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

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Soft focus lens vs Photoshop
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 17 of 17, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/13/2006 10:03:04 AM · #1
Is there any reason to buy a soft focus lens (Canon), or can you achieve a similar effect in photoshop?
 03/13/2006 10:07:32 AM · #2
Originally posted by bvoi:
Is there any reason to buy a soft focus lens (Canon), or can you achieve a similar effect in photoshop?


Better of using photoshop or a good soft focus filter.
 03/13/2006 10:08:05 AM · #3
Well, I would say almost every effect can be done in Photoshop except what is achieved by a polarizer and an IR filter. People have been doing soft focus by using stockings stretched over the lens even ;-)

You should buy it anyways; it is not something very expensive. Photoshop cannot exactly reproduce what it will actually do.
 03/13/2006 10:09:37 AM · #4
Originally posted by ignite:
Photoshop cannot exactly reproduce what it will actually do.


Actually yes, it can and with more control.
 03/13/2006 10:16:45 AM · #5
Well I've never used one so you may be right. That is why I said buy it ;-)
 03/13/2006 10:45:09 AM · #6
I have one and I'd be lucky if I've used the soft focus feature once or twice! I just always do it in photoshop if I need to!

03/13/2006 10:49:41 AM · #7
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by bvoi:
Is there any reason to buy a soft focus lens (Canon), or can you achieve a similar effect in photoshop?


Better off using photoshop or a good soft focus filter.


Or using a crinkled CD wrapper and a rubber band.



If you want to do it in PS, make sure you do a good job because it may be "easier" to do in PS, but it's also easier to make it look like crap.
 03/13/2006 10:59:32 AM · #8
Photoshop is great but bear in mind that it is all a matter of playing with pixels and often a result is gotten at the expense of something else. One guy I knew said he would never have to worry about dof as he is able to compensate for it in ps. Well, the more pristine effects you can place in your original image prior to ps is by far the best way to go. PS does a lot but not as good as they claim. best to adjust your w.b. and temperature and yes, a good soft focus lens or even a stretched nylon will do a superior job than an a general or selective edge dulling in ps. Consider the topic od filters. Can you really forego them? Try an image with filter in camera and notice that the ps filters simply emulate the general effect of the filter but fall very short in integrity. Look, ps creates a very nice illusion but do not be misled because your very image is an illusion and then to convert it to another illusion may raise the question of ps taking you farther away than your vision. In short: aim for the image and its character in the camera and use ps only to enhance rather than to repair loose ends.
 03/13/2006 11:10:49 AM · #9
The Canon EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus is an inexpensive and quite sharp prime with the feature of dialing in a measured amount of optical soft focus. It also can be used without the soft focus engaged. The soft focus effect is analog and dependent on natural light entering the lens - It can be unwieldy and complex as opposed to a - homogenized, easier to use, smooth and uniform digital filtering.
 03/13/2006 11:59:39 AM · #10

Photoshop softening

Clear grocery bag over lens got this ghostly effect
 03/13/2006 12:26:41 PM · #11
There are many effects that are better done in camera, and some that are actually better achieved in post. Soft focus is just one of those effects that's better achieved in post-processing, IMO. Start with a sharp shot and you can always go back to sharp. Start with a soft-focus shot, you are stuck with what you got at the time of shooting.
The basics of my method for soft focus in post are as follows:
1.) Sharpen & adjust contrast of base layer; make it a little sharper and higher in contrast than you normally would.
2.) Duplicate base layer, either once or twice.
3.) On 1st duplicate layer, apply gaussian blur of about 1/250 of the pixel count in the long direction of the image
4.) Set opacity of the 1st duplicate layer to taste, normally 25-45%
5.) On 2nd duplicate layer (if present), apply gaussian blur of about 1/500 of the pixel count in the long direction of the image
6.) Set opacity for 2nd duplicate layer as in 4
7.) Gently mask areas that you want more sharp, e.g. eyes.
Varying the blur radius (or radii) and the opacity for the blur layers gives pretty much infinite control of the soft focus effect. Masking to control the application of the effect is a final benefit of doing it in post.
I'm not maintaining that this is the best method for soft focus, just the one that I've found effective. It would be good to hear other ideas on applying soft focus in post.


03/13/2006 12:54:17 PM · #12
Originally posted by kirbic:
Start with a soft-focus shot, you are stuck with what you got at the time of shooting.


That's why it's best to get it right the first time.
 03/13/2006 03:11:59 PM · #13
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Start with a soft-focus shot, you are stuck with what you got at the time of shooting.


That's why it's best to get it right the first time.


Slightly out-of-context. The entire quote is:

Originally posted by kirbic:
Start with a sharp shot and you can always go back to sharp. Start with a soft-focus shot, you are stuck with what you got at the time of shooting.


In other words, shooting a sharp shot and getting the soft-focus effect in post gives the opportunity to correct, whereas shooting it as shooting it as soft focus does not.
I don't mean to imply that shooting it as soft focus is somehow wrong or that great results are not obtainable that way, just that it may not be as desirable, since the post-process technique...
- Gives equivalent or better results
- Gives more flexibility in strength and selectivity
- Is reversible, since you have a sharp original
 03/13/2006 03:30:51 PM · #14
I agree with Kirbic on all accounts. Shooting the image without the soft focus and then adding it in post does two things. You get a much finer control of 'how much' soft focus effect you want and you still have the original image without it if you decide you don't want it.
 03/13/2006 04:07:55 PM · #15
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Start with a soft-focus shot, you are stuck with what you got at the time of shooting.


That's why it's best to get it right the first time.


Slightly out-of-context. The entire quote is:

Originally posted by kirbic:
Start with a sharp shot and you can always go back to sharp. Start with a soft-focus shot, you are stuck with what you got at the time of shooting.


In other words, shooting a sharp shot and getting the soft-focus effect in post gives the opportunity to correct, whereas shooting it as shooting it as soft focus does not.
I don't mean to imply that shooting it as soft focus is somehow wrong or that great results are not obtainable that way, just that it may not be as desirable, since the post-process technique...
- Gives equivalent or better results
- Gives more flexibility in strength and selectivity
- Is reversible, since you have a sharp original


I have seen that while it is possible to get a nice Soft Focus effect in PS, it's frequently done poorly and looks like hell. Adding diffusion over the lens at the time of exposure is so bonehead easy, even I just can't screw it up.
 03/13/2006 06:13:35 PM · #16
I would not disagree with John or Fritz that soft-focus can be achieved efficiently through digital filters. It is interesting that some of the commercial software are often created to mimic specific soft lenses. Likewise the soft focus lens itself is the original, but now just another tool by which this effect can be achieved - in a traditional, non intrusive, natural way. It may be that soft focus lenses are doomed, and I have heard that production of the Canon 135mm f2.8 soft-focus is to become discontinued. But I would maintain that comments made by graphicfunk have strong merit. The character of these types of lenses are unique, the design stems from a deep heritage of portrait & landscape work, and they can be used very effectively w/attention to control, for a creative and intended result. The 135 soft-focus is a sharp lens, can be used with or without the soft-focus, I will say again - it is inexpensive, and a fine option to those serious about soft-focus effect.
 03/13/2006 06:25:17 PM · #17
A little more discussion of lenses and soft focus may be in order. Some old lenses became well known for their abiltiy to give a subject that "ethereal glow" to skin. These lenses were not designed or built as "soft focus" lenses, but just have the property. Over time, lens designers caught on to this quality and actually designed for it.
I have a Zeiss 75/1.5 Biotar (produced just after WWII) that exhibits exactly this effect, kind of a very, very subtle soft-focus effect. It's caused by intentional undercorrection for spherical abberation. The result is a lens that gives outstanding results when used for portraiture, but is pretty much useless for some other things, astrophotography for instance.
A former boss of mine loves to use a couple long focal length Nikon lenses (a 200 f/2, a 300 f/2.8 and a 400 f/2.8) for this reason. The 200/2 and the 400/2.8 both produce "that glow."
I've mated his 200/2 to my Canon 10D and loved the effect wide open, but the total effect had much more to do with the combination of focal length and wiiiide aperture than the "glow." The glow I can get in post, the other attributes I cannot. Sure wish I could justify a Canon 200/1.8 :-P
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/23/2025 05:50:41 PM

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: 09/23/2025 05:50:41 PM EDT.