Photoshop CS6 Blur Gallery Tutorial

The new Blur Gallery in Photoshop CS6 offers tools that provide intuitive and creative ways to manipulate depth of field and create bokeh effects.

One of my favorite features introduced in the Photoshop CS6 beta is without a doubt the Blur Gallery. This collection of three brand new filters allows for photo-realistic depth of field adjustments via an interface which allows you to place and manipulate controls directly on the image area.

Photographers rely on focal length, subject distance and aperture to determine in-focus and blurred areas of an image. Yet there are times when technical constraints make a desired effect difficult to achieve. And that's where these new tools come in handy.

Unlike the blur options in previous versions of Photoshop, the Blur Gallery filters are designed specifically to produce a selective focus effect. The Blur Gallery is comprised of three filters; Field Blur, Iris Blur and Tilt-Shift. In addition there are a separate set of Blur Effects that let you create specular highlights mimicking the circular bokeh effect produced by lenses. In this article I’ll show you how these tools work and hopefully inspire you to start using them on your own images.

You can find the new blur tools by going to Filter>Blur. Selecting one of the top three options (highlighted in red) will open the new Blur Gallery. The Blur Gallery opens in a full size window that temporarily replaces your regular workspace. Panels along the right give you access to all three of the blur filters as well as bokeh adjustments.

Because the blur filters are applied directly to the image pixels, rather than as a layer adjustment, I strongly recommend that you first duplicate the background layer of your image before applying any of these filters. If your image already contains multiple layers, select the topmost layer and merge the visible layers into a new additional layer by pressing  Command + Shift + Option + E  (Ctrl + Shift + Alt + E on Windows). Then go to Filter>Blur and choose either Field Blur, Iris Blur or Tilt-Shift.)  This will open the Blur Gallery.

Field Blur

Field Blur is the simplest of the three filters to use, but offers the least amount of direct control. When you select this option in the Filter menu, the image opens in a full size editing window. An active 'pin' is automatically placed in the center of the image, surrounded by an adjustment ring (the gray circle partially covered in white). At this point the entire image is blurred to the degree specified in the adjustment ring.

Field Blur opens with a 'pin' placed in the center of the image surrounded by an adjustment ring that applies a  blur to the entire image.

With your cursor on or near the adjustment ring you can drag your mouse along the ring's edge to adjust the blur amount. You'll see the blur value update (an example of of CS6's 'rich cursor' feature) as you move the mouse. Alternatively you can use the slider in the Field Blur panel. 

OK, so we've made the entire image blurry. Big deal. The fun starts as you add additional pins to the image. Move your cursor away from the adjustment ring and you’ll see the cursor now appears as a small pushpin with an plus sign alongside it. In this 'add pin' mode, simply click to place a new blur control so that you can specify a different  blur intensity at that image location. A blur setting of 0 prevents any blur from taking place, protecting or masking out that area of the image.

Place two pins on a single image and Photoshop creates a linear gradient that makes a smooth transition between the effects of each pin. Place three or more pins and Photoshop then constrains the effect of each pin to the image area in its immediate vicinity. You can place as many pins as you like on an image.

You can apply as many pins, at varied settings as needed to apply blur to some areas of the image while protecting areas you wish to remain sharp.
Press and hold the M key to see the actual blur mask. Areas in white have a blur applied to them while areas in black have been protected. Shades of gray represent partially affected regions.

You can see that I've added a lot of pins in this example in order to restrict the blur effects to specific areas of the image. Note that each pin can be set to its own blur value, so the real value of Filed Blur comes if you're prepared to place and adjust multiple points on an image, which admittedly can take time to get the precise results you're after.

Here's the original image. The background is distracting.
Using the Field Blur I was able to slightly blur the background, drawing attention to the dog chasing the kite.

I was able to create a gradual transition in the amount of blur on the sand by applying several pins at different intensities, but this also required numerous pins to protect the dog.

Images like this one with complex elements like the 'flying' fur of the dog call up some limitations of the Field Blur tool. If you look closely you'll find areas around the edges of the subject that will require some clean-up work with Photoshop's clone/healing tools.

While this may seem like an awful lot of work, one of the things I like best about Field Blur is that it tends to lead to more realistic results with natural-looking transitions that looks as if they could have actually been done in-camera. The Iris Blur filter, which we'll examine on the following page, can produce results with less effort. Yet it is very easy to produce an overdone result that any experienced photographer will recognize as a post processing edit.

Click here to continue reading our Photoshop CS6 Blur Gallery tutorial...

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by dpreview.com or any affiliated companies.

Comments

Total comments: 168
12
photokandi
By photokandi (Mar 29, 2012)

I think it needs fine tweaking cos from where I'm sat it looks awful!

0 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Mar 29, 2012)

Some odd looking stuff, I must say. It could come in handy if used with a lighter touch mebbe.

0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Mar 29, 2012)

The problem nowadays is that photography of masses to overly rely on special effects that the programs they offer. Killing the pure creativity that can be done in a conventional way. I am not saying that is bad, but the abuse leads to ridiculous and the image loses all the sensitivity and know of a more knowledgeable than photographer is doing.
Progress is inevitable, but you need to know to apply at the time and in the right place without exaggerations, unless we want a surrealist photography.And if for this purpose, then it is understandable.

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Mar 29, 2012)

Broken is somewhat too perfect, but I think this effect is not unusable.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 29, 2012)

I'm sorry, but I can't see what use this software can be to any half-decent photographer. I understand someone with a limited camera or lens may find it useful - though he (she)'ll have to be prepared for the completey unrealistic results -, but if you have a lens with decent aperture and standard-to-telephoto focal length, getting blurred backgrounds is so disconcertingly easy I just fail to see who this software is for. Post-processing isn't half as fun as getting it right before pressing the shutter release button. I love it when I take my E-P1 and OM 50mm/f1.4 to the town's Botanical Garden: the way the blur forms in the display while the main subject comes into focus, as I rotate the focus ring, is nothing short of magic. Sitting at the computer applying brushes must be a rather tedious experience.
Want great background blur? Buy a decent lens instead.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Mar 29, 2012)

It is as if they are expecting people with $200 cameras to buy $600 in software.

Comment edited 9 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 29, 2012)

Well, tkbslc, as silly as it may sound, they are. Actually, they don't care what camera you have, as long as you buy it.

0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Mar 29, 2012)

Don't like the results. Anyway, buy a 1.4 or 1.8 lens and you have a natural and beautiful DOF.

4 upvotes
jjlad
By jjlad (Mar 29, 2012)

to an extent. I use a 35mm 1.8 on a D7000 and if the subject is at the distance illustrated there, the DOF won't be great.
I normall select the subject ..put it on its own layer then blur the underlying layer and apply a gradient to it. Works somewhat the same as this filter and its been a year or two now since i've been asked f I created the DOF in post.
I also shoot a lot with a Fuji s100fs bridge cam and with its smaller sensor the only way to get nice DOF is in post. Very hard to get bokeh though ...so the bokeh filter might be great.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Mar 29, 2012)

Yes, the distance that the dog is in the picture, with a 35 mm is not easy. However with a moderate zoom achieves this effect easily.

0 upvotes
Aero Windwalker
By Aero Windwalker (Mar 29, 2012)

Any software blur to-date are not very realistic, including CS6's blur gallery.

1 upvote
futile32
By futile32 (Mar 29, 2012)

I'd argue that the effects are realistic, you really just have to be selective and manually layer the effects for real z-depth.

You currently can't assume 3D information automatically from a 2D image (unless you look at light-field tech). This is where manual labor must occur. Otherwise I'd say the Bokeh renderings are pretty accurate.

0 upvotes
JohnBee
By JohnBee (Mar 30, 2012)

You haven't seen Alien Skin Bokeh have you?
I've seen output from this software that are indistinguishable from true optics.

0 upvotes
openskyline
By openskyline (Mar 29, 2012)

so fake. buy canon f1.8

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
chkproductions
By chkproductions (Apr 13, 2012)

Agreed. Not even close to real shallow DOF. Zeiss 135 ++

0 upvotes
Jack A. Zucker
By Jack A. Zucker (Mar 29, 2012)

Good article but frankly the jpg compression artifacts ruin the examples. You should consider uploading images with less compression. This is particularly evident in the Iris blur where the "after" picture suffers from such bad compression artifacting that one might mistakenly think the blur effect created the problem.

0 upvotes
ybizzle
By ybizzle (Mar 29, 2012)

As a guy who has been into photography for many years, I can tell you that these cheap little tricks will never replace the true bokeh effect of a fast lens. At the same time though, it's a nice tool to have for those who can't afford fast lenses and want to simulate that effect in their photos.

0 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Mar 29, 2012)

Blur is also a nice tool for people who can afford bright lenses - but still want to have in-focus all of the subjects, and thus shoot at sane apertures, which actually are suited for capturing the whole scene.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Jack A. Zucker
By Jack A. Zucker (Mar 29, 2012)

Silly posting (about good glass). The point of photoshop is to enhance creativity. Go check out vincent versace sometime. He uses good glass but does stuff in post processing that no single exposure with a 36mp camera and the best glass could ever do without post processing.

2 upvotes
louie c
By louie c (Mar 29, 2012)

Thanks for the link to Vincent's site! It's the best of all worlds to use quality optical equipment and know how to properly use cutting edge post processing tools imo

0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Mar 29, 2012)

mmm....i don't think the article is suggesting to buy a cheap lens then use filter blur at all. yeah this is only to bost creativity.

I do agree with you that true bokeh cannot replaced by stupid software.

1 upvote
ybizzle
By ybizzle (Mar 29, 2012)

@ Jack - So should we all use cheap glass and rely on Photoshop to simulate the bokeh effect?

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 29, 2012)

@ThePhilips: the idea, when using blur, is to isolate the main subject from the background. This totally excludes «to have in-focus all of the subjects, and thus shoot at sane apertures». And... «sane apertures»? What are you talking about?

0 upvotes
futile32
By futile32 (Mar 29, 2012)

@ybizzle
I would hate to commit to saying that software will 'never' replace high priced lenses (in terms of Bokeh). There is obviously enough demand out there for a simulated Bokeh, and enough people that can't justify the cost of higher priced lenses.

One day it will be possible to achieve this automatically. Right now these current tools can certainly simulate the effect close enough that most can't tell the difference (in certain photographic compositions).

I personally utilize blur effects to creamify 'busy bokeh' I get some my lens. Even pricey lenses like 24-70mm F2.8s are quite weak in the Bokeh area.

0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Mar 30, 2012)

@ybizzle - it's really not my business but Jack is not suggesting to rely on PS to simulate the narrow DOF either. the beauty with digial photography is (but not limited to) that we now have softwares help us to materialize our imaginations that the predecessors would have spent hours on and at extremely low cost too. why being so aggressive? photography is meant to be FUN and ENJOYABLE.

smile away and go out and take lots of pictures~~

0 upvotes
putomax
By putomax (Mar 29, 2012)

IMHExperience it is one more tool.
This days I am barely using PS, only for "special cases".
I am not upgrading and wouldn't ONLY because of this vaseline.
I've tried similar... In LR, gradients, are specially useful when you want even more attention on a given spot, works better within a mix of contrast, clarity, sharpness, etc. The main difference's in LR you work with stacks, with copy paste attributes... it is FAST!!!
Would NEVER substitute the "original" experience of shooting A PRIME WIDE OPEN... it's something of post-relationship kinda thing... I prefer to act in the
field, to push my gear to the limits (even a P&S can render great images) but that's just me... there are a million of other willing to pay opinions/experiences/ways

gashô

0 upvotes
roblarosa
By roblarosa (Mar 29, 2012)

Reading these comments I can almost hear the sphincters of those who bought expensive fast lenses snapping shut.

3 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Mar 29, 2012)

Perhaps some will dilate and emanate lots of cash or pent-up methane at the next news of an f/1.7 prime, but it's not easy for any new product to earn praise from folks afflicted with serious sigmoid blockage or diverticulitis. Picky eaters all.

0 upvotes
StephenSPhotog
By StephenSPhotog (Mar 29, 2012)

Guys, seriously, fast primes are not expensive...

1 upvote
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Mar 29, 2012)

I have expensive fast lenses and this doesn't bother me at all. Half my reason for owning them is not to gain the adulation of bokeh snobs, but just to be able to get the shot in low light. This feature does not affect that one bit.

0 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (Mar 29, 2012)

I agree. You've missed the point. People like me with fast glass could care less about a software solution. Using tools like this just will allow us to better touch of the already nice bokeh we might have. Moreover, to get this right with this tool requires many hours of careful work. I'd rather reward that than my fast glass. .

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 29, 2012)

well only a blind would think that this can compete with a fast lens.
it looks fake and physical incorrect.... i bet you dont own a fast lens?

2 upvotes
JohnBee
By JohnBee (Mar 30, 2012)

I think you'll find people have different definition of expensive :p
ie. in my own case, I think $1500 for a 35mm 1.4 lens is expensive. Likewise, a $5000 85mm 1.4 Zeiss is unattainable for me. But I really like the bokeh and rendering of these lenses.

0 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Mar 29, 2012)

Post processing this will always look fake because you miss the graduality of shooting wide open. For me these kind of tools are only made for the big crowd that will never make a really good picture anyway.

10 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Mar 29, 2012)

Couldn't agree more. +1

1 upvote
JohnBee
By JohnBee (Mar 29, 2012)

Expensive lens: http://gallery.ishpuini.be/albums/201201-Middelheim/MiddelH-BR-002.jpg

Cheap Lens w/sofware: http://www.bertin.ca/tmp/MiddelH-BR-001_BOKEH.jpg

Aside from the sharpness(no fault of the lens), the bokeh attributes are virtually indistinguishable. And so I'd say that in some cases, the expensive lenses can be effectively replaced with a software solution.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
JohnBee
By JohnBee (Mar 29, 2012)

Here's another: http://www.creativepro.com/files/story_images/20091021_fg01a.jpg

None of these are Photoshop btw.

0 upvotes
putomax
By putomax (Mar 29, 2012)

johnbee I would say TOTALLY "indistinguishable";
you put the same image TWICE ;)

1 upvote
JohnBee
By JohnBee (Mar 29, 2012)

LOL right you are...
Luckily I was able to edit and correct that.

Thanks for pointing that out :p

0 upvotes
JohnBee
By JohnBee (Mar 29, 2012)

Here's another example of the stunning bokeh effects that can be accomplished with DOF software: http://i.stack.imgur.com/a91zR.png

I've seen too many of these to fall for these PS6 samples. Though it does show that software solutions can be just as good as the optical solutions in some cases.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
putomax
By putomax (Mar 29, 2012)

"it does show that software solutions can be just as good as the optical solutions in some cases."
I agree Joakim, IN SOME CASES... for me the two differences are:
• the more organic/pleasant (maybe just 'cause we got used to that) to the eye render with lenses+skill
• and TIME. 10 minutes in PS or just a click.

BTW that clover is... just dreaming ;)

gashô

0 upvotes
dennis mol
By dennis mol (Mar 29, 2012)

Using blur layers with masks has been available all along. You can paint on your blur layer mask with varying shades of gray to come very close to a graduated bokeh effect. You can also use a circular gradient in your mask to achieve a graduated blur.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
MichaelK81
By MichaelK81 (Mar 29, 2012)

I'm sorry to be a downer, really, I am. But these two are awful. The faux bokeh in the dog photo just screams "shopped". If you really wanted to do it right, the dog should've been selected with lasso, selection fine-tuned, foreground+background done on separate layers, and maybe after 20 minutes of PS work you'd get a real-looking bokeh. Nevermind difficult depths of field with multiple objects.

There have been bokeh plug-ins around, so I certainly welcome Adobe including this neat little feature in PS. I just think it's very limited with respect to the kinds of photos where it can be effectively utilized.

The flower picture is a better example, but even there the blur bleeds off on the sides of the bottom flower. It's meticulous work, no doubt.

0 upvotes
JohnBee
By JohnBee (Mar 29, 2012)

I've found some software to be much better at this than others. And Photoshop's new tool seems quite primitive compared to some of the alternate choices out there atm. Having said that, there are many times when a software solution just isn't feasible. But it other cases it can really work.

0 upvotes
Bart Hickman
By Bart Hickman (Mar 29, 2012)

I don't get all the sour grapes about this. Yes, the lens blur filter has done it for eons (although this gives a more productive and interactive workflow). Yes, it doesn't look quite the same as shooting with a wide aperture lens. But it does successfully emphasize the subject. Isn't that what matters?

Tilt-shift lenses (which this tool clearly obsoletes) also look "fake" but people still use them for the same reason--subject isolation.

1 upvote
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Mar 29, 2012)

Some people just don't want choices, and they don't want a tool that can save an already taken image at a time when they would need it the most. To them, digital editing is something that is good when it serves their special interests, and evil when it doesn't.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Guidenet
By Guidenet (Mar 29, 2012)

"Tilt-shift lenses (which this tool clearly obsoletes) also look "fake" but people still use them for the same reason--subject isolation."

Woah! Where did you get that idea? Subject isolation is not the primary purpose of a tilt shift lens and this software tool not only does not obsolete them but has very little to do with a tilt shift lens. These lenses generally have two primary purposes. One is to correct architectural perspective. The other is to change the plaine of viewed best focus from flat in front you you to some other angle. The point is generally to extend the part of the image that is in focus, not to blur it.

A tilt shift lens allows you to tilt the front (and maybe back) so that a flower at your toes is sharp as is the mountains in the distance. Nothing is isolated.

0 upvotes
Bart Hickman
By Bart Hickman (Mar 30, 2012)

Sorry, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking--I mean lenses that let you tilt the focal plane. Like a lens baby. Are those called tilt lenses? Many people use these things to make funky blurry images. That optical function is completely obsolete IMO.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Mar 30, 2012)

Maybe this is off-topic but in all my years of using tilt/shift lenses, it wasn't until recently that I discovered that by tilting too much or in the wrong direction you can get a $2000 lens to be no sharper than a Lens Baby. And to make your photos look like an HO train set. Hey, people love it so who am I to judge.

0 upvotes
Buzzzman
By Buzzzman (Apr 2, 2012)

Looks more like gaussian blur (something I try to avoid) than a natural l shallow depth of field. Lens blur is more natural looking.
Buzz

0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Mar 29, 2012)

good if you have Nikon 1 or Pentax Q

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Mar 29, 2012)

Did same ages ago (back in CS2) it looks fake no matter what you do. Rather save on CS6, buy latest LR for improved RAW development and buy yourself fast lens. Or course "how to take photos with shallow DOF".

1 upvote
JohnBee
By JohnBee (Mar 29, 2012)

Alien Skin Bokeh is very good at creating realistic DOF effects.

0 upvotes
jjlad
By jjlad (Mar 29, 2012)

I've tried their limited time offers and found that on the same photos I could do just as well using photoshop as I described in another post a few minutes ago. When shooting a bridge cam that kind of post processing is second nature to me now since the DOF at 5.6 on a bridge cam puts everything in focus from the end of your nose to the next area code.

0 upvotes
JohnBee
By JohnBee (Mar 30, 2012)

I think ASB's specialty is that it mimics known lens bokeh(OOF rendering/highlights etc) which cannot be replicated w/Photoshop

0 upvotes
Faintandfuzzy
By Faintandfuzzy (Mar 29, 2012)

If it's done right in the camera, these "tools" aren't required. Learn the craft.

3 upvotes
meanwhile
By meanwhile (Mar 29, 2012)

The field blur can be done far better, and easier, with other existing tools (just got a much better/natural result with brushing the blur in Aperture in a few minutes with that image for example, and I'm sure Lightroom would be similar). I think even Ps layers/masks and the existing blur tools would give easier and better results.

0 upvotes
meanwhile
By meanwhile (Mar 29, 2012)

(Of course it's better to have a fast lens, that's a given, and not really worth mentioning ...)

0 upvotes
JohnBee
By JohnBee (Mar 29, 2012)

I think much of the issues surrounding this PS6 tool is that it does not seem to render accurate DOF effect(bokeh). And that the eye really seems to pick-up on this.

Having said that, there are a few third party tools that are very good at creating realistic and in some cases incredibly good bokeh effects though it seems limited to simple subject /plane relationships: http://www.squidoo.com/bokeh-photography

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
cesaregal
By cesaregal (Mar 29, 2012)

Careful photographers needn't a strong pp's help.
Analysis of the light, study of the perspective and choice of proper lens are enough.
However bad situations can need a pp's help, if you accept it.
It must be an exception in my opinion.

2 upvotes
infiniti55
By infiniti55 (Mar 29, 2012)

Just another cheat tool that all these digital crazed amatuers who don't know what the hell they are doing in the first place and don't even know what DOF stands for anyway to use to fake bokeh becuase they couldn't get it right from the start. It's a good tool for some but mostly to be overused by many.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
1 upvote
evan fotis
By evan fotis (Mar 29, 2012)

the "save mask to channels" function is what will help these blur tools become more accurate and realistic, once one starts painting on the mask with a brush tool. Ideally these should be non destructive smart filters with their own layer mask.

2 upvotes
The Photo Ninja
By The Photo Ninja (Mar 29, 2012)

I've used Bokeh 2 from Alien Skin for this fake depth of field. It's a neat feature, but not enough for me to upgrade.

3 upvotes
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (Mar 29, 2012)

So after the content aware fill from CS5 we got the next wow-feature that isn't usable if you're remotely looking for quality.

1 upvote
D1N0
By D1N0 (Mar 29, 2012)

Picasa has been able to do this for years

5 upvotes
mantra
By mantra (Mar 29, 2012)

really?
never found this feature :(

0 upvotes
incognitox
By incognitox (Mar 29, 2012)

soft focus feature in effects.

0 upvotes
LWW
By LWW (Mar 29, 2012)

Usual pre-lease propaganda for stuff that we have got by without so far

0 upvotes
falconeyes
By falconeyes (Mar 29, 2012)

This looks like a function designed for LR4 but then changed for CS6.

CS5 already has masks and the lens blur filter. The new blur tool above looks a lot like the other LR3 brush-based tools. I am almost sure this is LR4 content moved to CS6.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Bright Storm
By Bright Storm (Mar 29, 2012)

Nice intro for CS6 blur effects. The result (photograph with dog) is far of realistic photo though - too many editing errors (=too little time spent), the hair of the poor dog is almost impossible to edit this way.

It often becomes down to what user can do (and is willing to do) manually. With that said, the same blur effect could be done by manually manipulating with the masks (basically as seen on image Mask2). However it seems Adobe is thinking about new users, so to use "advanced" blur (and other effects) without deep(er) knowledge about using masks.

I agree with ilovemyrobot: F/1.4 (50, 85mm), or F/2.0 (135, 200mm) lens is smarter choice in most of the cases.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Mar 29, 2012)

Have your choice: edit errors, or f/1.4 shots that are blurry because the pooch would not sit still, or because fido dashed through the trees and brush too fast.

0 upvotes
Bright Storm
By Bright Storm (Mar 29, 2012)

Good results come with experience. Go out and shoot at 1.4 for a couple of hundred (thousand) shots at completely different conditions. Know your camera. If you are able to learn, you get stunning results soon.

At any time I prefer natural looking focus/bokeh to artificially created awful quality unnatural looking "blur".

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Total comments: 168
12