[beholder3]

[deleted]

---

Last edited by beholder3; 08-11-2013 at 07:38 AM. Reason: [deleted]

[normhead]

With the ability to blur the background digitally it's pretty much a non issue already.

[JohnBee]

I'm guessing 5 years.
But that doesn't mean anything

There are plugins out there that can emulate DOF effects but they only work well in ideal conditions. Otherwise they can be insanely complex to do and in many cases impossible(for me at least).

[ironlionzion]

Sure that works with things like portraits, but once the composition gets a little more complicated, it would take a very long time to correctly blur each subject in the frame. It's also one more element added to the "what is real" issue. With film, filters and the chemistry of the film itself affected the photograph, as did the optical printing methods. But at least the light itself was "real," although manipulated. With digital, its harder to draw the line to what is "real." Why stop at just manipulating the bokeh. There are plugins that make star points...plugins that make the image look more vivid...HDR to emulate ND grads..etc. I don't think that digitally manipulating an image inherently destroys its authenticity. But at some point, I look at a heavily manipulated image and regard it as fake. It's not a hard line; everyone has their own opinion to what is real. To me, emulating such a significant portion of the image such as the bokeh renders the image as fake. But I agree with you - for the majority of digital snapshooters out their, digitally mimicked bokeh is a sufficient replacement for a large aperture lens.

[JinDesu]

The one that is better is the one where she smiled.

[Videopilot]

The one that is better is the one where she smiled.

The one created using the 85mm lense is the one where she is not smiling.

[beholder3]

[deleted]

---

Last edited by beholder3; 08-11-2013 at 07:38 AM. Reason: [deleted]

[ironlionzion]

I think what JinDesu was saying is that the bokeh doesn't really matter so much in this picture, as much as the subject matter does.

[Anvh]

Problem is when the focus transition into the blur, it's so hard to get that right.
Like a photo like this for example.
http://www.fotowaterland.nl/media/lightbox2/Macro/macro1.jpg

[Videopilot]

You are correct about software continually getting better making it easier to {pardon the pun} "blur the lines" between what was originally shot and the final result.

[maltfalc]

the first one is lacking any subtle transition from in focus to out of focus and as a result lacks any real sense of depth, plus the masking around her hair was botched, plus the bokeh is just plain dull looking.

[Pablom]

The one created using the 85mm lense is the one where she is not smiling.

I believe he meant it is a better picture BECAUSE she smiled, regardless of the background

[JohnBee]

1. Which one do you like better?
2. Which one is the real thing?
3. What do you think is the difference?
4. How many average people will notice any difference? And then call it relevant?

One of them was created using a 85mm F1.2 lens on FF. Pretty much the best for background blur you can get with relatively cheap (that'd still be > $4000) amateur equipment.To get more you'd have to use medium or large format pro cameras costing more than a car.

One of them was created using a $199 photoshop plug-in.

See: Review: Alien Skin Bokeh | CreativePro.com

If that is possible today with small effort, I am quite sure in not so far future than type of software can be embedded into cameras and made more automatic to require less user input as has been the case with most everything in the past.

1. The first one looks a little off due to the focal plane being out of alignment with the DOF effect associated with the hair and ears. BUT... that only becomes apparent when one looks for it.
2. Based on the first answer, I'd state the second image is the real deal.
3. The bokeh on the first one is duller(specular highlights) though I think this could easily be adjusted to match.
4. Without a comparison I'd say none. That's the beauty of a single image. There's really no surefire way of knowing what's missing.

PS. here's an example of what Alien Skin Bokeh can do head to head against the Brenizer Method. Granted the AS Bokeh version was created from a low resolution image and lacks detail as a result, though from a DOF perspective it goes to show what can be done with the software in good conditions. Whereas the alternate required several images stitched together to achieve.

Original:

Image courtesy of Ishpuini

Alien Skin Bokeh:


Original Image.