DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Soft Focus for Cliche Challenge
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 20 of 20, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/27/2003 02:39:54 PM · #1
I've been doing some research on the web on "soft focus" for the current cliché challenge. To date, the best comment I've read was from [url=[url]//www.pixilver.com/tutor_softfocus.html [/url]]Soft Focus Tutorial[/url] which said that "Not to be confused with out of focus, blurry photos, soft-focus images are sharp, but with a dreamy, misty look." This is how I've always thought of "soft focus", to impart a dream-like or fantasy look to a shot versus out of focus shots that (to me) imply lack of technical ability. I understand that blur implies motion and movement but I cannot find anything that explains an artistic use of intentionally out of focus photos. I would be interested in others thoughts and perhaps some examples if possible.

01/27/2003 02:54:57 PM · #2
Portraits

Most people would not be flattered by the sharpest, most focused shot of them. Soft focus lenses are highly valued by portrait photographers to compliment their subject's skin and wrinkles.
 01/27/2003 02:57:14 PM · #3
I'm sorry - I just engaged my brain. You can use out of focus pictures to quite good effect to create more abstract compositions.

If you look through the work of Keith Carter you'll find a lot of split focus work, where maybe 90% of the image is out of focus.

01/27/2003 03:06:15 PM · #4
I applied a blur layer to This Portrait in an attempt to duplicate the soft focus filter... The underlying layer is sharp...
 01/27/2003 03:20:46 PM · #5
There does seem to be a fine line between soft focus and out of focus though.
01/27/2003 03:32:57 PM · #6
I took this as an abstract of my christmas tree.

It is certainly out of focus, but with a very sharp lens so it is not soft :)

01/27/2003 03:49:12 PM · #7
Gordon,

Keith Carter's shots seem to be trying to simulate the "limitations" of "old time" photography equipment with the blurred edges and vignetting. I can't honestly say that his images are that good (to me). They are "different" and they are examples of intentional out of focus. Your chistmas tree abstract on the other hand is quite nice. The abstract effect is evident and intentional so I can see where the out of focus effect CAN be effectively used (again, IMO).

John,
Your portrait is what I consider the norm for soft focus. I also notice that the primary subject is still sharp. This is the effect I'm most familiar with and understand. It invokes the soft misty memories of our own childhood and I think that's one of the primary uses for soft focus is as photographic rendering of a memory.

Thanks for the input guys, any others have other examples or thoughts?
 01/27/2003 03:52:23 PM · #8
Originally posted by Seeker:
Gordon,

Keith Carter's shots seem to be trying to simulate the "limitations" of "old time" photography equipment with the blurred edges and vignetting. I can't honestly say that his images are that good (to me). They are "different" and they are examples of intentional out of focus. Your chistmas tree abstract on the other hand is quite nice. The abstract effect is evident and intentional so I can see where the out of focus effect CAN be effectively used (again, IMO).


His 'blurry' pictures are actually shot with a split focus filter - which gives a linear area in focus with the rest of the scene out of focus, in a sort of controlable letter box style. The images on his web site don't really do any kind of justice to the 3ftx4ft prints he displays in galleries, unfortunately.
 01/27/2003 04:19:11 PM · #9
I agree that many people on this site are misunderstanding what soft focus really means. The prominant edges in the photo remain sharp but there is also a layer of blurred or diffused light, usually the lightest values, that create a dreamy quality and smooth over unwanted details like skin blemmishes and such. Just applying a blur filter to the image is not the same thing and is not the correct way to create the soft focus effect. I'm not sure that there is a 'legal' way in PS of correctly achieving this effect, however, for the challenges. I create the effect by using layers and selectively copying and blurring the ligtest values in my photo. Since this requires selective editing it isn't allowed in the challenges. Is there another method beside using the right lens filters that is allowed?

T
01/27/2003 05:28:49 PM · #10
Tim,

I've read that a black stocking stretched over the lens can create the soft focus effect and it can be varied depending on how hard you stretch the material. Other than purchasing a soft focus lens or filter I'm not sure how else it would be done.
 01/27/2003 05:32:41 PM · #11
Originally posted by Seeker:
Tim,

I've read that a black stocking stretched over the lens can create the soft focus effect and it can be varied depending on how hard you stretch the material. Other than purchasing a soft focus lens or filter I'm not sure how else it would be done.


Vaseline on the lens too, but uck, who'd do that to their camera? ;-)
 01/27/2003 07:35:22 PM · #12
you can also breath on the lens if it is cold - gives a similar effect.

Best to keep that for filters rather than on the lens - same with vaseline
 01/28/2003 08:29:51 AM · #13
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I applied a blur layer to This Portrait in an attempt to duplicate the soft focus filter... The underlying layer is sharp...


John, this wouldn't be legel in DPC, would it?

I also often would like to selectively blur & sharpen an image, because I think it's the contrast between soft focus and sharpness which makes the whole thing interesting.

Gordon: Many thanks for introducing Keith Carter. Very interesting photographs.
 01/28/2003 09:10:36 AM · #14
Another thing vaseline is good for (stop sniggering at the back) is getting 'god rays' in a picture - you can smear vaseline on only part of the lens, in a particular direction and if light falls on it you can get an effect similar to sunlight filtering through fog in your picture. Again something to be done on an old UV filter, rather than straight onto the lens! Hair gel also works
 01/28/2003 11:08:17 AM · #15
Here was my last attempt at soft focus in post-processing. A second layer, duplicate of the image, is blurred then set around 40%-50% transparent. I used the eraser tool over more detailed parts of the image to get some selective sharpness. Not DPC legal edits, but it was a fun experiment.
 01/28/2003 11:13:16 AM · #16
Oh, and as for smearing vaseline or any other gunk on the lens: has anybody ever tried smearing it onto a chepo UV/haze filter? Does it have to be on the lens itself?
 01/28/2003 11:20:51 AM · #17
Originally posted by jkiolbasa:
Oh, and as for smearing vaseline or any other gunk on the lens: has anybody ever tried smearing it onto a chepo UV/haze filter? Does it have to be on the lens itself?


Don't do it on the lens, unless you want to ruin your camera.

Cheap filters are the way to go
 01/28/2003 12:05:54 PM · #18
Gordon - Can I borrow John's jar of hair jel?
 01/28/2003 03:15:04 PM · #19
Originally posted by jkiolbasa:
Here was my last attempt at soft focus in post-processing. A second layer, duplicate of the image, is blurred then set around 40%-50% transparent. I used the eraser tool over more detailed parts of the image to get some selective sharpness. Not DPC legal edits, but it was a fun experiment.


Nice photo. That is close to what I do except that instead of blurring the entire layer with all of the values I do this. I copy 2 layers of my original image. I change one of those layers to black and white and then by setting my Magic Wand's tolerance to somewhere between 40 and 100 I select the brightest area in the black and white layer and then select Similar. This makes a selection of the brightest areas irregardless of it's color. Then I turn the black and white layer off or delete it and select the next colored layer and with the selection still showing I invert the selection and cut the selection to remove everything but the brightest colors. Then I turn off the selection and blur that layer using Gaussean Blur and then adjust the blur amount and layer opacity amount to get the desired effect. By doing this I am only blurring only the brighter colors instead of the dark colors too. It just seems to be more like what a real soft focus filter does to an image. I hope this made sense. I've seen some different actions that can do this but I find it pretty easy to do myself when I need it and I like having total control over it.

T

Message edited by author 2003-01-28 15:37:59.
 01/28/2003 03:25:19 PM · #20
The most convoluted (sic! and an injoke for image processing geeks) blur filter I've found requires about 10 layers and uses an increasing blur/ decreasing opacity type approach to approximate the blurring in the human visual system. I've an action that does it and it gives pretty good results that look softer yet still sharp, compared to a single overlaid layer. It is mentioned in the bluring how-to under the learn menu.

You can find it here.

Message edited by author 2003-01-28 15:26:08.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 05:59:01 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 05:59:01 AM EDT.