Depth-of-Field effect/plugins

Hello,

I'm looking for a good depth-of-field effect. A traditional Gaussian Blur doesn't suit me, too flat.

A good depth-of-field effect should reproduce those hexagonal shapes you get with traditional camera's. I tried to find that, to no avail...

Does this dream effect exists (free or not) ?

Thanks for your help.

Laurent

PS: i have already tested TrueBlur from FixerLabs, but I'm looking for something better, with a more characteristic effect.

"Laurent van Roy" wrote in message

Hello,

I'm looking for a good depth-of-field effect. A traditional Gaussian Blur doesn't suit me, too flat.

A good depth-of-field effect should reproduce those hexagonal shapes you get with traditional camera's. I tried to find that, to no avail...

The effect is called "bokeh". You want good bokeh, make it in the camera.

Laurent van Roy wrote:

I'm looking for a good depth-of-field effect. A traditional Gaussian Blur doesn't suit me, too flat.

A good depth-of-field effect should reproduce those hexagonal shapes you get with traditional camera's. I tried to find that, to no avail...

Photoshop CS has a new "Lens Blur" feature, where you can use a mask to get a very realistic depth of field effect.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

In article ,
"jjs" writes:

"Laurent van Roy" wrote in message

Hello,

I'm looking for a good depth-of-field effect. A traditional Gaussian Blur doesn't suit me, too flat.

A good depth-of-field effect should reproduce those hexagonal shapes you get with traditional camera's. I tried to find that, to no avail...

The effect is called "bokeh". You want good bokeh, make it in the camera.

Hexagonal apertures are considered to produce bad bokeh, although I rather like the effect in some cases. I like mirror lens rings, too, so I obviously have bad taste in bokeh.

There's a Lens Blur feature in Photoshop CS, but I haven't used it.

--

Warren S. Sarle SAS Institute Inc. The opinions expressed here SAS Campus Drive are mine and not necessarily
(919) 677-8000 Cary, NC 27513, USA those of SAS Institute.

Laurent van Roy wrote:

I'm looking for a good depth-of-field effect. A traditional Gaussian Blur doesn't suit me, too flat.

A good depth-of-field effect should reproduce those hexagonal shapes you get with traditional camera's. I tried to find that, to no avail...

Photoshop CS has a new "Lens Blur" feature, where you can use a mask to get a very realistic depth of field effect.

For the

You want good bokeh, make it in the camera

I want to cheat ! This is for drawings, thus there is no camera involved. Thus, I am really looking for a plug-in.

For Photoshop CS: this is not for me at the moment !
Do you know other 3rd parties plug-ins ?

Thanks

"Warren Sarle" wrote in message

Hexagonal apertures are considered to produce bad bokeh, although I rather like the effect in some cases. I like mirror lens rings, too, so I obviously have bad taste in bokeh.

Indeed, fewer aperture blades makes strange bokeh. One my major disappointments was finding that Sinar, an otherwise thoughtfully designed product line, uses a _pentagon_ shaped aperture in their proprietary lens mounts. Maybe you would like it, but I don't. IMHO it's a super-gaff on Sinar's part.

"jjs" writes:

"Warren Sarle" wrote in message

Hexagonal apertures are considered to produce bad bokeh, although I rather like the effect in some cases. I like mirror lens rings, too, so I obviously have bad taste in bokeh.

Indeed, fewer aperture blades makes strange bokeh. One my major disappointments was finding that Sinar, an otherwise thoughtfully designed product line, uses a _pentagon_ shaped aperture in their proprietary lens mounts. Maybe you would like it, but I don't. IMHO it's a super-gaff on Sinar's part.

Ah, but don't the view-camera types shoot at f:64 all the time anyway? If everything is within the depth of field, there are no worries about bokeh :).

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

"Stephen H. Westin" <westin*> wrote in message

Ah, but don't the view-camera types shoot at f:64 all the time anyway? If everything is within the depth of field, there are no worries about bokeh :).

So true. Very few LF photographers have the courage to shoot at modest apetures. (Sorry for drifting OT.)

"jjs" ...

"Stephen H. Westin" <westin*> wrote in message

Ah, but don't the view-camera types shoot at f:64 all the time anyway? If everything is within the depth of field, there are no worries about bokeh :).

So true. Very few LF photographers have the courage to shoot at modest apetures. (Sorry for drifting OT.)

And what about having this bokeh in photoshop ? I like it, whether shooting with a camera or pretending to out-of-focus pictures.

I guess you guys are more focused on dealing with real photographies.

My aim is, at this time, the opposite: to make look real something that isn't. So a bokeh (hexagonal, circular, octogonal, ... i don't care) is what i'm willing to reproduce !

How !?

(And I don't have Photoshop CS !)

(Laurent van Roy) writes:

"jjs" ...

"Stephen H. Westin" <westin*> wrote in message

Ah, but don't the view-camera types shoot at f:64 all the time anyway? If everything is within the depth of field, there are no worries about bokeh :).

So true. Very few LF photographers have the courage to shoot at modest apetures. (Sorry for drifting OT.)

And what about having this bokeh in photoshop ? I like it, whether shooting with a camera or pretending to out-of-focus pictures.
I guess you guys are more focused on dealing with real photographies.
My aim is, at this time, the opposite: to make look real something that isn't. So a bokeh (hexagonal, circular, octogonal, ... i don't care) is what i'm willing to reproduce !

How !?

(And I don't have Photoshop CS !)

Well, if you can select different regions of the image and use Gaussian blur with various radii, does that work for you? Ideally, you would separate the image into several planes, put each on a separate layer, and blur. This would reduce (but not eliminate) bleed-over artifacts. Start with a foreground plane, a background plane, and an in-focus plane.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

"Laurent van Roy" wrote

My aim is, at this time, the opposite: to make look real something that isn't. So a bokeh (hexagonal, circular, octogonal, ... i don't care) is what i'm willing to reproduce !

If you Google this phrase: selective depth-of-field photoshop you will get lots of hits. I have not tried any of the plug-ins or tips. Feel free.

Difficult search !

I finaly found LensCare (http://www.frischluft.com/) that gives good results. This is what i'm about to buy.

wrote in message

Difficult search !

I finaly found LensCare [...]

You can do the same with CS.

wrote:

Difficult search !

I finaly found LensCare (http://www.frischluft.com/) that gives good results. This is what i'm about to buy.

Given that Photoshop CS has the excellent lens blur filter, and given that the cost of the LensCare product isn't too far short of the cost of a PS upgrade, you might want to stop and consider your options for a moment!