Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 21, 2005, 10:17 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
boyzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,544
Default

fmoore wrote:
Quote:
Thanks, John. I should qualify my statements by saying that I'm a relative novice at photography. I really dont know an slr (or a dslr) from a hole in the ground. I do feel like I know what these big zoom IS cameras can do and you can do alot with the zoom by backing up and decreasing the dof. Of course, this cant always be done to due space and lighting constraints. What is it with slr/dslr that allows it to get the close wa shot with a blurred background (ie, shallow dof). Could it possibly be done handheld in Nick's coffee shop shot for instance?
Hi Fred
btw I don't see novice in your gallery

35mm SLR's have far less DOF than the FZxx's and other P&S digi cams.

The CCD area is smaller than the 35mm frame by a factor of ~6 to 1 ie CCD = ~1/6 of the 35mm frame area.
SO at f2.8 the FZxx is like an SLR at f16 and f16 gives heaps of DOF.

Ok zoom 12x and DOF is small but still more than a 35mm SLR. but you can't always use 12x to minimize DOF.

Understand that shallow DOF with a 35mm SLR is dependant on the lens, longer lenses 100mm and up have less DOF, a wide angle lens (28mm )will actually have heeps of DOF so will the standard 50mm on an SLR.

However if you are VERY close to the subject and use a wide aperture f2.8 / f4 then DOF will be minimum with the 28/50mm lenses on an SLR.

With Nicks shot in starbucks an SLR with WA lens would have had less DOF and a better effect yes.

HTH

girl1 ....
scanned from 35mm SLR print shot with a 135mm lens on a Minolta srt103 SLR,>>> here you see progressive DOF in the background effect <<< with a P&S all would have been sharp at equiv. focal length.... viz 135mm


some DOF reading

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...ries/dof.shtml
<>
What About Digital?

A common complaint about digital cameras is that when using one it's not possible to get nice out-of-focus backgrounds. Why therefore do digital cameras have greater Depth of Field? The reason for this is that the imaging chips on most consumer digitals is very small, around the size of ones smallest finger nail. This means that a normal lens for a format that small is as short as 15mm. A 15mm lens at f/5.6 has Depth Of Field from about 2.5 feet to infinity. Not too much opportunity for selective focus, is there?

This is one of the unspoken drawbacks of low-end digital cameras. Only expensive SLRs like the Nikon D1x, Canon 1D and their ilk have chips close to the size of a 35mm frame, and therefore offer enough DOF to allow creative control over out-of-focus backgrounds.
<>
Attached Images
 
boyzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2005, 10:29 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
fmoore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,116
Default

Thanks again, John. You're comment that thedigital ppdof blurring can only be done in one plan at a time is well taken. There is probably some rather expensive software out there that can deal with multiple planes. I think you mentioned cad.
fmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2005, 10:53 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
boyzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,544
Default

fmoore wrote:
Quote:
Thanks again, John. You're comment that the digital pp dof blurring can only be done in one plan at a time is well taken. There is probably some rather expensive software out there that can deal with multiple planes. I think you mentioned cad.
With CAD (Autocad) you can zoom in and out whilst editing in Photoshop you have to stay in a fixed zoom rate while using lasso or other selection tools.
Tim with his gradient blur created a somewhat better out of focus background see his tut.
boyzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2005, 10:54 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
fz10_user's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 304
Default

Fantastic Tim,

awesome job.


fz10_user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 12:03 AM   #15
RDV
Senior Member
 
RDV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 283
Default

Hi Tim...I enjoyed your tutorial. Was this done in CS. I have just purchased Elements 3 and to get to your step #2 requires 42 steps to layer into channels and about that many more to split luminosity. I've read that separating the image components RGB and extracting luminosity from color in layers will allow you to make much better B&W pics than straight conversion to grayscale by desaturation. I also read that you can adjust tones and merge layers for better color tones. Seems like this would help those that are not happy with skin tone in their flash pics. I have just started to practice these steps as I am a total novice but your expertise and some others on this forum in PP has convinced me that PP is a must in digital. Thanks!
RDV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 3:53 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
TimvdVelde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 395
Default

THanks for all the comments guys! And boyzo and nick for explaining the depth of field! I really like making tutorials, but it's very time-consuming.

@Fmoore. This is a technique that can be adjusted by your personal taste at almost every step. If you want less blur, it's possible. If you want to adjust the type of blur it's possible. And If you want to make it more realistic - This is also possible, but it takes more time !

For the black and white girl I used the same technique. But less blurring (distance is shorter). And I simulated a short DOF range, by using the blur brush (30% opacity) to graduately blur from the back to center ofthe head. This are all minor details that add to realism.

If you already have a nice background, don't do anythingabout it :G
A good picture out of the cam is always an advantage.

thx again guys,

Cheers Tim
TimvdVelde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 9:34 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
jsiladi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 587
Default

I played around with this a bit last night. I had to print it out and go through it a few times to get it.. I don't know if it's an addition to the technique but I found it easier to (in photoshop 5)

1. Mask and isolate the subject
2. In addition to creating a copy layer Of the subject, create one of the background as well. So now there are 3 layers. The original, the subject, and the background.
3. Blur the background to suit (I use the gradient as you describe).
4. Make any corrections on the subject.
5. Combine everything back together.

The step I could avoid with this is the cloning of the background into the original subject.

I think this works best with photo of relatively high contrast to begin with..

The best thing I got from your tutorial is how to Isolate the desired area to begin with. Thanks and keep them coming.

Jeff
:G
jsiladi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 1:06 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
LoveLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,288
Default

TimvdVelde wrote:
Quote:
THanks for all the comments guys! And boyzo and nick for explaining the depth of field! I really like making tutorials, but it's very time-consuming.

@Fmoore. This is a technique that can be adjusted by your personal taste at almost every step. If you want less blur, it's possible. If you want to adjust the type of blur it's possible. And If you want to make it more realistic - This is also possible, but it takes more time !

For the black and white girl I used the same technique. But less blurring (distance is shorter). And I simulated a short DOF range, by using the blur brush (30% opacity) to graduately blur from the back to center ofthe head. This are all minor details that add to realism.

If you already have a nice background, don't do anythingabout it :G
A good picture out of the cam is always an advantage.

thx again guys,

Cheers Tim
How is this for a first attempt teacher?



LoveLife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 1:59 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
TimvdVelde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 395
Default

It's a good attempt. But I see you want to have some ground objects visible.

What you could do is..

- make a bit softer selection (I see some hard edges around the rock)
- make more selections - graduately.
For example -> first rocks . 1 % blur.. second row - > 2% blur -> 3th row -> 4 % blur. And than smooth everything together with the blur brush.

Good luck !

cheers, Tim
TimvdVelde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2005, 12:40 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
LoveLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,288
Default

Thanks for the help upon looking at my attempt and your suggestions you are spot on.
LoveLife is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:41 PM.