This thread is going at the same time:
Bokeh AI a disapointment: Retouching Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
He is talking about the Bokeh AI feature in Luminar software.
True, but what I think I derived from that thread is that is a version "1" and seemed to be definitely unacceptable.
So was indeed wondering how it may compare w/ EXPOSURE (which is now at version "6") ???
If you look only at the Bokeh function then Exposure is on par with Luminar in this regard. Luminar has been around for quite some time but deteriorated massively with ever more vital functions replaced by AI functions that either work half baked or not at all...
I realize nothing will be identical to true/natural "bokeh", not sure if it really needs to be to serve the purpose of isolating a (sharp) subject.
But I can also see advantages of artificial creation if it can be selective and controllable.
The only software that can do a decent job are those that is coupled with devices that deliver proper depth information.
Why do you need depth (information) if the purpose is to "isolate" the subject ???
It depends whether you want to emulate a real lens with shallow field of view and beautiful bokeh or not. You are the master of your images and can do as you please.
There could be something distracting at the same distance-plane that is best blurred.
That is up to you to decide. I usually get rid of distracting stuff around the edges of images very fast using the content-aware heal brush or cloning or the edit/content aware fill menu item in PS
The "purest" attitude may not always be best.
Either it rains or it does not rain. Cannot argue with that can we?
I am not trying to argue against (real) lens-bokeh, (and its "natural" look).
I am mostly looking for the (best) alternative for small-sensor (bridge) cameras w/ inherently wider DOF.
I suggest their wider DOF is often an advantage for general/travel ...
For general travel I need my wife to be separated from the background - hence around 50mm for APS-C or 70mm + for FF is ideal.
but also don't deny the narrow-DOF of FF can also be an advantage -- but also a DIS-advantage when they NEED wider DOF.
When FF'ers really NEED wider DOF and insist - then they use focus stacking, e.g. for macro where a smaller chip format has the advantage that the subject has to be magnified less to fill the frame than with larger formats and hence the larger DOF.
For a landscape with a field of flowers in the foreground and forest and mountains in the middle and background the best compromise would be to leave the mountains slightly out of focus and the rest sharp to enhance the feeling of depth in the image. With smaller formats like smart phones there is no choice. Everything is just sharp. So the market has demanded sharp portraits with a fuzzy background and the companies have delivered a computational solution to that demand.
What I am sying: most small-format users, enough to be an important market, demand a background OOF to their portraits.
If FF'ers like me NEED larger DOF we use a wide angle or super wide angle and can get everything in focus from 0,5 or 2 m to infinity at F11 depending on how wide we go. At F11 we will have acceptable diffraction softening.
Alternatively we focus stack a few images with longer focals.
An acceptable PP-DOF solution could give an overall (DOF) advantage to smaller sensors since they have a (selectable/controllable) option.
Well, they can only select to have everything in focus, but computational photography comes to the rescue here.
Again ... I am not arguing against a "real" look, only that it may not always be apparent to other non-photographers.
...and then again: I am not a pro, so I don't have to sell my images, and I am not depending on the judgement of others. It is pure pleasure and I am privileged to be able to do as I please and try to improve my "style" in my own eyes. If I get the time I will try some of the PIXIMPERFECT guy's tips, although they would require me to learn more PS than I know now, for sure.
So, if you have 2 cameras costing the same and weighing the same are you going to choose the camera that CANNOT make the background of portraits of your loved ones blurry?
Aha. So it all boils down to cost and weight: the higher cost will give you more flexibility at a larger weight and hence a more limited clientele. The compact camera segment is dying out killed by smartphones. FF and APS-C is getting more affordable and eating the compact camera market from the other side. Left is cameras for drones and action like GoPro and the like.
