 Jennifer S |
Soft Focus I have seen numerous photos on this site with gorgeous soft focus. I try to achieve that look on PS but it just doesnt look the same. If you know what Im talking about, is it a plug-in that is used? Can I do it in PS without a plug-in? Or do I need a filter for my camera or something? Thanks for your replies! I hope I made sense!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Peter M. Wilcox |
I'm not sure if you are talking about out of focus foregrounds and backgrounds, or an overall blur/softness. In the former the depth of field (front and back extents of sharp focus) is controlled by lens focal length and aperture. The later is acomplished historically with a diffusion filter over the lens, and may be approximated in photoshop by blurring or softening. By using gradient masks with the blur filters you can also simulate depth of field.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John Rhodes |
Jennifer, unfortunately, many of the soft-focus photos are just poorly focused photos; not intended. VR John
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jennifer S |
The pictures Im referring to are definitely intentional. I'll have to find and post an example. Im sure it wont be hard!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Brianne Norgaard |
Hi Jennifer... I have an action that I do in PhotoShop, but I got the steps from this great book "The Photoshop Book for the Digital Photographer". See if you can check it out at the library. However, I've found I use it a great deal, so it may be a nice investment for you... I think this is probably what you are looking for...Check out my gallery. My picture "From God" has this soft focus effect on it.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
I USE ONLY DIFFUSION FILTERS ON PORTRAITS. ACTUALLY, I DO VERY LITTLE IF NO PS AT ALL ON PORTRAITS- PORTRAITS ARE INTENDED TO DOCUMENT "...THE ACTUAL LIKENESS OF A SUBJECT, AND MAY ALSO CAPTURE A HINT OF THIER PERSONALITY..." ACCORDING TO THE WORD DISCRIPTION. YOU CAN FINE DIFFUSION FILTERS IN VERIOUS STRANGHTS OR YOU CAN USE A COUPLE AT A TIME TO GET THE DESIRED LOOK. I DO HOPE THIS HELPS, DEBBY
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jennifer S |
Thanks everyone for your help! I normally use diffuse glow. It gives me the closest result to what I want to achieve, but for some reason, everyone elses softness looks better then mine! Maybe it's because I dont have enough confidence in myself, Im not sure! :o)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
You can look in my gallery to see several different examples of softness. I don't know if any of these are the effect you are seeking.
Diffuse glow will NOT get you the soft effect you are probably seeking. Here's a few steps that will. Make a duplicate layer of your photo. Click filter/blur/guassian blur. Blur the top photo quite extensively. Select your opacity slider in the layer box. Slide down until you have something you rather like. Choose your eraser tool with a soft rounded brush and select at around 50% opacity. Erase through only the important parts of the photo--but be careful not to do too much. I erase through often on eyes and lips to bring back a bit of detail and sparkle. If you are shooting stationary subjects a fun in camera effect is to use a tripod and take two different photos of the same picture. One in focus and one slightly overexposed out of focus shot. Then you combine the two photos in photshop and change the opacity until you have the look you want. I did this effect on my finalist of the daffadil called Softly Spring. Good luck! Karma
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jennifer S |
Thanks Karma! Yes, the pics in your gallery are exactly what I meant! (The same goes for Debby and Brianne's examples too!) I did try the gaussian blur along with the diffuse glow in the past and thought it looked too blurry but I never did the erasing. I'm going to go try that now! Thanks!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
JEN, THINKING ABOUT IT, YOU MAY WANT TO THINK ABOUT THE LIGHT YOUR WORKING WITH AS WELL-WITH STUDIO LIGHTING -AS IN THE SHOT I POSTED I LOWERD THE LIGHT A LITTLE BY TURNING AND BOUNCEING THE FILL LIGHT OFF THE WALL NEXT TO ME(THE RIGHT WALL OF THE ROOM) I LEFT THE MAIN LIGHT HIGH IN IT'S POSITION,AND SUBJECT WAS ON THE FLOOR(THROUGH OUT EYE LEVEL AND SHOT DOWN ON HER A BIT) THIS GAVE IT THAT SOFT BEAMING LIGHT. WITH OUTSIDE SHOTS YOUR LOWER LIGHT(LESS HARSH) WILL COME WITH THE EARLY MORNING AND LATE AFTERNOON HOURS. AGAIN I DO HOPE THIS HELPS, MOST THINGS WELL DONE COME WITH HAVEING A GREAT TIME PLAYING WITH YOUR SHOTS. DEBBY
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
I get soft focus when I take my glasses off.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
KERRY, YOU GOOFBALL, YOU HAVE BEEN ON A ROLL SINCE EARLY THIS MORNING!! I SAW YOUR POST ON TRAVELING TO NY, LOL HOW MUCH COFFEE HAVE YOU HAD TODAY?,LOL YOU DO CRACK ME UP. DEBBY
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
I had a pot this morning before I took off on my rounds, and it wasn't decaf.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Nobu Nagase |
...and I also saw his post on "wasn't trying to be funnny for change..."... ha ha ha...
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
I agree with the filter method. If you are going to be a "photographer" instead of a digital manipulator, then check into the filter scene. Tiffen has some beauties as do other companies. I like the softnet filters, and one especially nice one is the Tiffen warm soft pro mist. Anything you can do with the camera is going to be a better photographic skill to possess than fixing things later.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Piotr M. Organa |
There is a cheap, old trick: a stocking over the lens. I tried it, looks awful. Also try vaseline spread with finger on uv filter. Horrible.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
If you are going to be more than just a "photographer" (a photographic artist perhaps) you want the most versatility to your images. That means that if you can achieve an effect in photoshop you should. If I take a perfectly sharp photo of something, I know I have the option of achieving the soft look in PS or leaving the photo sharp for other purposes, and many photos have more than one life. If I take a photo with a soft focus filter it will never be more than a soft focus photo. I can't sharpen away the softness! Screwing on a soft focus filter does not take any more ingenuity than putting on a soft focus in PS. It doesn't make you a better photographer. Learn your settings and creative zones, learn to plan every picture, including steps you will want to take later in PS if you need to. Take the sharpest photos possible. Save the screw on filters for things like polarizers or graduated ND filters where you just can't achieve the effect in PS. At least that's my opinion. I just don't see a great photographic achievement in screwing on a filter that makes your photo look blurry with no control. Totally soft focus filters leave out precious detail in key areas like eyes. Spot filters look plain silly in my opinion. I have a lot more control in PS. I aim to produce the best image I can (and don't always succeed). Sometimes that absolutely means "getting it right" in camera. I'll fix an off exposure in RAW if I have to, but I really hate to as it makes me feel a failure. But I will never feel guilty for not using a soft focus screw on filter. I think PS works better for that particular effect. That's just my personal opinion. Karma (up late due to wild fires)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Charlene Bayerle |
Hi jennifer I don't know if this is what you are thinking about, but there is a plug-in for photoshop and it's called "dreamy". hope this helps....
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
I agree with Karma on this. Controlling depth of field in the camera is one thing, but for irreversible effects like soft focus, I much rather do it in post-process. This is like the in-camera B&W setting - completely useless on a digital. Even if you don't have a computer, and you print directly from your camera, you can almost always choose this at the time of printing. Why limit yourself?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Terry R. Hatfield |
Just Like Char Said Dreamy Photo, Alot Of People Use This,Here Is The Link Its Free Jennifer! http://www.autofx.com/freeplugins/dreamyphoto.php?id=7
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jennifer S |
Thanks so much everyone! You've all been very helpful! :o)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
thats right, art can be boundless. Photography in its true sense is done with a camera
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
Dang, and I was sure Ansel Adams WAS a true photographer! Sorry guys, lack of sleep and wildfires has me even more onery than usual. Karma
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Elisabeth A. Gay |
Not sure if this is what was posted above a ways: In PS7 - Select all, Edit-copy, Filters - guassian blur, Edit- paste, Layer palette - adjust opacity, then blend mode>screen Works best on portraits and flowers. Hope this makes sense.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
Im afraid Ansel would expire all over again if he were here today to see all the substitution of touchup for talent
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
David A. Bliss |
Of course Ansel Adams would disapprove of touchup to cover up a lack of talent, he disapproved of it in his day. But, in my opinion, he would have loved Photoshop. Do you realize the amount of dark room work he did?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
Yes I do, but mostly he did because he wanted to be totally self proficient with his art. I am not saying Ps or digital tech is a bad thing. I use it myself to take out blems, power lines etc. I do not use it to totally change focus, sky color, elements of design, or make a totally different image that the camera saw. All I am saying here is that using cameras and optics to capture images is photpgrphy. Digitally changing a photograph to come up with something that you missed with the camera is something else. It can even look great and be fine, but then it becomes digital or graphic art, but not photography.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
I take out blemishes too and don't feel a bit of guilt, but John I honestly believe that it's less "cheating" to do soft focus in PS than cloning out power lines, and a lot of photographers agree. Fact is Ansel Adams would have never USED soft focus as he believed in TACK SHARP ultra stopped down photography. However, he did a lot of touch ups on his photos in the darkroom, and yes it was about control. And that's why I would MUCH rather soft focus in PS. That leaves the control to me. I don't purposfly take blurry photos. I add blur later because I have more control over my image and what parts I want to stay sharp and what parts I want to blur. But I don't consider myself "just a photographer". I aim to produce the best image I can. And if you are cloning out power lines you are producing digital art just as much as a soft focus in PS. Don't pretend the two are different. Photographers don't "clone" away anything in the darkroom. They use dodge and burn but that's a LOT more limited. And I don't care if somebody does clone, but let's call it what it is. Karma
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
I like the AutoFX Dreamsuite link that Terry provided best. I don't have any examples in my gallery right now though.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
I agree and I disagree. I dont believe that fixing a blemish or removing a power line affects the elements of the original phot since no adjustments or color changes are made. This is akin to a touchup, and no I dont feel guilty about it any more than you or Ansel, or a darkroom operator. There is a line between digital touchup and altering the photo too much. and as far as soft focus, or anything else done in PS, yes you can do it either way you want. all that I am saying is that a true photographer who knows the talent of it can do these things in a pristine manner with the camera. that is what photography is. I think it is better to possess talent with the camera and the optics rather than being proficient with a computer. One can certainly lend itself to the other, but one can go too far. Phgotography teaches control with a camera, PS et al teaches graphic art.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jennifer S |
John, I do believe a great photographer has to know his/her way around the camera and have alot of know-how in the creativity department, but that doesnt mean everything has to be done with the camera. If I were a client and saw two pictures that had the same effect applied to them, I couldn't care less if it was created using the camera or using photoshop. Photography is about having the eye, knowing how to use the camera, and creativity- whether it be outside the (digital) darkroom or in! I'm just talking about a little sotfness to a picture, not graphics art or completely altering a photo. But altering a photo doesn't make you less of a photographer, just someone who strives to make a good photo better. Being a good photographer takes talent and thats first and foremost. Everything else thats done with computer is just bonus in my opinion. I definitely would rather take a nice picture and then alter it in photoshop instead of doing it with the camera. There is more control and I like that. Plus, if I like it unaltered, I can have it that way instead of it being permanently altered from a filter. Just my opinion! :o)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
I think it kinda depends on what you expect from your images. I'd never enter a RAW image into the contest. It wouldn't stand any kind of chance of winning. In this case you have to be proficient with the computer.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
You are right when you say if the client gets what he paid you for, fine. Again the only thing Im saying is dont call it photography in the true sense if you cannot put your cameras image up for scrutiny without fixing it up. Yeah, that means in the constest as well. It is easy to alter or enhance a photo after the fact. doing it right the first time shows you understand composition, lighting, aperture, focal lentgh, i.e. Photography. I mean it kinda boils down to what do you like more, using a camera and knowing how to; or graphic arts? I love both, but I just get more satisfaction out of making a good shot in the camera and knowing in advance that I did it correctly.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jennifer S |
John, It seems to me that you are just very bitter at the digital world! ;o)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
Not at all bitter. Im into it, and why does everyone seem to take offense if you dont agree with their point of view. I SIMPLY DONT BELIEVE DIGITAL FIXING MAKES UP FOR LACK OF PHOTOGRAPHY SKILLS. Think about it for a minute. Does an automatic everything camera and PS make a person a photographer? Does a true basic photography course teach Photoshop? (probly nowdays)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
I don't see how editing in Photoshop nullifies a person's ablility to take good images. I'm happy with my images before Photoshop. It simply enhances what's already there IMHO. I don't guess we're talking about basic editing though, are we? Modifications don't bother me either. Not even extreme modifications. To each their own...live and let live is what I say.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jennifer S |
I didnt take offense at all. Its your opinion, and we all have our own. But saying that just because people alter a photo in the computer doesnt make them a photographer is just crazy. Most photographers do that! You have to be a photographer FIRST. Then if you want to alter pictures SECOND- that doesnt make you less of a photographer. If you take crappy pictures and then alter them completely to look somewhat decent, then yes, you're not really a photographer. Most people who use digital darkrooms are just photographers trying to make the best out of their photos, or altering them in a way to make them different from the original. Like I said before, photography skills come first, photoshop is a bonus. A really good bonus!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
David A. Bliss |
By your definition, I guess Ansel Adams was not a photographer, since he altered his photographs in the dark room ;-) John, I agree with you whole-heartedly, but we have to be careful with blanket statements. This started with a comment to use Photoshop to achieve a soft filter instead of an on camera filter, and you jumped to automatic everything with fixing it Photoshop. There in no way was the implication that the original picture is flawed, or that the person who took the picture was not a technically proficient photographer. The arguments have been going on for a lot longer than Photoshop has been around. Colored filters, polarizers, even color film have all been demonized at one point, but are now accepted as tools of "true" photography.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
Well, Ms D, it's really not just an opinion. It is a fact that true photography is about taking photographs, not creating them. There is a difference between touching up blemishes etc, and totally altering the image. A good photographer should know in advance what to use to take a photo, instead of relying on a quick fix latr on. How plain can I state it? By the way, you do remember what I said a year ago about knowing the difference between art and pornography? Yeah, it's me.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
P.S. (postscript, not photoshop) If you have to enhance whats already there, then you didnt figure it out in advance. Try again till you know how to do it. and no, knowing how to use Ps tools doesnt necessarily take away from your photography knowldege, but only if you have it in the first place
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
I think my photography speaks for itself.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jennifer S |
Very good point, David! Yes Sharon, your photography is amazing! :o)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Thank you, Jennifer!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
Sorry, I forgot to respond to you David bliss. I dont think Ansel Adams altered his photos, he would wait all day long till the light was right instead. And yes, the discussion got started over the screw on soft filter vs the PS. Read above what Debby Tabb siad about filters. she seems to understand my point. keyword "true likeness"
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
Yes, your digital images do speak for themselves. Speaks well for your graphic art skills. They are very nice
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Thank you, John! I consider that a high compliment! I did have to compose them in the viewfinder before releasing the shutter though.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
BTW, I don't crop. I think I have one image in my gallery that was cropped and that one got cropped only because I couldn't eliminate the people any other way. Can't be bothered with model releases.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
Well, dont worry about it, Ps will come up with a "viewfinder" plug in before long
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
Thats acceptable in photography. Cropping is always fine. It doesnt alter the image taken with the camera.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
That's just plain funny!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
An expected response as I realize you just dont understand
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
"I SIMPLY DONT BELIEVE DIGITAL FIXING MAKES UP FOR LACK OF PHOTOGRAPHY SKILLS. " But it makes up for your lack of finding a photo without powerlines to take? COME ON! That is absolutely absurd and ridiculous in the extreme. Cloning is the most controversial photoshop technique there is and you're acting like it's just par for the course. Guess what, photojournalists CANNOT use a clone tool to clone away powerlines because guess what? THE POWER LINES WHERE ACTUALLY THERE! If I put a soft focus filter on in PS it will look NO DIFFERENT than if I use a screw on filter (except better because I can preserve key details). But if you clone away power lines you are totally and completely messing with the integrity of the photo. Powerlines were there, you couldn't find a composition without them, so you cheat and clone. You can pretend it's not that way but you're just fooling yourself. I personally don't care if you do it or not, but get yourself down off your high horse and stop pretending you are a better photographer because you can screw on a little filter. I don't act like I'm better than you because I work very hard to find compositions without power lines! You said: "If you have to enhance whats already there, then you didnt figure it out in advance. Try again till you know how to do it." How ridiculous. I do know how to use a soft focus filter and I choose not to to preserve key details in my original photos. I can easily tell as I snap the shutter which photos will likely require a soft focus in PS. I'm with Sharon--everybody in this thread needs to let their photography speak for them. Karma
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
PS, a much more difficult way to achieve soft focus than using a filter is to combine two seperate exposures together. I have an example in my gallery, but alas since most digital cameras have no double exposure feature I did do the combining in photoshop. However, the shot was totally planned this way. It's two seperate exposures of the same flower, one sharp and one blurred. Combined in PS. You have to use a tripod and have a stationary subject, but it's a fun experiment if you're bored and want to try something new. The photo is "Softly Spring". Karma
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Derek Holyhead |
Hi Jennifer, You can get a free plugin from here: Cheers,
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Karthik M. Siddhun |
Hi Jennifer, Intentionally done in Post processing is different. But with good focus on subject sometimes give "softness" on images. I use UV filter & circular polarizer(while shoooting on sunny time) on my Film-SLR I just scan them and post them,I never do image manipulation on those images. But whoever uses more Digital Camera, do bring softness on images, using filters available with softwares. Siddhun.M.Karthik
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
I am most likely going to get my head bit off for this.... (but it won't be the first timelol,lol) But, as a photographer I belive we should frame to "Shoot for the Portrait".a CAPTURE is exactly that- a moments capture. meaning do all your work through the camera, then much less ps in needed. Photo shop- was ment to be a help and a enhancement-not the art. photography and what you capture through your lens is the Art. ps is just a tool. Soft focus-through filter or stocking(have had to do that before also(lol,lol) vasiloine, is still a CAPTURE. None of my work has been done in PS. one I don't know how,lol(computer stupid) and two that isn't how I was brought up in the art of photography. ok, let 'er rip. but, I still hope this helps, Debby
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
Ok, one more thing, you can also make your own filtr by useing nail polish,lol this was in a "popular Photography " mag.years ago-pre-digital useing a uv filter and nail polish you can make filters- soft focus, crystly, water marks,colors, and vinete.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Debby, you may be "computer stupid" but I'm not. I'm "technologically challenged". (Don't you just love PC talk?) LOL
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
LOL, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN HIDIN' HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH OF YOU-LOL,
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Had a very busy day yesterday and wasn't around the office too much.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Piotr M. Organa |
Soft focus filter on the camera lens diffuses highlights - creates charming, romantic mood when used with taste. Gaussian blur is a blur.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
Debby, you're very helpful to many on this forum and fine photographer, but yes, I disagree. Photoshop is meant for what it is meant for. If it wasn't meant to have things such as soft focus filters and other types of graphic art helps it wouldn't have them. I don't believe placing a piece of blurry glass in front of your subject makes their likeness any more "real to life" than placing a software filter on and as I said I think software filter is much more able to keep details that will be special to your client. Did you do "My Day" through the camera? I'd like to see what filter helped you accomplish that! Even if you handcolored that is not in camera. My problem with this thread is that I have STRUGGLED to learn how to do things right in Camera. I work very hard not to take blurry pictures, to meter correctly, to compose and frame my shots. I've worked for over a year improving my skill in camera. I use photoshop, but I try not to overuse it. My reasons for using PS for things like soft focus or color photos are to preserve the moment more than a screw on filter would allow. I'm sorry to be blunt, but I think screw on filters and soft focus lenses don't produce very nice results. They blur everything, and that includes the eyes. They dull the photos highlights. The sparkle in my daughter's eyes is a lot more important to me than trying to be a "photographer". Sorry, but that's my take. Karma (chokin' on the smoke)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
THE ONLY THING DONE ON "MY DAY IN PS WAS THE ART- TURNED IT BLACK AND WHITE -ADDED COLOR-FRAMED IT. OTHER THEN THAT IT WAS SHOT TO PRINT AND THE WHOLE POINT TO SOFT FOCUS IS -SOFTENING HIGH LIGHTS,ETC. IN THE 32 YEARS I HAVE BEEN SHOOTING , THE ONLY TIME YOU USED SOFT FOCUS IS WHEN THAT EFFECT IS WHAT YOU DESIRED- TO SOFTEN THE HIGHLIGHTS, THE SKIN, TO GIVE A SOFTER OVER ALL FEEL TO THE PORTRAIT.BRIGHT SHINNY EYES , TO A SOFT FOCUS PORTRAIT WITH A SOFT EXPRESSION -LOOKS A TAD OUT OF PLACE. BUT, THERE IS A LOT THEY TEACH DIFFERENTLY OR NOT AT ALL THESE DAYS. ON A DIFFERENT NOTE: HOPE THINGS ARE LOOKING BETTER FOR YOU THERE, DEBBY
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
"I think screw on filters and soft focus lenses don't produce very nice results. They blur everything, and that includes the eyes." Very good point, Karma! For portraits I'd rather have a good sharp photo to begin with. If you use a diffusion filter to do the effects "in camera" you can not go back later to see the image unaltered. I might want to see how bad my lines were 10 years ago compared to now LOL. I hope they get the fire under control this morning, Karma!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
LOL,LOL
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jennifer S |
Yes, thats so true about filters blurring everything. I didnt even think of that! The latest photo in my gallery (through the eyes of a child) is one that I blurred and used diffuse glow everywhere but the eyes. Much nicer effect IMO!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
Debby, You converted it to black and white? Why not shoot in black and white? Oh, because you wanted the bouquet in color! What's the difference in you doing that in PS and me doing soft focus? Sorry, I can't see the difference. And I don't see the difference in John doing cloning and me doing soft focus. It's just a matter of "my way is best". I don't think there is anything wrong with soft focus screw ons. But I don't think using them makes you more of a photographer than anybody else. As for highlights in soft focus I agree tack sharp would look silly, I erase through at a 50% opacity on the eyes and lips. It doesn't look unnatural at all, but it has more detail and color in those areas, no percievable on a whole. It's a method used by professional glamour photographers and they use it because it gives them more control over their image. Karma
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
KARMA, THIS IS NOT MENT TO BE SOME SORT OF CHALLENGE TO YOU - "AND IF YOUR WAY IS BETTER" THEN THAT IS CERTINLY THE WAY THAT YOU SHOULD DO IT. I JUST GAVE MY OPINION. "MY DAY" WAS A AFTER THOUGHT (NOT THE INTENDED CAPTURE IN BLK AND WHITE) - JUST IN THE GALLERY BECAUSE IT WAS USED AS A POST IN A QUESTION. SHOWN AS PS USED AS A TOOL. I AM SPEAKING OF THE INTENT OF THE DESIRED SHOT- AND IT IS STILL MY OPINION. THE POSTED SHOT "WAITING" WAS SHOT AND INTENDED TO BE SOFT FOCUS - IT IS A UNTOUCHED PORTRAIT . AGAIN HOPE THINGS ARE GETTING BETTER FOR YOU. DEBBY
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT SOME OF US ARE FLIM PHOTOGRAPHERS- CAUGHT BETWEEN WHAT WE WERE TAUGHT WITH FILM AND IN WHAT IS BECOMING A DIGITAL EXPLOSION- OUR OPINIONS WILL DIFFER GREATLY
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
Jennifer, I love that shot. Very lovely eyes! Karma
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
Dear Debby, I have to say you seem to be the one who understands lens filters and optics and I am with you. this was always my point, you dont need digital assistance when you are in control with the camera and optics. I think sopecific filters do a better natural looking job than anything in PS. its been that way for my portraits anyway. This is why professionals use them, and you seem to be about there
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
"Soft focus filter on the camera lens diffuses highlights - creates charming, romantic mood when used with taste. Gaussian blur is a blur." Not if done correctly it's not. Through layers it's much more controlled than that. Karma
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
"Dear Debby, I have to say you seem to be the one who understands lens filters and optics and I am with you. this was always my point, you dont need digital assistance when you are in control with the camera and optics. I think sopecific filters do a better natural looking job than anything in PS. its been that way for my portraits anyway. This is why professionals use them, and you seem to be about there" No, professionals don't just use them John. Professionals developed this method of soft focus. Do you really think the shots you see in magazine are not PS altered? There are articles about how to do these things in magazines for professional digital photographers! Karma
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
Magazine and newspaper photography is not studio photography, and there is certainly more leeway and manipulating going on with that yes. Thats because they must get their shot in at any cost. There is a difference between commercial shooting and portraiture, and I didnt say that only pros use them, but pros do know their benefit.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
Well, I'm not a studio photographer. But if I were I'd still use these techniques, and in the end my clients wouldn't know the difference. The people I have taken photos for love my PS skills. The ballet photos are an example. That mother didn't want a capture, she wanted beautiful shots of her daughter's ballet poses/outfits/etc... She's had people ask if I had a professional studio and their jaws dropped when she said, "No, it was a sheet in a garage". LOL I wanted to take her daughters into a field of flowers and use even less PS, but while she was here the weather would not cooperate and it rained on the photoshoot day. My supplies being limited I did what I could with the sheet in the garage. My exposures and lighting were correct, but it still looked like a sheet in a garage so I used PS on the backgrounds and added slight soft focus. Mom has her photos and everybody is asking her how I do it because their photos don't look so good. Karma
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
No, a true artist does paint with a brush which is his primary tool, just as a photographer needs his primary tool, the camera. I never said you cannot go back and adjust something, all I ever said was proficiency and skill with the camera reduces the need for digital aids. And if you need name calling to illustrate your point of view, get it right. Its Mister Smarty John Sir!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
Karma, I use PS 7 all the time, and do know my way around it. I have a lot of fun with it. I combine collages for people, I enhance photos and I do all the things all you people do. And yeah the client doesnt have to know how you did it. I merely say that I get more satisfaction from taking a nice photo correctly, with advance planning like Debby does.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
I find satisfaction in taking a photo correctly as well. This is one of the reasons I compose in the viewfinder rather than cropping afterwards. If PS comes up with a viewfinder plugin I won't be needing it. Anyone can sneer at my graphic arts skills all they want, but not one of my wins has more than basic editing done to them in PS which now I'm understanding is ok? I have to say I'm really confused here.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
Okay John, I see your point but I still believe that I put a lot of effort into taking nice photos in the camera. It's just the way you stated it that bothers me and other photographers. I do a lot of photos with in camera effects much more difficult than using a soft focus filter. I take photography seriously. The way these things are stated it's like people who use soft focus filters are "real photographers" and anybody who uses PS for that particular effect are hacks. It raises our hackles a bit. I have no more time for this. It was a nice distraction but I think I need to evacuate now. Thanks everybody. Photos of the fire coming soon. Karma
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Karma Wilson |
I know what you mean sharon. I try not to crop as well. I do it sometimes but it bothers me. I usually do it on moving insect photos! LOL There's no way to compose a dragonfly in midlfight. They flit all over the place. I crop less and less the more proficient I become at composition. You start automatically seeing bad backgrounds, etc... By the way, anybody wanting to really explore "in camera" should browse sharon's gallery. She's taken some shots you would swear were PS creations and it was all in camera. She does things a lot more impressive than soft focus. Karma
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
Karma Great! I understand you. I didnt think I used any inflammatory wording in my opinions. I never wanted to suggest that you guys dont know how to, I merely tried to say dont you feel better on the photography end of it using the camera to achieve your results. I "cheat" a lot using ps in some of my stuff, but I dont feel right unless I know that I also could have done it in the camera. and when I said "real photographer" I only meant not having to resort to ps every time. But I will admit that if one cannot achieve some measure of success with the camera he needs to just keep learning. Only refusing to do this would be "hacking"
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Elisabeth A. Gay |
Times change, technology advances, one day film may be obsolete, but one thing's for sure - however the eye sees something, claiming it for posterity in a photograph is the ultimate goal, and art is in the eye of the creator, beauty in the eye of the beholder. Photoshop simply replaces and makes less tedious the work that great photographers like Ansel Adams had to do in the dark room. It's the same thing, just moved into the 21st century. If you want to keep putting down those of us who use PS, well the very first photographers might have felt the same way about Ansel Adams and the equipment he used. And with digital cameras, it is a necessity to adjust the photos using an image editing program, even if it is only a very slight tweaking. As for needing to keep learning, I am quite sure that even the very best photographers will tell you, they NEVER stop learning.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John C. Schwentner |
Im not putting anybody down necessarily. I understand your point, I dont se why some cant understand mine or at least read me correctly. but I have to say I dont believe ansel would paint in clouds that werent in the original picture in his darkroom. Thats the kind of thing Im talking about, not blemish removal etc. It's fine to have ps skill, I like it and use it, but I want to be good enough someday to not have to rely on it too heavily
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Well, don't feel too bad about being misunderstood, John. I'm quite certain I've been misunderstood on more than a few occasions.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Stacey M |
I have yet to understand why we keep engaging in these arguements with John. He is too narrow minded to see anyone else's point of view and never will. I think we should let the galleries speak for themselves. Check our Sharon and Karma's gallery THEN visit John's----you can form your own opinion!!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Stacey M |
Andy BTW there is a HUGE difference in purist journalistic photography and photography as an art. This site is NOT a journalist photography site!!!! We are all free to let our creative juices flow and enhance the heck out of our work. THAT'S LIFE JOHN - GET OVER IT! We won't change our opinion anymore than you will!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Elisabeth A. Gay |
Hear, hear Stacey!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Stacey, I think you are taking this the wrong way. You folks are not having an arguement with John. You are having a debate. Nothing wrong with that. John has stated his case and has disagreed with you but I have found nothing that he has said in an inflamatory way. Just relax, enjoy the debate, and realize that you have opposing points of view. Also, understand that you will probably not change his point of view and he won't change yours. Nothing wrong with that either. If we could all agree, we would all be using the same camera! John, just ignore J. K. He is our resident name changer. Don't feed the troll.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
you just repeated what was already said, Stacey still stands
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
and while were on the subject you're in the same boat as John.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Stacey M |
Oh Kerry I am very relaxed. Just tired of John taking over a perfectly good question thread to get on his "purist" soapbox. If this were the first time I had seen this happen I might agree that it was a debate. But "some people" love to spark this age old arguement and ruin the original thread - that BTW was a GREAT QUESTION!!! Jennifer I hope you found your answer in all this mess!!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Elisabeth A. Gay |
"and while were on the subject you're in the same boat as John." Justify, that was uncalled for. Stacey is right, the question was about soft focus, and was diverted into a tangent. Perhaps Mr. Schwentner would like to start his own thread to continue this discussion, and allow this one to get back on topic. Then everyone will be happy.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jennifer S |
Wow I had no idea my little question would get so heated!! LOL, Thanks Stace! Yes I have recieved alot of helpful tips. :o) I also agree with the "let the galleries speak for themselves" statements. That's why certain comments don't offend me. I whole-heartedly believe that a true photographer produces beautiful pictures- no matter how they were produced.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jennifer S |
Oops, Im sorry I meant to write Stacey!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||