Computer Graphics with Photoshop

Author

Plug in

2007-01-30, 7:26 pm

Anyone know of a Depth of Field plugin for photoshop?

Little Juice Coupe

2007-01-31, 3:14 am

If you are using Photoshop CS2 look for the lens blur filter. It will do
what you want quite nicely.

ljc

--
Do not assume that because I didn't reply to your comments that you are
correct or that I am wrong or that I am correct and your are wrong. You
can assume that you bore me!

"PH" <wireball8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8tQvh.6065$yB5.1268@trndny03...
> Anyone know of a Depth of Field plugin for photoshop?
>
>

2007-01-31, 6:14 pm

"Little Juice Coupe" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:45c0333e$0$80134$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> If you are using Photoshop CS2 look for the lens blur filter. It will do
> what you want quite nicely.
>
>
Thanks I found that to work pretty well but was looking for an alternative
to look a little more realistic.

2007-01-31, 6:14 pm

KatWoman

2007-01-31, 6:14 pm

"PH" <wireball8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8tQvh.6065$yB5.1268@trndny03...
> Anyone know of a Depth of Field plugin for photoshop?
>

I use CS

but I do this by making a dupe layer over my orig
use Gaussian blur on it
make a mask to clear the area of the subject so it looks sharp
then use a gradient on the mask starting at the subject and radiating
outward (or linear from front to back)
so it seem the blur is less at the edge of the subject and will increase
further away line a telephoto

Hunt

2007-01-31, 6:14 pm

In article <8tQvh.6065$yB5.1268@trndny03>, wireball8@verizon.net says...
>
>Anyone know of a Depth of Field plugin for photoshop?

Aside from the replies, if you wish to diminish the DoF, Andromeda has a
filter, with a bit more control built in. Do not have it on my laptop, so I
don't have it's official name handy. Might be in their LensDoc suite.

Hunt

2007-01-31, 10:14 pm

Looks like the Varifocus plugin. Thanks

"Hunt" <noone@hunt.com> wrote in message
news:epqqsm11a1m@news2.newsguy.com...
> In article <8tQvh.6065$yB5.1268@trndny03>, wireball8@verizon.net says...
>
> Aside from the replies, if you wish to diminish the DoF, Andromeda has a
> filter, with a bit more control built in. Do not have it on my laptop, so
> I
> don't have it's official name handy. Might be in their LensDoc suite.
>
> Hunt
>

Little Juice Coupe

2007-01-31, 10:14 pm

I would suggest you take the time and learn how to use it. If you use masks
and stuff to control it it looks very real.

ljc

--
Do not assume that because I didn't reply to your comments that you are
correct or that I am wrong or that I am correct and your are wrong. You
can assume that you bore me!

InfoDevGuy

2007-02-02, 6:14 pm

On Jan 30, 6:24 pm, "PH" <wireba...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Anyone know of a Depth of Field plugin for photoshop?

Check here:

http://photoshop.pluginsworld.com/p...shop&plugin=717

Thanks,
Loren

Hunt

2007-02-03, 10:14 pm

In article <Ezawh.3431$Tz4.27@trndny06>, wireball8@verizon.net says...[color=darkred]
>
>Looks like the Varifocus plugin. Thanks
>
>"Hunt" <noone@hunt.com> wrote in message
>news:epqqsm11a1m@news2.newsguy.com...

Sorry that I could not nail the name, especially as I'm setting up Production
Studio (with PS & AI) on a new workstation. I just didn't have the disk handy.
I've used it in the past - back when more ADs wanted that "look." I always
shoot the best, that I can, then manipulate it for the final product. All it
takes is one concept change to spoil a shoot. Capture with soft-focus, and the
end-client will then want it "sharp as a tack!"

Glad you got it,
Hunt

ronviers@gmail.com

2007-02-04, 6:14 pm

On Feb 3, 7:05 pm, n...@hunt.com (Hunt) wrote:
> I always
> shoot the best, that I can, then manipulate it for the final product. All it
> takes is one concept change to spoil a shoot. Capture with soft-focus, and the
> end-client will then want it "sharp as a tack!"
>
> Glad you got it,
> Hunt

Hi Hunt,
Does that mean you shoot with the idea of capturing as many sharp
pixels as possible? In my camera group there is a definite bias
towards getting everything right inside the camera. I don't know if it
is a point of pride or maybe legacy issues of dealing with film but
they are adamant. I bought into that idea until I began to realize how
much can be done easily with PS. Now I am beginning to think, not
being a photo journalist, that I should just concentrate on
composition and lens selection, with the goal of maximizing sharp
pixels, and leave all special effects for later. Is this what you are
talking about when you say you shoot the "best" you can?

Brgds,
Ron

Hunt

2007-02-06, 6:15 pm

In article <1170606835.373949.260230@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
ronviers@XXXXXXXXXX says...
>
>On Feb 3, 7:05 pm, n...@hunt.com (Hunt) wrote:
it[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
>
>Hi Hunt,
>Does that mean you shoot with the idea of capturing as many sharp
>pixels as possible? In my camera group there is a definite bias
>towards getting everything right inside the camera. I don't know if it
>is a point of pride or maybe legacy issues of dealing with film but
>they are adamant. I bought into that idea until I began to realize how
>much can be done easily with PS. Now I am beginning to think, not
>being a photo journalist, that I should just concentrate on
>composition and lens selection, with the goal of maximizing sharp
>pixels, and leave all special effects for later. Is this what you are
>talking about when you say you shoot the "best" you can?
>
>Brgds,
>Ron

Ron,

Pretty much. I come from a history of having a fine custom lab next to my
studio. They did emulsion-stripping, and compositing long before Scitex was
invented. They had a cut-n-paste guy with the sharpest X-acto you have ever
seen, and a lady, who could do things with dyes and bleach, that still amaze
me. Also, my client-base is international advertising, so some of the "golly-
gee-whiz" effects were not in use then. I learned to create the best possible
image, then use the tools available to make it fit the AD's concept. Also,
many images were used for a dozen different ads/brochures, so it was always
better to have the best raw [note lower-case "r," to differentiate between
RAW] image.

I saw a lot of shooters, who filed out negative carriers/trans. carriers, etc.
to "prove" that they cropped in camera. I always shot "tight," and many AD's
learned that they had to make me move the camera back, just a bit, to give
them "wiggle-room."

With the advent of Scitex, I knew that I was looking at the future, and almost
bought an early unit - ~US$1M for SW & HW. Luckily, my partner, and I, did
not, as there were soon too many in Denver, to support the need. A lot of sep
-houses took a big hit on those machines. However, I embraced PhotoStyler,
when it hit the PC. Moved to PS, when it was ported for the PC and have never
looked back.

If one has the best possible image, and an understanding of the tools to
create the client's wildest dreams, that is the way that I'd go. Besides,
Vaseline on an optical flat, in front of the lens, is just a tool, right?

Now, if my clients had been of the "cutting-edge" mindset, I may have learned
to to it ALL in the camera. As it is, I do all that I feel will contribute,
then just use different tools to complete the process. Looking back, I still
see that about 60% of my portfolio is analog, with much "assembly" in-camera,
then the final work in the lab. The rest is digital.

I do not fault those, who feel that everything MUST be done in-camera. That is
what they feel most comfortable doing. I do feel that a few wear a "badge of
courage," and will defend a less than optimum result, by saying, "hey, what do
you want? I did it ALL in-camera." Whatever makes the client happy. Besides,
what are the various items that one hangs in front of the lens, over the
lights, etc., but TOOLS? PS is only a tool to an end.

Hunt

plugsnpixels

2007-02-06, 10:14 pm

There is a list of focus-adjustment plug-ins and applications with
that capability listed under "Focus adjustment" at
http://www.plugsandpixels.com/imageeffects.html