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.

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…

The previously mentioned DoF apps will tell you the hyperfocal distance for any given lens/aperture.

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.

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.

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 🙁

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.

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! 🙂

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.

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.

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?

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.