Sorry, but I just can not agree with this concept. Soft focus
and diffusion are two different things.
Yes, of course they are. The difference is simplified for the sake of discussion. It wouldn't have been very helpful if I had tried to explain the differences between soft-focus and diffusion, rather than try to provide the type of answer the person really wanted.
Also, the ORIGINAL message refered to the use of diffusion filters. So even if they said "soft focus" they really meant diffusion anyway. For them, the distinction wasn't important, and someone who actually knows what the difference is wouldn't be fooled by what I said.
There was never any claim that using Photoshop would be an exact match for what you'd get on-camera. But why does it need to be the exact same effect? After all, there are different flavors of diffusion filter that you might put on your lens. Some people like the Cokin diffuser, or a Tiffen Soft FX, while others won't shoot with anything but a Softar.
Likewise, there are different flavors of diffusion effects possible with Photoshop, and while there is certainly a difference between on-camera diffusion and in-Photoshop diffusion, the bottom line is that you have more control over what's happpening when you do it in Photoshop.
...in Photoshop,
you can only work with what the sensor has captured.
When one applies diffusion/netting/pastel or other similar
filtration in-camera, you can get some spill of the highlights into
the shadow areas, thus reducing contrast and actually RECORDING
some more detail in the shadow areas.
Diffusing a highlight into a shadow area does reduce image contrast, but it doesn't really light up extra detail in the shadows. You simply get lighter-toned shadows. Detail that was genuinely not being exposed in the first place won't suddenly appear when you use a diffusion filter on-camera.
With Photoshop, the degree to which the highlights spill over into the shadows when you diffuse an image depends entirely on the exact technique used. If you use just a single layer for diffusion, your control over this is limited. But using multiple layers with different degrees of diffusion and layer opacity can give you the kind of effect you might be looking for.
No amount of pixel-pushing can create detail where there was no
exposure.
Precisely. Neither does doing it on-camera. No amount of highlight diffusion is going to bring up detail in the shadows that wasn't actually getting any light in the first place.
The problem with the gaussian blur sample somebody posted
is in the dark areas....like the forehead part area of the
woman,and her sweater...there's just dark,inky blackness
there...there is no detail. The look overall is fakey. It's too
high-contrast.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but that hardly means the technique is no good. And maybe this particular image doesn't represent the best possible results. The basic technique isn't that hard, but there are a lot variations and mastering it takes practice.
Besides, you can get bad results from on-camera diffusion just as easily. And when that happens, you might not be able to fix it.
When you're applying diffusion with Photoshop, on the other hand, you simply reload the original image and start over.
Photoshop is not the same thing as in-camera filtration. No way.
And I happen to LIKE gaussian blur techniques--so much that I will
shoot with a diffuser and then add ADDITONAL in PS. There "IS" a
huge difference.
I agree there's a difference. Nobody has claimed otherwise. But the fact there is a difference doesn't mean that the on-camera version is automatically preferred. As a general rule, I prefer the extra control I get from doing the diffusion in Photoshop later.
However, I sometimes also use the Canon 135mm Soft-Focus lens with my D60, which uses the controlled introduction of spherical aberation to achieve its effect. I don't like it quite as much as my old Minolta 85mm Varisoft, which was similar, but I can only use that lens with my old XD-11.
Like Bob Neil said "I still like some black mesh over the lens".
Me too. I've never quite figured out a way to achieve a similar effect in Photoshop that I've been happy with. But this is one of those filters that I think needs more resolution to work with on a digital camera.
Exactly. There's a reason filters were created. What the sensor
RECORDS is affected by the filter at shooting time. If you can't
underdstand this concept, and are afraid to diffuse an image
in-camera, I feel sorry that you're missing out and deluding
yourself that Photoshop can magically better a venerable,valuable
technique.
Maybe you should go back and read the message thread again. Somebody asked if it was possible to do that kind of effect, and the answer was "yes" along with a general explanation of how. Nobody ever said that Photoshop was providing a better effect.
And I didn't really say there was no point in using filters on-camera, either. I said that I thought higher resolution was necessary.
With my Epson 750z and later my EOS D30, I didn't like the results of using on-camera diffusion. The lack of sufficient resolution blurred the distinction between "soft" and "unfocused". I found it worked better to avoid on-camera diffusion. I like the results with my EOS D60 much better, but I still think there's room for improvement. I'm looking forward to trying something like the new Canon 1Ds.
All it does is mimick filtration,and frankly, not all
that well.Witness the inky black sweater and inky blackness
surrounded by fake high-key gaussian blur. Gaussian blur is
handy,sure,but it's QUITE a far cry from spilling some light and
actually recording something on film/sensor.
If you like the results you're getting from using a filter on the lens, then stick with that.
Mike
