Refocus After Exposure!? - DPChallenge Forums

11/01/2005 08:25:33 AM · #1

How many believe that this can actually be possible? Although I like the advantages that digital brings to photography, this is one of those things that I feel infringes on the art of photography.

//graphics.stanford.edu/~renng/

sabphoto

Samsung Galaxy S8/S8+

11/01/2005 08:31:24 AM · #2

I actually read an article last year about someone thinking about this, he proposed that a depth could be written into the RAW or jpg file as the scans back and forth trying to focus. It would write then entire distance of the subjects. Then in post-processing you could maybe tell the image, blur everything behind 1 foot or change the colors or lighting behind 2 feet. Seemed pretty cool but not sure if this is the same type of thing.

Message edited by author 2005-11-01 08:35:54.

KaDi

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

11/01/2005 08:32:16 AM · #3

Why do you think it "infringes" on the art of photography?
Haven't photographers always pushed the limits of equipment and film and embraced new innovations?

Beagleboy

Canon EOS-30D

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

11/01/2005 08:34:01 AM · #4

Originally posted by KaDi:

Why do you think it "infringes" on the art of photography?
Haven't photographers always pushed the limits of equipment and film and embraced new innovations?

That's what I'm thinking. A tool is a tool if it'll help my photography.

Prof_Fate

11/01/2005 10:00:18 AM · #5

No more out of focus shots!
No more need for fast focus lenses!
This could be good.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/01/2005 10:29:00 AM · #6

Pretty amazing stuff! No more out of focus shots!!!! Absolute control over DOF....Cool!

jpeters

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

11/01/2005 10:36:33 AM · #7

Originally posted by K-Rob:

I don't think it infringes on the art anymore than autofocus, lightmeters, histograms, vibration reduction and Photoshop.

I think it's pretty cool. I don't know how many times I have come home from a trip, looked at pictures and thought "why didn't I try this depth of field instead" or "woops, I guess autofocus wasn't on."

longlivenyhc

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Canon

11/01/2005 10:46:45 AM · #8

sure would be nice with some macro shots where a mm difference can throw the whole shot out of whack.

Olympus 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 M.Zuiko Digital ED

11/01/2005 10:58:11 AM · #9

Call me a purist I guess. But where you decide to focus a photograph is something you decide when you trip the shutter much the same way you decide what exposure to use. What's next? Before you know it all you'll need is a wide lens with a set aperture, set shutter speed and a 1,000 MP sensor so that you can crop any portion of the picture, set focus on any part of the picture and adjust exposure to taste. Where's the art in that?

Or perhaps I should rephrase that....where is the Skill in that?

Message edited by author 2005-11-01 11:17:04.

jonr

Olympus OM-D E-M5

11/01/2005 11:25:23 AM · #10

Originally posted by K-Rob:

Bah humbug indeed! What will these whippersnappers think of next, some sort of "Automatic" focus? They might even dream up such devices to elminate the use of tripods! Maybe they will even put eletronics in cameras, when will this madness end!?!
;)

LedZeppelin588

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

11/01/2005 11:30:20 AM · #11

Aren't all these innovations more or less getting rid of having to take legitimately good picture though? I'm one to believe the picture should speak for itself without manipulation, then if you want to manipulate - do it.

No?

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/01/2005 11:40:13 AM · #12

Originally posted by K-Rob:

Call me a purist I guess......Or perhaps I should rephrase that....where is the Skill in that?

I guess there are different levels of purity and skill...what's the skill in having an Auto focus system? What's the skill in having the ability to shooot bursts at 8.5fps? What's the skill in having a metering system that's bang on all the time? What's the skill in having an image stabilization system? On and on and on...

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/01/2005 11:55:42 AM · #13

LedZeppelin588 understands where I am coming from. And I suppose there are different levels to take this. Having better Auto-Focus systems, metering systems, anit-shake, etc...are all tools that can help make the photograph better but you still have to know how to use them. Auto focus helps, but only if you point the camera at your focal point, metering helps as long as you're careful to not include a huge bright sky behind your subject,etc...

Making developements that basically only require you to hold the camera up and press the trigger makes photography a brain-dead exercise. It's getting to the "true" meaning of Point and Shoot.

Message edited by author 2005-11-01 11:56:49.

mariomel

Canon EOS-5D

11/01/2005 11:57:13 AM · #14

Originally posted by K-Rob:

Call me a purist I guess. But where you decide to focus a photograph is something you decide when you trip the shutter much the same way you decide what exposure to use.

Do you use RAW to capture your images? Have you ever corrected an exposure in post? Have you ever converted an image to BW?

Same diff.

Technology will always move forward. We need to get used to it, or just go back to film. I think that's pretty amazing.

11/01/2005 11:57:19 AM · #15

My sister actually knows this guy; she's showed me his stuff before. (She's spent her entire working career at Stanford) This stuff is definitely "real", it's happening now. I'd be astonished if it doesn't make tis way into the marketplace in some form within the next few years.

To get a broad sense of how it works, consider the "view camera": the lens throws an image circle, and the camera back/film plane is mounted on a rail and can be moved closer to/further from the lens. The lens has no internal movements whatsoever, it's just a lens. By moving the film plane into a certain relationship witht he lens, you choose which portion of the image will be in sharpest focus; all the information is already being projected by the lens.

Now, in a camera like we use, the film/sensor plane has a fixed relationship to the lens, physically; they can't be moved closer together or further apart. So "our" lenses contain internal components that move, accomplishing the same thing optically.

What this guy's done is devise a way of recording the totality of the information projected by the lens, so that the choice of plane-of-focus can be made after the fact. Note that in none of his images does the depth of field change; that's still dependent upon the aperture used. The only thing changing is the "location" of the film/sensor plane in relationship to the lens, and that's being done virtually instead of physically.

For those who submit that this somehow "takes away" from the photographer's skill-set, I don't agree. It just changes the time frame in which the decisoon has to be made. The digital negative, in other words, just acquired another level of coding. The photographer still as to make the decision, and the art is in the decision-making, not in the speed with which it is made.

To believe otherwise is analogous to believing that a speed-chess champion is ipso facto a "better" player than one who plays th egame at a normal pace. I suppose that's a matter of personal definition, but I don't see the overall value in being forced to make all decisions on the fly, as it were. Art's a more contemplative thing than that.

Or let me ask you this: I've got a setup where I'm unsure exactly where best to place the point of focus for best impact. So I shoot 15 variations from a tripod, racking the focus a notch closer on each shot, and examine all the exposures to choose the one that works best, focus-wise. Does this make me a lesser photographer than the guy who shoots only one frame?

And, by extension, what's wrong with having all those exposures inherent in the one exposure, exactly the way all potential contrasts, or all potential color saturations, are currently inherent in the RAW negative we use now? To be consistent, you'd have to say that RAW shooters are "lesser photographers" than jpg shooters...

Seems backwards to me.

Robt.

sabphoto

Samsung Galaxy S8/S8+

11/01/2005 12:08:44 PM · #16

Originally posted by K-Rob:

I guess I can understand where you are coming from after all life would be much better if things would just stop changing. We should stop advancing and finding different ways of using things. Let's get rid of all this new crap and go back to the days when we held a rock box with a bird inside that engraved our pictures on a slate for us. Let's lose the cell phones that help (and in some cases hinder) us everyday. Forget advances in technology, life would be much better if we all just cooked on a spit and fire instead of a microwave oven. ;)

A lot of advances may make our lives harder and busier but the nice thing is if you don't want to use it then don't. To not advance just to save the purity of something is crazy. I say bring it on, I'd love to be able to shoot an image the way I think it "should" be done then put it in the computer and see how else it could have been done, with maybe warmer or colder lighting or longer exposure. Just cause something has always been done one way doesn't make it the best way. Just my opinion.

11/01/2005 12:37:27 PM · #17

Originally posted by sabphoto:

.....I guess I can understand where you are coming from after all life would be much better if things would just stop changing. We should stop advancing and finding different ways of using things. Let's get rid of all this new crap and go back to the days when we held a rock box with a bird inside that engraved our pictures on a slate for us. Let's lose the cell phones that help (and in some cases hinder) us everyday. Forget advances in technology, life would be much better if we all just cooked on a spit and fire instead of a microwave oven. ;)...

Yeah...that's exactly what I mean. C'mon, don't go over board. I have an opinion about this and I shared it. There's no reason to get sarcastic. I'm all for advancements in technology, I just don't like when it takes the effort out of it. I wouldn't ditch my cell phone, but I wouldnever walk around with an ear-piece and look like a freak who's talking to himself. Does that make sense?

Anyway, Bear Music helped put into perspective and has given me a different point of view about it. But I'm still not totally comfortable with the idea. Cool idea?...sure! I just think of it differently I guess.

Man_Called_Horse

11/01/2005 12:55:51 PM · #18

I wonder what the "old schoolers" will be saying when we start hitting gigapixel cameras, that shoot 20 fps, on a full plus sensor, that has a chip inside that reads your brain waves to help decide what you are after in the frame, a 1-500mm 1:1.1f lens kit installed, no bigger than a credit card, all held between your thumb and index finger.

To agree with brother Bear, in my own words, the camera is dumb, the artist is smart.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

11/01/2005 01:18:44 PM · #19

Originally posted by bear_music:

What this guy's done is devise a way of recording the totality of the information projected by the lens, so that the choice of plane-of-focus can be made after the fact. Note that in none of his images does the depth of field change; that's still dependent upon the aperture used.

Robt.

Perhaps the DOF issue could also be handled by blending images in post as well.

11/01/2005 01:25:15 PM · #20

Originally posted by AJAger:

Originally posted by bear_music:

What this guy's done is devise a way of recording the totality of the information projected by the lens, so that the choice of plane-of-focus can be made after the fact. Note that in none of his images does the depth of field change; that's still dependent upon the aperture used.

Robt.

Perhaps the DOF issue could also be handled by blending images in post as well.

Therte's already software for this, I can't remember the name of it offhand but it exists. Remarkable stuff. Plus there's software for defining an arbitrary plane of sharpness and "realistically" blurring in front of and behind that plane. I wish I could remember these names...

Robt.

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200 f/2.8L

11/01/2005 01:30:18 PM · #21

Originally posted by bear_music:

I'd be very interested in either of these programs if you could remember!

longlivenyhc

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Canon

11/01/2005 01:35:39 PM · #22

Originally posted by kyebosh:

I'd be very interested in either of these programs if you could remember!

dof generator pro

Message edited by author 2005-11-01 13:36:18.

KaDi

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

11/01/2005 01:38:38 PM · #23

I think advances in technology tend to be additive rather than subtractive.

When photographic imaging was invented it was used primarily as a compositional and perspective aid for artist (painters). Eventually it developed into its own medium, but painters still paint.

I thought of the microwave example, too. I remember how scared everyone was of this new technology and the loss of home cooking. But, though I own a microwave, I own a gas stove, a barbeque grill and still occasionally cook over a campfire. Nothing lost--but lots has been added.

Edit to add: (Is there anyone Bear_Music doesn't know by 2 degrees of separation?)

Message edited by author 2005-11-01 13:39:31.

11/01/2005 01:42:53 PM · #24

Originally posted by longlivenyhc:

Originally posted by kyebosh:

I'd be very interested in either of these programs if you could remember!

dof generator pro

That's it! Thanks!

R.