Bokeh: No Skill Or Expensive Lens Required Just Buy This Plugin!
- This topic has 16 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated May 11, 2009 at 12:20 am by
.
-
Posts
-
Alien Skin has come out with a new Bokeh plugin fo PS its cool and pretty much eliminates the need for fast ass glass for the dreamy creamy out of focus effect that you get with say a 5K Nikon 200mm 2.8 or Tilt-Shift etc.
http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/index.aspxI watched the video and downloaded the demo but I haven’t had a chance to play with it. Everything digital looks digital, not many people can tell the difference or care anymore. It will probably work well for point and shoot images where getting a soft background is more difficult to achieve.
I came across a great tutorial somewhere recently on creating great looking digital blur in photoshop. You use the quick mask tool and lens blur. It makes for good transitions between the blurred and non blurred areas. Here are some shots with it.
http://society6.com/grainfarmer Fly Fishing and Landscape open edition Photography prints.
http://grainfarmer.vsco.co/ iPhone photos
http://instagram.com/chad_simcox InstagramIts ok, probably better than ok but in alot of samples you can tell its digitised and atleast imo, even their good samples don’t provide the same natural look as you get with a lens.
On that note their 85mm 1.2 L sample I have to question.
First off I have to question if their sample was actually shot at f1.2, the DoF is too large (from the tip of he near leaf, pretty much right through to the petals) thats got to be 4 to 5 inches. At 85mm f.12 and that close DoF should be razor thin.
http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/examples-accurate-lens.aspxWhile Ive never shot with the 85 1.2 L its “bokeh” is legendary and that images bokeh isnt all that great, my 85mm f1.8 is alteas that good.
And as Bill said you don’t have to have fast glass to get nice Bokeh. You need to understand and maximise the relationship between aperture, focal length and distance to subject which deterines your effective DoF.
Then understand the reltionship to your BG.f5.6 which most people consider slow
and if thats not slow enough
f9.0 with the 85mm f1.8…hardly expensive glass
Beautiful photos John ! – just amazing.
Chad – lovely stuff as well – your post work is really well blended in – looks like something done in-camera.
Here’s a couple shots from the tilts, I think this is very hard to do in post because the lens changes the compression from foreground to background and had an overall unnatural look.
(These have no post work.)
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
Sorry John, I missed your question about the 85 1.2L
It’s an amazing lens and can lunch even the strongest background, making it perfect for shooting in situations that you don’t have a lot of control over.
They’re also VERY sharp from about 1.6 and by f4 few lenses even come close.
Here’s an old shot – it’s at 1.8 – the big brown blob is a tree about 2 feet behind Eddies head.
Here’s both the boys in what would have been an ugly place – what saved the background was the 85 @1.8 and a little backlight through the fence.
This is from the 100 2.8, it’s good for bokeh as well – this is @f4, but the background (same as shot above) is about 15 feet away.
I don’t mind this hard bokeh from the long lenses either, it gives character to the pictures.
Here’ the branches are in front and behind, but the 200 f2 has (@2) has compressed them.
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
omg I looooove this shot
One day, way down the road I hope to have an 85f1.2 to call my own. For now I get by with it’s little brother the 85mm f1.8
Your first sample illustrates my misgivings about the sample shot linked above by the makers of this program. Your first shot is at f1.8 and the Dof is razor thin, their shot which is at f1.2 has 4 to 5 inches effective DoF and I might guess distance to subject is less. If you then compare the background elements, again theres a wide difference…..atleast to my eyes and the tree behind your son is only 2 feet away, where-as in their “sample” I’d guess 15 to 20 feet.
If that shot is at f1.2 with the 85mm L and relative distances are even close to what I’m guessing, the BG shouldnt be recognisable at all as trees, it should just be pure cream and muted colours and the DoF should be less than an inch, not the 4 or 5 it seems to have. Probably mistaken, but something seems off.
Another lens worth looking at is the 135 f2.0 L.
Ahhh if only I were rich and could have them all 🙂ps. got my Gold/Blue the other day. All I can say is wicked..but does require post work to correct strong magenta cast.
John the 85 @ 1.2 has about 2mm of sharp focus and when shot wide open and has a look all of it’s own – only the new 50 1.2 or the old 50 f1 can even come close – I think it’s a must have lens for portrait photography.
The 85 1.8 and 100 f2 are also both great lenses for portraits, but have the advantage of being much lighter, less expensive and still very sharp.The 135 is also a great lens, probably the sharpest Canon make, but it’s look isn’t unique like the 85.
I like the 135 for full length outdoor portraits – this one is shot on one of the most crowded suburban beaches in Sydney.
Congrats on the new filter, any chance you can show me some examples of it with/without ?
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
Yeah, thats why I have misgivings about their sample.
Man you have access to all the goodies (and Im not referring strictly to lenses) :).
/ponders trip to Australia
Re the filter:
Sure, Ive been playing around with it, trying to get a sense of when to use (for real) and when not to. On the back end of that been playing with the post work required, I’m close to getting the results I want ( what was seen and orchestrated through the viewfinder) but not quite, so aslong as you understand that the images are test shots and therefore suck and that I havent nailed th post yet….I’ll try to have some samples up soon. Im just afraid I won’t do it justice. 🙂 ..In my mind I have 100s of shost visualised with it, just need to learn to use it first, its pretty specialised and correcting stuff in post is a learning process although I may start using custom white balane at image capture to negate the need for as much PP 🙂
Ive got a few dozen photos that Im currently separating/categoring for my next submissions to different pubs. Would like to have those out the door by next week. As Im doing those I’ll try to compile some passabe test shots and have them available asap.
J
I hear ya Will, but your message would be lost on a lot of snappers at the moment.
Then again, a lot of the magazine and ad stuff in the mainstream press (IE, the guys who pay real money) is so boring and dumbed down that why would you try anything new ?
Anyway, I got no artistic axe to grind and just like taking pictures where the subject doesn’t look like dropped shit – ‘safe’ will do me just fine as well.. 😉
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.