Pearl Crescent butterfly...
Photography 2
- Thread starter Floorist
- Start date
Help Support Flooring Forum:
With digital, can you do selective focus or depth of field adjustments after the fact.
There are cheaper optionsCan you get these on Amazon?
One of the updates that Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop added about a year ago now is the ability to add blur and "bokeh" to a background. With that feature you can set at what depth of field you want the blur to occur. However, I rarely use it. It can be a bit finicky, and it doesn't always get the masking between the background and the subject correct. I have several faster (f/1.4 to f/2.8) lenses and when you shoot them wide open, that's what obliterates the background like in the butterfly and the woodland sunflower image. Both of those shots were taken with my Nikon D810 and Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 lens at about 15'-20' distance. Same thing happens there, and you get a lot of compression in the background. I've got an AF (full frame) Nikon 12-35mm f/2.8, Nikon AF 24-70mm f/2.8, Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, 200-500mm f/5.6, 50mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.8, and a 105mm f/2.8. All of those lenses, when shot at their largest aperture blow out the background and separate the subject instead of doing it in post (editing).
There was a camera manufacturer about 6 years ago that came out with a camera that you could supposedly correct out of focus images, remove motion blur, alter focus points, etc. after the shot was taken but right in the camera. In fact, one just came up for bid a couple of months back on a photography gear site I follow. I thought about buying it and playing around with it, but after reading the articles and reviews on it, it didn't really work as advertised (not surprising).
Topaz Labs has a newer feature in their editing software that can remove some motion blur and improve sharpness from either the whole image or you can do selective masking and only apply those fixes to a specific area in the photo. I've used it when I'm doing photo restorations of old photos for my mom and it can work ok. Not perfect, but here's an example of what it'll do....
This is a shot of me sitting on my Great Grandmother's (Zella) lap along with her mother (Inez) my Great Great Grandmother that I scanned...
and here's my restoration....
Not perfect, but definitely an improvement.
Does the masking work like the magnetic lasso or does it seek out where it believes the background should be?
Here's one of my most difficult "corrections" I used to swap back and forth from KR 64 and KR 25 mid roll. Sometimes I wouldn't label the partially used roll.
I overlapped Melissa and a nest in the carport and maybe something else. This one took untold hours to fix.
......I'm not gonna tell ya or it would be told.
Post in thread 'Photography 2' https://www.flooringforum.com/threads/photography-2.1851/post-15819
I overlapped Melissa and a nest in the carport and maybe something else. This one took untold hours to fix.
......I'm not gonna tell ya or it would be told.
Post in thread 'Photography 2' https://www.flooringforum.com/threads/photography-2.1851/post-15819
It reads the data in the image and tries to determine a "depth" or distance for different parts of the image. You can then adjust a slider to bring the focus "forward" or "back" based on what the algorithm calculated the depth to be. It then applies "blur" based on where you set the slider to mimic shooting a fast lens at a wide-open aperture. It works pretty well when the background and subject are pretty separated, but if you have elements in the image that are between the two, that's when it kind of gets a little wonky. It also allows you to select different "shapes" for the blurred pixel. This mimics the effect that different shaped aperture blades have on bokeh between manufacturers of lenses. They also added in an adaptive AI version that uses an AI algorithm to make the decision for the settings if you don't know how to set it yourself.
I prefer to do it with my lens in camera. I think it looks more realistic. But, in a pinch, it's a pretty fair alternative if you want to add the effect after the fact.
Nice job! Reflections off of glass can be really tough to do manually, so I know that had to take some time. I have fixed several for fellow photographers when they get them in glasses. Photoshop has a really good tool for fixing those and it only takes a second or two to do.Here's one of my most difficult "corrections" I used to swap back and forth from KR 64 and KR 25 mid roll. Sometimes I wouldn't label the partially used roll.
I overlapped Melissa and a nest in the carport and maybe something else. This one took untold hours to fix.
......I'm not gonna tell ya or it would be told.
Post in thread 'Photography 2' https://www.flooringforum.com/threads/photography-2.1851/post-15819
They say for every hour that a professional photographer spends actually taking photos, they have 9 hours of editing to finish the images for publication or print.
I copy and pasted 1,600,000 lbs of sand to fix that one. That's why it took so long.
Not a lot of it that's totally authentic. Lots of blending.
Here's the tiny thumbnail you see in my title.
There are hundreds of both tiny and extreme tweaks in levels, sharpness, colors, contrast etc. I kept tweaking it, saving it, then tweaking it again, over and over and over.. it can't really be enlarged much because it came off such a tiny sample area of the negative. This was before I got a scanner. The scan came from the Fred Meyer photo department. They put my stuff onto a CD back then.
Post in thread 'Photography 2' https://www.flooringforum.com/threads/photography-2.1851/post-17630
There are hundreds of both tiny and extreme tweaks in levels, sharpness, colors, contrast etc. I kept tweaking it, saving it, then tweaking it again, over and over and over.. it can't really be enlarged much because it came off such a tiny sample area of the negative. This was before I got a scanner. The scan came from the Fred Meyer photo department. They put my stuff onto a CD back then.
Post in thread 'Photography 2' https://www.flooringforum.com/threads/photography-2.1851/post-17630
Yeah, but it worked, and it looks natural and not overdone. You get the smiley face award! I took this at a local nature preserve a couple of weeks ago.I copy and pasted 1,600,000 lbs of sand to fix that one. That's why it took so long.
That's good. I did something goofy like that during a snow and hard freeze in 89.
I'm tossing out links to some of the photos I put here many moons ago.
I'm coming up on the ones grandpa took that I corrected. In the mean time, I'm reminiscing here.
Remember 1969. It wasn't a hoax. I watched Grandpa take this one with his OM-1
Post in thread 'Photography 2' https://www.flooringforum.com/threads/photography-2.1851/post-19100
I'm tossing out links to some of the photos I put here many moons ago.
I'm coming up on the ones grandpa took that I corrected. In the mean time, I'm reminiscing here.
Remember 1969. It wasn't a hoax. I watched Grandpa take this one with his OM-1
Post in thread 'Photography 2' https://www.flooringforum.com/threads/photography-2.1851/post-19100
Here we go. This one was on Ektachrome. It didn't hold up like Kodachrome.
The top of this small viewing gazebo is long gone. It's at a local State Park about 10 miles away. I think the ocean and rocks are still there. Been too long since I drove out there in decent weather.
I corrected this mostly using photoshops's Levels.
Post in thread 'Photography 2' https://www.flooringforum.com/threads/photography-2.1851/post-19104
The top of this small viewing gazebo is long gone. It's at a local State Park about 10 miles away. I think the ocean and rocks are still there. Been too long since I drove out there in decent weather.
I corrected this mostly using photoshops's Levels.
Post in thread 'Photography 2' https://www.flooringforum.com/threads/photography-2.1851/post-19104
Here ya go Hi, I upscaled this for you using one of my programs. You could easily do a large print at 300 dpi with this file and not lose any resolution...
Attachments
Dang, that looks nice. I had a fun time with it. I tried a second time and everything I did looked like crap. I did too many wild tweaks to write down each setting.
Here's another slide I hand repaired, almost pixel by pixel. I couldn't do much to the lighthouse building.... I'd have to build it from scratch............
....scratch
Scroll down this page and see the completed image.
Looking at the historical images, I'm guessing early 60's
There aren't any trees on the island anymore.
Post in thread 'Photography 2' https://www.flooringforum.com/threads/photography-2.1851/post-21486
....scratch
Scroll down this page and see the completed image.
Looking at the historical images, I'm guessing early 60's
There aren't any trees on the island anymore.
Post in thread 'Photography 2' https://www.flooringforum.com/threads/photography-2.1851/post-21486
I used a program called Gigapixel by Topaz Labs. I use it on some of my shots when I have to do a severe crop on what I want in the shot to be able to bring the image size back to normal. It's considered one of the top upscaling programs, especially if you're going to print.
Hmmm...I got class tonight (Indiana Master Naturalist), but I may have to see what I can do with that old slide. Always fun to challenge yourself.Here's another slide I hand repaired, almost pixel by pixel. I couldn't do much to the lighthouse building.... I'd have to build it from scratch............
....scratch
Scroll down this page and see the completed image.
Looking at the historical images, I'm guessing early 60's
There aren't any trees on the island anymore.
Post in thread 'Photography 2' https://www.flooringforum.com/threads/photography-2.1851/post-21486
