I'm aware of what he's *trying* to show, but I don't think that image supports his view. I cannot see a single plane of focus - I see two distinct areas
Chat Forum
[closed]
Photogs - how do you do this?
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
@user removed: I doubt anyone (sane) lugged LF kit up a mountain. Could easily be a TS lens on a Digital SLR body though. Will do the same thing, without breaking your back, or the bank.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Having a 2nd look at the pic, the hill/mountain on the left had side is out of focus then sharp, then out of focus then again sharp on the statue.
Must agree with sfb on this one
IMO intentional depth of field effects are a shabby trick best avoided.
belgianbob - Member
@user removed: I doubt anyone (sane) lugged LF kit up a mountain. Could easily be a TS lens on a Digital SLR body though. Will do the same thing, without breaking your back, or the bank.
I lugged two up Snowdonia once!
A MPP 5x4 plus a Cambo 5x4 in my student days, the MPP was mine, but the Cambo belonged to a female friend, who after 2 miles gave up carrying hers up and lumbered me with both!
Never again!
Posted 1 year ago # -
@ski:
Ah, the student days. I used to lug a Sinar all over the place when I was young and digital imaging was just a flicker in a maths genius's eye... and yes, I'd have carried a girls Cambo up Snowdon too, cos, y'know... Girls and that.But NOW, in the 21st century, anyone location shooting in mountains with a large format rig probably has a lot of issues to do with things being 'ultimate' or 'perfect', is being paid absolutely wads, and/or has a team of assistants.
All IMHO, of course!Posted 1 year ago # -
I'm aware of what he's *trying* to show, but I don't think that image supports his view. I cannot see a single plane of focus - I see two distinct areas
Clearly as the whole SIDE of his face is in focus it shows the focal plane is not into/out of the image - the back right hand side of his head should be as in focus as the back left. It is not, this means the focal plane is not parallel to the sensor/viewer. Now as there's no ground/anything in the mid-ground you can't follow that line outwards, but it's fairly easy assume that since the plane appears to dividing the head side to side that following that plane across the valley may well have it impact the side of the mountain opposite. If it did that it would yield a vertical focussed line, as it has on the statue, which would continue to infinity. Which it does (though at infinity everything seems a bit soft, probably due to a poor Q t/s lens?).
If it had been photoshopped I'd at least have expected the head to be centrally focussed and equally unfocussed either side.
I'm not sure where you think the two different planes exist, please indicate so we can compare and see if what you're saying is a more sensible thought process.
I can see the photoshop idea is a compelling one, but if you look at photo 3 of that sequence you can see he has done the same over-dodging around the subject in non-T/S style shots too.
What does that image show? I can't see what you;re trying to emphasise with the lines you've added
I'm aware of what he's *trying* to show, but I don't think that image supports his view
Make your mind up! The red line is the intersect of the plane of focus with the subjects, showing continuity across the valley in a single plane.
I am currently trying to get hold of the photog just to find out
Posted 1 year ago # -
The simplest way to do that is just take a hyperfocal shot of the whole thing and then get a 5 year old loose with the blur tool.
Easy to do,
Still looks awful.Posted 1 year ago # -
If it had been photoshopped I'd at least have expected the head to be centrally focussed and equally unfocussed either side.
I was going to 'correct' that to say, if it had been photoshopped 'better', however, that's not right as it is the photogs interpretation of his image so, far from me to say what's correct.However, CK, await feedback from the photog, if it comes - i'm 99% sure you will find the image was sharp back to front and he's simply done a bit of ps'ing, as already discussed.
hyperfocal
ooh, transmute - check you and your fancy focussing ways, been a good while since I used that technique - all but impossible now as the majority of modern lenses don't even have a focus scale...Posted 1 year ago # -
The previously mentioned DoF apps will tell you the hyperfocal distance for any given lens/aperture.
Posted 1 year ago # -
nbt - Member
I'm aware of what he's *trying* to show, but I don't think that image supports his view. I cannot see a single plane of focus - I see two distinct areas
You clearly aren't aware or don't get it......
The plane shown is the theoretical plane where if an object were to pass through it would be in focus.In this image two distinct areas pass through the plane of focus, hence you see two distinct areas. As mentioned by CK, if the photo extended to floor level and back up again, there would be a continuous line in focus that would join your 'two distinct areas' together.
Posted 1 year ago # -
That really is a good example of why some people should be prevented from having access to a computer with PS on it. Just 'cos someone can take a reasonable photo doesn't mean they have the skill or knowledge to fiddle with it. I was told repeatedly that any work done in PS should be invisible to a viewer, or else be deliberately obvious. That example is crap. I would have shot it using a small aperture with an ND filter to keep the background blurred, or shot it with a really small aperture to get everything sharp. That just looks half-assed. The cast statue has been masked and a radial blur added to the b/ground, then another graduated blur applied from the left-hand side, leaving a small area between that's still in focus. There's no lens made that can do that. Rubbish work, I'd be ashamed and embarrassed to produce something like that, even if someone asked me to.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TBH it's a fairly well recognised photographer and some of his other work is actually fairly nice. I've still not been able to get hold of him though
Posted 1 year ago # -
Having been away and had a think, I've got the idea now
I was thinking in 2D and once I thought in 3D it suddenly clicked. I still think it's done in PS as opposed to with a TS lens, but I see how it could be done.
Posted 1 year ago # -
check you and your fancy focussing ways, been a good while since I used that technique - all but impossible now as the majority of modern lenses don't even have a focus scale...
Luckily I only have the budget for nice old kit!
Although I think only one current Canon prime lens doesn't come with a scale and pretty much anything above the budget model zooms still has one, so with decent second-hand kit it's still possible without spending a fortune! Posted 1 year ago # -
That really is a good example of why some people should be prevented from having access to a computer with PS on it.
Agreed. Further to your description of the process, it also appears as though the adjustment brush has been used to increase the exposure on and around the statue on several of the shots. It's a matter of opinion of course, but I think the effect is quite awful.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I know David Levene, he uses tilt shift lenses from time to time and would never photoshop stuff the way some on here have suggested. Ive used tilt shift lenses myself and that effect would be very easy to create without any photoshop nonsense, not everybodys cup of tea tho.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ive used tilt shift lenses myself and that effect would be very easy to create without any photoshop nonsense, not everybodys cup of tea tho.
Images 3, 7 & 8 all appear to have localised exposure adjustments/differences. Is this possible with lenses/filters?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Id say there may be a bit of burning or dodging but not much more, the rule for wire images and newspapers is you can do whatever you could do in the darkroom, so cropping, burning, dodging, a bit of saturation is ok but no major image manipulation is permitted.
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
