 will run on it, albeit very slow. Go on Craigslist and buy a used dual proc PC for a couple hundred dollars and reload all you "fixed" software from scratch and you will be up to date cutting edge. Rita > > Not an option. The crappy Dell laptop I'm using won't even run CS3. > > Ever try opening RAW 40D files with CS? > > Bullshit! Your fixed copy of CS3 will run on it, albeit very slow. Allegedly. And no it won't you idiot troll. http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/systemreqs/ >> > to process it. The pic I'm working on will be a tough one requiring >> > extensive processing. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Not an option. The crappy Dell laptop I'm using won't even run CS3. > Ever try opening RAW 40D files with CS? Yep... Import and convert to DNG then you have it all! Such elemental rocket science is too hard for you? Douglas > > Not an option. The crappy Dell laptop I'm using won't even run CS3. > > Ever try opening RAW 40D files with CS? > > Yep... Import and convert to DNG then you have it all! > > Such elemental rocket science is too hard for you? Wow, D-Mac, I'm impressed! That is a very good suggestion. > Not an option. The crappy Dell laptop I'm using won't even run CS3. > Ever try opening RAW 40D files with CS? ah yes, the CS factor.... wouldn't know about that, ufraw and GIMP do all I need here and fit even in my very old Asus P3 with 758MB! ;-) > > what's wrong with the puter? > > > Bad motherboard. sh.t! >> Not an option. The crappy Dell laptop I'm using won't even run CS3. >> Ever try opening RAW 40D files with CS? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > here and fit even in my very old Asus P3 with 758MB! > ;-) Do you clean your boots with bacon grease, too? Signaturelsmft > Do you clean your boots with bacon grease, too? make sense, you moronic seppo piece of sh.t. > > > what's wrong with the puter? > > > Badmotherboard. > > sh.t! Got a new motherboard today on EBAY just like the one I had. Put it in tonight and all seems well (knock on wood). I'm thinking about doing a fresh install of XP on a new hard drive. Guess I'll have to gather up all my keygens, huh? > Got a new motherboard today on EBAY just like the one I had. > Put it in tonight and all seems well (knock on wood). > I'm thinking about doing a fresh install of XP on a new hard drive. > Guess I'll have to gather up all my keygens, huh? wtf4? just dump all the registry into a file, save it and load it again once done. yeah, takes a while, but less than figuring out all that crap. > > I'm thinking about doing a fresh install of XP on a new hard drive. > > wtf4? just dump all the registry into a > file, save it and load it again once done. > yeah, takes a while, but less than figuring > out all that crap. Then my computer would still be slow and my registry would still be bloated. Better to start anew. Yes, I'll have to re-install a few programs, but performance should pick up. I'm also considering using my main computer for Photo/Video work and a smaller computer for Internet surfing. Most of the crap that gets into your computer comes from the Internet. >> > I'm thinking about doing a fresh install of XP on a new hard drive. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > surfing. Most of the crap that gets into your computer comes from the > Internet. If you actually had a clue you'd clean it out... More rocket science over your intellegence level. I'm surprise you figured out how to access custome functions on that sieve you call a camera. Douglas > If you actually had a clue you'd clean it out... More rocket science over > your intellegence level. I'm surprise you figured out how to access custome > functions on that sieve you call a camera. Ever done any digging into a computer registry? Sure if I was locked in a basement and had hours and hours to kill (like yourself) I could go through there and clean it out. But I would probably end up deleting something important. The better way is to do a fresh install. This also gives me a chance to delete a bunch of old programs on my computer that I rarely use. I'm a sucker for buying software that I rarely use. I've still got RAW Shooter Premium, for example. Why did I buy that? I never even use it! Same with Genuine Fractals. PTAssembler is another. I use PTGui. And of course I've got tons of Photoshop plugins that I rarely use, but at least they don't take up much space. >> If you actually had a clue you'd clean it out... More rocket science over >> your intellegence level. I'm surprise you figured out how to access [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And of course I've got tons of Photoshop plugins that I rarely use, > but at least they don't take up much space. And you think you'll get all this done and working in a few hours, do you? If you weren't such a idiot I'd send you a program I wrote a few years ago to clean the Windows registry. Linux doesn't need the Windows registry locked to run so it can be used to examine all of it... But you being such a smart arse know all about my old Linux shop, eh? Probably know where to download all the free stuff I used to offer too no doubt. Those programs you mentioned take up less than a gig of space and have less than 80 registry entries (a few kilobytes at most) They are not what's slowing your PC down. No doubt you'll buy a few new computers and format a few hard drives before coming across someone who has a handle on the issue and can get your PC up to speed again but hey, you got plenty of crust now your got rid the ride, eh? Pick up the phone and get a tech out to do it... Or make a stuff up of it like you usually do. Douglas >> If you actually had a clue you'd clean it out... More rocket science over >> your intellegence level. I'm surprise you figured out how to access custome [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >probably end up deleting something important. The better way is to do >a fresh install. ... A *much* simpler solution is to use Windows Live OneCare Safety Scanner <http://onecare.live.com/site/en-us/default.htm>. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) > > to process it. The pic I'm working on will be a tough one requiring > > extensive processing. > > don't want to burst the surprise bubble, but: > why? I'm going for something like this: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89779168/original > > > to process it. The pic I'm working on will be a tough one requiring > > > extensive processing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm going for something like this:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89779168/original Do you know about http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html ? >> I'm going for something like >> this:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89779168/original Jim: Do you know about http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html Bret: Do you have a keygen to go with that? Jim: Sorry Bret, you will have to pay for it like every one else. Bret: No Jim, I'm not like everyone else and I don't pay for software since I'm entitled. Jim: Forget I mentioned it! Rita >>>> to process it. The pic I'm working on will be a tough one requiring >>>> extensive processing. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html > ? Must have been that or similar... you can also tilt the lens: http://edgehill.net/Misc/misc-photos/11-13-07-cpu/pg2pc10 (another dead Dell laptop cpu) > > I'm going for something like this:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89779168/original > > Do you know about http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html Yes, that's what I used for this pic. Excellent program. > > > I'm going for something like this:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89779168/original > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes, that's what I used for this pic. Excellent program. If you believe what some other people have said you can get sharper results by only stopping down to F/4. This was stated by someone that was shooting fleas using a Sigma 2X teleconverter and the MP-E 65mm with a 30D. 17 images to do a flea nearly full frame on a 1.6 crop camera. The image was impressive; you could clearly see the texture on the flea's chitin. > >http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > camera. The image was impressive; you could clearly see the texture > on the flea's chitin. I can't ever get the damn fleas to stay still for that long. I read that about stopping down on the Helicon forum. I never thought about that. The whole purpose of using f/16 is to get max DOF, but now I'll be able to get that anyway. >> >http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > about that. The whole purpose of using f/16 is to get max DOF, but > now I'll be able to get that anyway. What's up, no keygen for the can of freeze spray? I'd recon with the menagery you live in there's be a plentiful supply of dead one. Douglas >>>> to process it. The pic I'm working on will be a tough one requiring >>>> extensive processing. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html > ? heliconfocus is pretty neat, I did this with it. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/65838415/original Scott ["Followup-To:" header set to aus.photo.] * Scott W is quoted & my replies are inline below : >>>>> to process it. The pic I'm working on will be a tough one requiring >>>>> extensive processing. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > heliconfocus is pretty neat, I did this with it. > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/65838415/original Is that like focus stacking? I've got CombineZM which is free, but haven't played with it much. SignatureTroy Piggins Please feel free to provide constructive criticism on any photos I post. I'm always learning and appreciate feedback. > ["Followup-To:" header set to aus.photo.] > * Scott W is quoted & my replies are inline below : [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Is that like focus stacking? I've got CombineZM which is free, > but haven't played with it much. That is in fact focus stacking, it can work well but I find I don't use it very often. Scott > ["Followup-To:" header set to aus.photo.] > * Scott W is quoted & my replies are inline below : [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Is that like focus stacking? I've got CombineZM which is free, > but haven't played with it much. That is just like focus stacking. Works well, but I don't find I use it much. Scott > I'm going for something like this:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/89779168/original Nice! Stitched? >> Fair is when you take a photo in conditions beneficial to what? The P&S >> or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> 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). > This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody > Microsoft!!! [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > 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. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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. >> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody >> Microsoft!!! [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > 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 > >> Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit > >> these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water! There are underwater SLR housings available for just about every newer SLR available, including the 40D. Here's one: http://www.ikelite.com/web_two/can_40d.html > Let's see a 40D work under water! > > There are underwater SLR housings available for just about every newer > SLR available, including the 40D. Here's one: > > http://www.ikelite.com/web_two/can_40d.html That thing looks so cool I may get one for my 40D just to use on land! >> Let's see a 40D work under water! >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That thing looks so cool I may get one for my 40D just to use on > land! I always like the way they word these ads - You can use the underwater housing UP to 200 feet. I suppose you can use it in the water as well :-) SignatureNeil reverse ra and delete l Linux user 335851 If you are using your camera's professionally, they surely you would understand how much post production time costs? BTW, although it is possible to mimic DOF in PS, your example doesn't look natural as it's too uniform. > This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody > Microsoft!!! [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Enjoy, > Douglas you have allot of dead links on your website, I thought you might like to know... kk > This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody > Microsoft!!! [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Enjoy, > Douglas > This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody > Microsoft!!! [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to > civil responses... And pigs do fly! Guess you're in love with the lens flare filter too? That kid in the photo looks like a future fairy male ballet dancer. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.