| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/15/2004 03:30:48 PM · #1 |
I saw a picture here (can't remember the name) that had a very dreamy effect to it. It was of a forest with beautiful fall colors. In the description the photographer said it was image in focus and one out of focus layered in PS with the "multiply" option. Has anyone else around here done this before? I really like the effect and I wanna learn some more about it before I go and try it.
June
Edit. Found the image, it was in my favorites...DUH!!
Message edited by author 2004-06-15 15:34:27.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 04:12:29 PM · #2 |
I do something similar with Digital Image Pro where I will duplicate the Image, blur the daylights (80-100%) out of the bottom layer, then use even transparency on the top layer until I get the desired effect.
Mess around with saturation or darken the back layer for different feelings in the picture.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 04:17:56 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by awpollard:
I do something similar with Digital Image Pro where I will duplicate the Image, blur the daylights (80-100%) out of the bottom layer, then use even transparency on the top layer until I get the desired effect.
Mess around with saturation or darken the back layer for different feelings in the picture. |
Another great DIP9 tip from Andy! I wrote that one down, too, and will try it tonight. I like that effect, also, and I haven't gone near the transparency things yet. (I am still learning more on DIP9 along with PSE 2.) Thanks for your input here, Andy!
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 04:37:43 PM · #4 |
I achieve this effect by duplicating the image on a new layer, then on the top layer applying gaussian blur of a few px. The radius of the blur depends on the resolution of the original, for a low-res image (640 by XXX for eample) try 2-3 px, for high-res (3072x2048) use 4-6px.
After applying the blur, set the opacity of the top layer to about 40%.
Youcan change the blur amount and opacity to suit your needs. I also have used two blur layers, one with a small radius, and one with a larger radius. Play around, see what you get. It can be a beautiful effect.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 05:39:27 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by chiqui74:
|
The one in focus is about 1.5 to 2 stops overexposed and the out of focus one is about 1 - 1.5 stops overexposed. When blending with multiply this achieves a correct focus. Also, the out of focus image is shot wide open whereas the in focus one is at about f11 or f16 to achieve the wanted depth of field.
I got the technique from a workshop I attended. I wrote up an assignment for my photo club's website. Check it out here...
//members.rogers.com/orleansphotoclub/assignments/assignment3.html
Message edited by author 2004-06-15 17:41:58.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 06:02:52 PM · #6 |
Colette, thanks for the specifics. I really like your picture and I can't wait to try this technique and hopefully I'm half has good as you.
June
Message edited by author 2004-06-15 18:03:08.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 10:09:04 PM · #7 |
This is another picture with the dreamy effect that you like so much by dsidwell. He explains how he does it in the photographer comments. |
|
|
|
06/15/2004 10:28:04 PM · #8 |
David's method and mine are essentially the same. His was intended to meet the "classic" editing rules, so he did not use layers. Using layers & opacity yields more flexibility (you can tweak it later), so if you're working for a members' challenge, that's the method of choice.
Edit:
Remember, if you use the multiple exposures method, you cannot submit it for any challenge.
Message edited by author 2004-06-15 22:29:59.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 10:30:23 PM · #9 |
Actually I think Davids uses layers too. Doesn't it say he blended? I thought he meant on a new layer, blending the layers?
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 10:33:00 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Actually I think Davids uses layers too. Doesn't it say he blended? I thought he meant on a new layer, blending the layers? |
Nope, he simply blurred his main image, then immediately selected edit/fade gaussian blur. The catch is the fade can only be done as the very next step after blurring. He repeated the blur & fade multiple times.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2004 01:52:18 PM · #11 |
Well, since I really wanted to try Colette's techinique, I went on a hike yesterday and here is my first try. I know it's a little dark, but then again, it's only my first try.
BTW, just to show how far we're willing to go to persue or hobby, here's a little story. When I go the park yesterday, the ticket office was out of maps, but what was I expecting? This is Italy after all! So, I started walking down the paved path seen in this picture and after about 30 minutes I came to a fork on the road. I decided to take path towards the big lake. From here on it was just a trail in the woods, no more pavement. It was a wonderful day, woderful scenery, no one else around, a great break from the Neapolitan hectic way of life. Did I mention no one else around? I kept on walking and shooting away when I finally got to the lake, nothing impressive. A while back I had seen a sign that said the exit was towards were I was walking so I thought I was on the right track. So I keep walking and shooting when I came to a clearing in the forest. It was amazing, just gorgeous. I'm a city girl, so I had never been in the forest before much less alone. I kept walking and then a saw an exit sign pointed in the opposite directions I was walking, only problem was I had been walking for a good two hours now. I got scared. All of a sudden the forest didn't seem so magical after all. All forest noise now sounded threatening. A branch even fell on my head and I thought I was gonna have a heart attack. So I decied to backtrack my steps, but of course, the birds had eaten the bread crumbs I had dropped along the way. Ok, that last one was a joke. I felt like freaking Gretel! When I got back to the fork, I couldn't remember which way I had come from so I stood there contemplating my choices and then, out of no where, two old ladies appeared and pointed me in the right direction. I thanked them and got to walking. They were walking behind me for a few minutes, but then I turned around and they were no longer there, I couldn't even hear them anymore, this was weird because this was the only path in that densely vegetated area. This kinda freaked me out, in a good way I guess. After an hour and half of walking back, I made it to the entrance. Boy was I tired.
June
Message edited by author 2004-06-19 13:53:00.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2004 02:10:01 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by mavrik:
Actually I think Davids uses layers too. Doesn't it say he blended? I thought he meant on a new layer, blending the layers? |
Nope, he simply blurred his main image, then immediately selected edit/fade gaussian blur. The catch is the fade can only be done as the very next step after blurring. He repeated the blur & fade multiple times. |
That's correct. After doing almost any action, you can FADE it in the Edit menu, which gives you options as to the percentage of strength for which the action is to be used, as well as the blending option . Layers are my first choice, but I don't recall them being legal for that challenge.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2004 02:16:01 PM · #13 |
I sometimes use the Multiply options, as the artist did in this photo:
but this can be a drawback when applying blurring techniques. Note the darker area in the upper left middle of the photo. Multiply does weird things that can often be good, but often be just weird.
In this photo, for instance, I used the Multiply blending mode, and it made weird dark areas and strange light areas:
Conversely, this photo had some mist already present, and I just amplified it with blur, using layers, and with a Normal blending mode:
In this photo, I added blur to accentuate the relatively small depth of field, but it is simply a gassian blur, without layers or fading:
So just experiment, get lots of comments from people, and have fun!
|
|
|
|
06/19/2004 02:17:53 PM · #14 |
Something else you can do with layers and "dreamy effects". After creating the second layer and applying the soft filter you want, and blending with the original at whatever percentage you want, you can "erase" selected portions that you do not want soft (e.g., the eyes in a portrait). Use an eraser with a soft edge to keep the image consistent.
EDIT: works well for flowers and portraits
Message edited by author 2004-06-19 14:18:33.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2004 02:20:25 PM · #15 |
there is also a filter in photoshop under stylize and then under diffuse. I am not sure if these are legal in either kind of challenge though, does anyone know?
They can have a similar effect. |
|
|
|
06/19/2004 02:30:56 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
there is also a filter in photoshop under stylize and then under diffuse. I am not sure if these are legal in either kind of challenge though, does anyone know?
They can have a similar effect. |
The Diffuse Glow filter can be used in Member challenges, but not in basic editing challenges. In this photo, I've used Diffuse Glow to enhance the steam and make it lighter:
I have not had a lot of success using it on an entire image. It would be good to know how to better use this filter.
|
|
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: 09/17/2025 07:08:50 PM EDT.
