Fast lenses, depth of field, and Photoshop CS6

[HDNitehawk]

That's a bit harsh, don't you think?

And, how did you do your macro photos? Was it "get it right in the camera" or did you do a photo stack with Photoshop?

No, not really harsh. It just means the better data you start with the more you have to work with to get a great finished product.

I have stacked a few, but stacking isn't something that can be done in camera. But the same saying applies, the better the pictures you start with to stack the better the product you will get with photoshop. But comparing stacking to creating a simulated DOF isn't a fair comparison. One can be created in camera, one can not. Stacking does something that isn't possible without software.

Here is a link to a video of the function you are talking about:

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/02/29/...of-field-easy/

[Steve U]

C'mon Daniel, I'll swap you my CS4 for your 24/1.4 and we'll just call it even.

[HDNitehawk]

C'mon Daniel, I'll swap you my CS4 for your 24/1.4 and we'll just call it even.

If you get his 24/1.4 will you still need your Zeiss 21mm? I have a copy of CS5 I will trade you.

[ddt0725]

Isn't that sort of what the Plug-in OnOne Focal Point 2 does already? It lets me choose the lens and the apeture ...Canon or Nikon. I can "shoot" with a Canon 85 1.2 or a Nikon 85 1.8 anytime I want ...LOL!

[Sheiky]

This begs the question: who needs an expensive, fast lens?

One might say that "it's not the same as what a lens can do." Perhaps? Perhaps, not.

For example, rather than buy the 70-200 2.8 II IS, one might be better off with the 70-200 f/4 IS. Half the price, and still high IQ.

Plus, the tool in CS6 will allow the user to decide where to place the depth of field.

However, it's surely a tool that will improve as time goes on, and then buying that expensive (and, heavy) piece of glass might be a thing of the past.

It could replace a fast lens in some occasions, however it can't in a lot of other occasions. The problem with this software is that it doesn't know where the objects on your photo are placed in real life. In the example video that Rich linked to the software does the same work as you might have done sometimes yourself with a few layers, masks and some gausian or lens blur.
This works fine for photos where pretty much everything is flat. However this doesn't work if transitions from for to background are not fluid.
For example: You take a photo from a low perspective. Person 1 stands 5 ft from the camera, person 2 stands 10 ft from the camera. You know this, however Photoshop doesn't and will create the DOF regarding what items there are in your shot. If you want to blur Person 2 say 50% and the background 100% and have that proces go smoothly, you're still assigned on doing some lovely selection-work and using multiple layers and masks to get this done.
Using a fast lens might have done the shot all at once and have been a lot easier.

As for the "flat" shots. This tool seems very easy, however just use the actions from the video below and you don't really have to upgrade to CS6


The other options is to keep following the updates on the Lytro camera. Then you can do all this with just one camera and even incamera It's cheaper than a fast lens or CS6 (still very expensive for a 1MP camera though...)

[HDNitehawk]

After reading Jan’s comments about “flat” objects and watching the video I think the functions usefulness will be limited to certain pictures.

For instance this picture would not be possible to create with the DOF function:

Bluejay 6 by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr

I think fast lenses with good bokeh are safe for now.

[Sean Setters]

Plus, there are other advantages to using high quality (usually fast) lenses; two advantages off the top of my head--better autofocus mechanisms and weather sealing (in many cases).

[Jon Ruyle]

The Lytro camera is cool. In theory, you can control the DOF, focus plane, and the quality of the bokeh, all after the fact.

[Sheiky]

The Lytro camera is cool. In theory, you can control the DOF, focus plane, and the quality of the bokeh, all after the fact.

Yeah it looks pretty cool. It's still a bummer that it only takes about 1MP photos(not even enough for a wallpaper ) and is quite expensive at this time I'm not sure how fast the shutterspeed on these things is, but with an f2 aperture I guess you should be alright in quite a lot circumstances.

For instance this picture would not be possible to create with the DOF function:
I think fast lenses with good bokeh are safe for now.

To be fair, I wouldn't volunteer to try to recreate it with masks and layers either I think your conclusion is right...for now(and a few years down the lne probably).

[Jon Ruyle]

It's still a bummer that it only takes about 1MP photos(not even enough for a wallpaper )

Enough for web pics, but not enough for wallpaper.

The reason for the low mp count is that the thing takes 3D data, so instead of say, 1024x1024 = 1 mp for a 1mp pic, it is 1024x1024x1024 = the equivalent of 1024mp of data for a 1mp pic. That's an oversimplification, of course: I don't think it has as much resolution in the depth direction, and there are probably tricks and shortcuts. And the aspect ration isn't 1:1. But it does gather way more data than an ordinary 1mp camera.

With this camera, however, there is no reason you can't have just as creamy bokeh as any lens you care to simulate- but with the low resolution of the final pic, you may not even be able to tell