Simulating Depth of Field in Photoshop

[Jack A. Zucker]

I'm doing mostly touchup work with digital photographs. My camera, an Olympus C2020 has a 1/2 inch CCD and an incredible amount of DOF. In fact, F2 on that camera is approximately like F32 on my 35mm equivalent lens! I typically shoot studio portraits at F8 which means you can see every nose hair and my painted background's brush strokes are evident whereas they look like a soft pastel blur with a normal camera at F8. I use a soft focus filter but that still doesn't do the trick.

What I'm playing around with is a duplicate layer with a fairly large radius gaussian blur along with a series of gradient masks but I have had limited success with this technique. I was just wondering if anyone else has worked with this issue and been more successful.

Thanks,

Jaz

--
Jack A. Zucker
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web : http://www.jackzucker.com

 

[Bruce Komusin]

I'm doing mostly touchup work with digital photographs. My camera, an
Olympus C2020 has a 1/2 inch CCD and an incredible amount of DOF. In
fact, F2 on that camera is approximately like F32 on my 35mm equivalent
lens! I typically shoot studio portraits at F8 which means you can see
every nose hair and my painted background's brush strokes are evident
whereas they look like a soft pastel blur with a normal camera at F8. I
use a soft focus filter but that still doesn't do the trick.

What I'm playing around with is a duplicate layer with a fairly large
radius gaussian blur along with a series of gradient masks but I have had
limited success with this technique. I was just wondering if anyone else
has worked with this issue and been more successful.

The $40 program from Micrografx called "Picture Publisher version 8" has a Camera Aperture effect that simulates depth of field. You point with your cursor to the center of a circle that you want relatively sharp. You set the "lens length" to 28mm, or 55mm, or 105mm, or 500mm or continuously variable setting, and that changes the radius of the "blur circle" around your center point.

You can also set the f-stop & the "light-falloff". Then when you click on OK, it makes a blur that gets progressively stronger the further away it is from the outside radius of the blur circle.

I really don't know what all this stuff means, I'm not a photogragher, but for $40, how can you go wrong, check it out.

Hope this helps.
-bruce komusin, venice, fl

 

[Sunset]

I would use photoshops magnetic lasso tool to select your subject, then use Selection:inverse to selectg everything but the subject. Copy the background in a new layer and then apply a gaussian blur to the degree you want, and make the second layer semi-transparent. I use this technique with portrait shots all the time, as the wide open setting on my pro 70 will still render a perfectly sharp background (ala f/4 or 5.6). Just play with the radius/transparency and see if you can adjust the magnetic lasso to get as close to you subject as possible. You might want to actually include some of your subject (the outlines) in the second layer, so you have a smooth look, and not something that looks "blue-screened".

Sunset

I'm doing mostly touchup work with digital photographs. My camera, an
Olympus C2020 has a 1/2 inch CCD and an incredible amount of DOF. In
fact, F2 on that camera is approximately like F32 on my 35mm equivalent
lens! I typically shoot studio portraits at F8 which means you can see
every nose hair and my painted background's brush strokes are evident
whereas they look like a soft pastel blur with a normal camera at F8. I
use a soft focus filter but that still doesn't do the trick.

What I'm playing around with is a duplicate layer with a fairly large
radius gaussian blur along with a series of gradient masks but I have had
limited success with this technique. I was just wondering if anyone else
has worked with this issue and been more successful.

Thanks,

Jaz

--
Jack A. Zucker
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web : http://www.jackzucker.com

 

[Jack A. Zucker]

I would use photoshops magnetic lasso tool to select your subject, then
use Selection:inverse to selectg everything but the subject. Copy the
background in a new layer and then apply a gaussian blur to the degree
you want, and make the second layer semi-transparent

I already have tried that and even feathering the selection into the subject itself, it looks fake. What I really want is to make a duplicate layer and then apply a fairly wide radius blur to it. Then, I want to create a layer mask and draw a circular gradient around the face. Photoshop does this but the problem is that the gradient transitions from black to white in too abrupt a fashion and thus looks "hokey". Perhaps applying a gaussian blur to the mask itself would help a bit.

Jaz

 

[Sunset]

subject itself, it looks fake. What I really want is to make a duplicate
layer and then apply a fairly wide radius blur to it. Then, I want to
create a layer mask and draw a circular gradient around the face.
Photoshop does this but the problem is that the gradient transitions from
black to white in too abrupt a fashion and thus looks "hokey". Perhaps
applying a gaussian blur to the mask itself would help a bit.

Jaz

Yes... but I have not found that using a gaussian blur really affected gradient transitions. You might try using a Lighting Effects filter sparingly. Depending on the angle/intensity of lighting you can choose, gradient transitions can be slightly or greatly affected. I haven't had too much trouble creating a realistic enough looking "soft focus" or "wide open" effect especially in b&w... On screen I have found that (perhaps becuase I just applied all of them) I can see what has been done to the original image... when printed, it could be an original because printed output will rarely render the minor inconsistincies or "hokeyness" you can seen becuase of the luminosity and tonal range of your monitor.

Sunset

 

[Noel Carboni]

What I'm playing around with is a duplicate layer with a fairly large
radius gaussian blur along with a series of gradient masks but I have had
limited success with this technique. I was just wondering if anyone else
has worked with this issue and been more successful.

Jack,

As you pointed out, other than in macro mode the modern digital cameras don't seem to produce nearly the interest you get when the subject is in crisp focus against a fuzzy backdrop.

You might try painting with the blur tool (looks like a little drop of water). Use a large, fuzzy-edged brush, and you may want to select out the areas (e.g., your subject) you don't want to blur. Blur away until the image looks good. I've had some success with this in outdoor shots as well, swiping away at grass in the foreground and the stuff in the background to help draw attention to my subject. You can see an example of where I've done this in "White Ibis by the Lake" (photo 27) at:

http://members2.clubphoto.com/noel190777/Olympus_C-2500L_Photos_First_Page

Noel

 

[Jack A. Zucker]

You might try painting with the blur tool (looks like a little drop of
water). Use a large, fuzzy-edged brush, and you may want to select out
the areas (e.g., your subject) you don't want to blur. Blur away until

I just started playing with the blur tool. Previously what I was doing was blurring a 40% opacity duplicate layer and then creating a mask and masking out the focal point of the image.

The blur tool is very nice for that type of thing.

UNFORTUNATELY, it doesn't give you the gradual and natural looking effect of a nice Portrait lens at F8. I'm still looking for an action to do that. It's hard to simulate by hand and very time consuming...

Jaz

 

[Glenn Islat]

Try the varifocus by andromeda software: http://www.andromeda.com . The program simulates selective focus using masks very effectivey.

Glenn Islat

I'm doing mostly touchup work with digital photographs. My camera, an
Olympus C2020 has a 1/2 inch CCD and an incredible amount of DOF. In
fact, F2 on that camera is approximately like F32 on my 35mm equivalent
lens! I typically shoot studio portraits at F8 which means you can see
every nose hair and my painted background's brush strokes are evident
whereas they look like a soft pastel blur with a normal camera at F8. I
use a soft focus filter but that still doesn't do the trick.

What I'm playing around with is a duplicate layer with a fairly large
radius gaussian blur along with a series of gradient masks but I have had
limited success with this technique. I was just wondering if anyone else
has worked with this issue and been more successful.

Thanks,

Jaz

--
Jack A. Zucker
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web : http://www.jackzucker.com

 

[Peter iNova]

I'm doing mostly touchup work with digital photographs. My camera, an
Olympus C2020 has a 1/2 inch CCD and an incredible amount of DOF. In
fact, F2 on that camera is approximately like F32 on my 35mm equivalent
lens! I typically shoot studio portraits at F8 which means you can see
every nose hair and my painted background's brush strokes are evident
whereas they look like a soft pastel blur with a normal camera at F8. I
use a soft focus filter but that still doesn't do the trick.

What I'm playing around with is a duplicate layer with a fairly large
radius gaussian blur along with a series of gradient masks but I have had
limited success with this technique. I was just wondering if anyone else
has worked with this issue and been more successful.

Thanks,

Jaz

After reading the previous posts I think you have a lot to work with. Photoshop 5.5 has some really nice new features that make it a big value over 5.0. One of these features is an Extract mode that lets you relatively painlessly isolate an object off its background and make it a self matting new layer.

I used it with this shot to lift the model off the background. Then I made an alpha channel to simulate the transition between foreground sharp and distant blur starting at her feet and going about 10% of the way up the shot. It looked rather abrupt as a transition from black at the botttom to white for most of the top.

This became a selection for gaussian blurring the background. The selection depth seems to affect the blur depth. Anyhow, even on the large original the effect is that the background gradually acquires the effect of out of focus.

Of course, a shot this wide would never really do this even on a TunaQuarter or a 45.



This would take about ten minutes to do the second time you try it.

-iNova

 

[Jack A. Zucker]

After reading the previous posts I think you have a lot to work with.
Photoshop 5.5 has some really nice new features that make it a big value
over 5.0. One of these features is an Extract mode that lets you
relatively painlessly isolate an object off its background and make it a
self matting new layer.

Thanks very much.

When you created your alpha channel did you do it by selecting the
background of your "extracted" image, doing a selection-> inverse and then
selection-> modify-> border ?

Or is there another technique ?

Thanks again,

Jaz

 

[Trozzo]

I took one today, and used gradient masks and gaussian blur. ..the real money is made in the curves tool, and converting its precision into the selection. .Illsutrator skills finally come in handy!!

What I'm playing around with is a duplicate layer with a fairly large
radius gaussian blur along with a series of gradient masks but I have had
limited success with this technique. I was just wondering if anyone else
has worked with this issue and been more successful.

Jack,

As you pointed out, other than in macro mode the modern digital
cameras don't seem to produce nearly the interest you get when the
subject is in crisp focus against a fuzzy backdrop.

You might try painting with the blur tool (looks like a little drop
of water). Use a large, fuzzy-edged brush, and you may want to
select out the areas (e.g., your subject) you don't want to blur.
Blur away until the image looks good. I've had some success with
this in outdoor shots as well, swiping away at grass in the
foreground and the stuff in the background to help draw attention
to my subject. You can see an example of where I've done this in
"White Ibis by the Lake" (photo 27) at:

http://members2.clubphoto.com/noel190777/Olympus_C-2500L_Photos_First_Page

Noel

 

[gmitchel]

If you have PS CS, you can use the Lens Blur filter.

I have a PDF tutorial that demonstrates how to use it to take control over DOF in your images.

Cheers,

Mitch

--
http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com
http://www.thelightsright.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheLightsRight/

 

[gmitchel]

http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/DigitalDarkroom/Tutorials/TakingControlOverDepthOfField.pdf

--
http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com
http://www.thelightsright.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheLightsRight/

 

[Troy Robinson]

Here is a technique I use that I have not seen mentioned yet.

Make your selection of the areas you want blurred, or better yet, make a depth map that has the areas you want blurred the most as white, and the areas with no blur as black Any value in between will be a partial blur,... closer to white will be more blur. Then load this as a selection set.

Use gaussian blur, but here is the trick: do not use a large blur,... use something small like 2-4 (depends on image resolution and other factors) now repeat that blur many times (10-15 maybe)

What you will end up with is a very nice progressive blur from the most selected to the least selected areas.

Hope that made sense,... if not I can try to explain better.

 

[Troy Robinson]

To clarify a bit more,... the selection has to have a feathered edge for this to work,... whether it is custom painted, or created by simply feathering the selection is up to you. The gradient of the selection allows the blur to smoothly transition from a small blur to a large blur.

as a further example,... make a simple circle selection on an image, feather it (50-70 pixels)

now invert the selection (the original selection is what you want in focus)

then apply repeatedly a small gassian blur of 2-4

 

[supra_dave]

no text

 

[Kate Street]

I'm doing mostly touchup work with digital photographs. My camera,
an Olympus C2020 has a 1/2 inch CCD and an incredible amount of
DOF. In fact, F2 on that camera is approximately like F32 on my
35mm equivalent lens! I typically shoot studio portraits at F8
which means you can see every nose hair and my painted background's
brush strokes are evident whereas they look like a soft pastel blur
with a normal camera at F8. I use a soft focus filter but that
still doesn't do the trick.

What I'm playing around with is a duplicate layer with a fairly
large radius gaussian blur along with a series of gradient masks
but I have had limited success with this technique. I was just
wondering if anyone else has worked with this issue and been more
successful.

Thanks,

Jaz

--
Jack A. Zucker
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web : http://www.jackzucker.com

The lens blur filter is supposed to fulfill this function. I haven't been too successful with it in images that do not have a single isolated subject (like a flower, ect.). If you want a realistic and gradual blurring from background to foreground, its a little iffy. My experience has been that the subject remains in focus and everything else is progressively blurred, and the background blurs perfectly, but as you get closer to the subject the blurring that occurs there is not realistic (it is too blurred in comparison with the subject which is on the same plane and not blurred).

There is a tutorial that I saw (and now can't seem to find) that shows a boy peeking out from behind a column in the right side of the image with other columns receding behind him in a column. The filter was applied to blur the other columns all the way to the rear leaving the boy and "his" column in focus. (gradient: back to front). This image is used to demonstrate how great the filter is, but it bothers me that the floor immediately to the left of the boy is blurred but shouldn't be since its on the same plane as the floor he is standing on.
--
Kate

 

[gmitchel]

The lens blur filter is supposed to fulfill this function. I
haven't been too successful with it in images that do not have a
single isolated subject (like a flower, ect.). If you want a
realistic and gradual blurring from background to foreground, its a
little iffy. My experience has been that the subject remains in
focus and everything else is progressively blurred, and the
background blurs perfectly, but as you get closer to the subject
the blurring that occurs there is not realistic (it is too blurred
in comparison with the subject which is on the same plane and not
blurred).

There is a tutorial that I saw (and now can't seem to find) that
shows a boy peeking out from behind a column in the right side of
the image with other columns receding behind him in a column. The
filter was applied to blur the other columns all the way to the
rear leaving the boy and "his" column in focus. (gradient: back to
front). This image is used to demonstrate how great the filter is,
but it bothers me that the floor immediately to the left of the
boy is blurred but shouldn't be since its on the same plane as the
floor he is standing on.
--
Kate

You need to work at your depth mask. It is the key to getting a realistic DOF effect. Where the mask is black, there will be no blur applied. Where the mask is white, the image will receive the full blur effect. Shades of gray would receive a corresponding amount, with brighter tones receiving more blur than darker tones.

http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/DigitalDarkroom/Tutorials/TakingControlOverDepthOfField.pdf

Cheers,

Mitch

--
http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com
http://www.thelightsright.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheLightsRight/