NikonFmount
Well-known member
l made some images simulating a diffusion filter. Which one do you prefer?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Which soft focus image?
- Thread starter NikonFmount
- Start date
Mark S Abeln
Forum Pro
I think #1 is better; #2 and #3 have lots of artifacts, while #4 is oversaturated to my taste.
I pretty much think that these are overdone, and a more subtle use of blurring might be better. Also, I don't think that this is the best subject for blurring: traditionally, this was done with beauty portraits. Cinematographers use diffusion filters all of the time, but usually the effect is pretty subtle, so you don't really notice it unless you go looking for it; actually, what they don't want you to notice is often the real reason for using diffusion filters, such as skin blemishes and wrinkles. On the other hand, heavy blurring can be used as a visual sign of a dream sequence. So I suppose you have to figure out what it is that you are trying to hide or signify by blurring.
There are a multitude of ways to blur an image, and doing so organically is usually preferable to doing so in post. Classic, inexpensive solutions include putting a bit of Vaseline around the edges of a clear filter (leaving a bit uncovered in the center) or stretching a stocking over the lens, and cutting a small hole in the center. Both of these techniques will blend the blur with sharpness. More expensive techniques include using a lens with lots of spherical aberration at small f/stop values (this would be a traditional 'soft focus' lens), using a lens designed to have exceptionally smooth bokeh, or using a diffusion filter. The lighting on the subject also matters, with soft, diffuse, flatter light being better than hard lighting.
However, there are a variety of post processing tricks for doing a blur, some better than others. Again, I think subtlety is important unless you have a really good reason not to.
I pretty much think that these are overdone, and a more subtle use of blurring might be better. Also, I don't think that this is the best subject for blurring: traditionally, this was done with beauty portraits. Cinematographers use diffusion filters all of the time, but usually the effect is pretty subtle, so you don't really notice it unless you go looking for it; actually, what they don't want you to notice is often the real reason for using diffusion filters, such as skin blemishes and wrinkles. On the other hand, heavy blurring can be used as a visual sign of a dream sequence. So I suppose you have to figure out what it is that you are trying to hide or signify by blurring.
There are a multitude of ways to blur an image, and doing so organically is usually preferable to doing so in post. Classic, inexpensive solutions include putting a bit of Vaseline around the edges of a clear filter (leaving a bit uncovered in the center) or stretching a stocking over the lens, and cutting a small hole in the center. Both of these techniques will blend the blur with sharpness. More expensive techniques include using a lens with lots of spherical aberration at small f/stop values (this would be a traditional 'soft focus' lens), using a lens designed to have exceptionally smooth bokeh, or using a diffusion filter. The lighting on the subject also matters, with soft, diffuse, flatter light being better than hard lighting.
However, there are a variety of post processing tricks for doing a blur, some better than others. Again, I think subtlety is important unless you have a really good reason not to.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum