DOF Pro - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/07/2005 11:58:40 AM · #1

Anybody tried this out yet?

//www.richardrosenman.com/dofpro.htm

It's 30 bucks, but is it worth it for good DOF for PS shooters? Looks promising if you are a postprocessing fan...

Beagleboy

Canon EOS-30D

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

06/07/2005 12:16:25 PM · #2

That looks pretty cool.

sabphoto

Samsung Galaxy S8/S8+

06/07/2005 12:28:47 PM · #3

that is really cool.
I'm still trying to find the article I saw once suggesting that they make a camera that could record the different distances of objects within an image, embed that info in the RAW file and with software you'd be able to change your DOF or other stuff dependant on the distance from the camera. For instance you could tell the computer, blur 20% everything beyond 1' and darken everything beyond 2'.

That could put out some really cool images.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

06/07/2005 01:32:38 PM · #4

Very interesting looking piece of software plug-in. They have an unlimited use free demo download to try it out. It says the only exception to using the demo is you can't apply the filter to the image, but I guess you can see how it will work and what effects it will have. I'll be downloading it and giving it a whirl. This could be really good news for people like me with cams that still use the smaller sensors and have problems isolating subjects with the use of narrow DOF.

06/07/2005 01:48:38 PM · #5

Played with the chessboard interactive demo and am rather impressed.

Now to figure out how to get that past the SC...

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

06/07/2005 02:17:34 PM · #6

Originally posted by BradP:

Now to figure out how to get that past the SC...

Busted.

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

06/07/2005 02:21:51 PM · #7

Looks very useful for 3d cgi.

Zal

Nikon D200

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Nikon

06/07/2005 02:31:12 PM · #8

Wow--This could be a godsend for us non-DSLR users. I've played around with the "Lens Blur" filter in PS CS and I've found to be very difficult to use, and even when I can apply it, it isn't able to give shallow enough DOF. I'll dl the demo of this tonight and check it out--thanks!

06/07/2005 02:39:21 PM · #9

Originally posted by scalvert:

Busted.

Don't cha' need to go visit Siberia or something?

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/07/2005 02:46:10 PM · #10

It's very clearly not just a quick fix piece of software, as there's a reasonable amount of work involved in creating a good depth map and adjusting the highlight effects, etc., but it is the only thing I've seen that is truly "dedicated" to creating this effect. Creative control has been limited by sensor size for a long time now, until the advent of the "cheap" DSLR, and I'm just personally delighted to see that there is something out there to compensate for it. I thought it was pretty cool and didn't see any reference to it here in recent threads.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/07/2005 02:58:27 PM · #11

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by BradP:
Now to figure out how to get that past the SC...

Busted.

Why would this be illegal in advanced editing?

Robt.

CEJ

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

06/07/2005 03:08:33 PM · #12

I don't use the DOF Pro, but I do use his Advanced Color Corector which is not only sweet, but 20 bucks.

06/07/2005 03:58:43 PM · #13

Originally posted by bear_music:

Why would this be illegal in advanced editing?

It's probably fine in Advanced Editing. I was just smacking Brad for suggesting he might try to fool the SC. ;-)

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/07/2005 04:23:00 PM · #14

I notice Shannon says "probably"...

I would like to know if introducing aperture shaped bokeh via this software falls into the same category as adding stars with a plugin. Obviously I wouldn't want to risk a DQ for "adding a major element" with a legal filter.. :)

Message edited by author 2005-06-07 16:25:13.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/07/2005 05:05:10 PM · #15

Originally posted by Alienyst:

I don't use the DOF Pro, but I do use his Advanced Color Corector which is not only sweet, but 20 bucks.

I have that and Lens Corrector Pro, which is priceless.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-06-07 17:05:45.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/07/2005 05:07:51 PM · #16

Originally posted by nards656:

I think the Bokeh is adjustable, so you can minimize or eliminate it...

Robt.

06/07/2005 05:16:04 PM · #17

I said "probably" because the critical factor is often HOW a tool is used, not whether the tool itself is legal. For example: the blur tool is legal, but if there's an elephant standing in the middle of your picture and you blur it so much that the elephant is essentially "removed," then it becomes a Major Element issue. The dodge tool is legal, but if you use it to dodge the Virgin Mary onto a piece of toast, then you're guilty of creating artwork that didn't exist in the original. It looks like this software would be fine for Advanced Editing because it only blurs what's already there, and the slightly shaped bokeh in the defocused areas isn't quite the same as making stars with a lens flare filter. However, if you make the DOF so shallow that a formerly detailed background disappears, then you'll probably face a DQ.

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/07/2005 05:40:02 PM · #18

Originally posted by scalvert:

However, if you make the DOF so shallow that a formerly detailed background disappears, then you'll probably face a DQ.

Forgive me if I come across wrong, because I'm not meaning to. But - can you define "disappear"? Wouldn't the current mindset of SC be more correctly captured by something like "becomes unrecognizable" or something like that? It seems like someone got into trouble over a couch in the pink challenge that they believe they simply "re-colored", but SC believes they "removed" it.

My point here - and gosh, I didn't mean at all to start a debate, Shannon, I'm sorry - is that this is a tremendous software tool that is ENTIRELY intended to DUPLICATE a camera effect. However, due to the subjective judgment that is required to prevent "digital art" on DPC, this filter has the capability to execute it's intended purpose to the extent that the RESULT becomes illegal. (Caps for emphasis - I'm not shouting :))

It's just frustrating that "I" have no definite answer as to whether this tool is legal. I see what Robt. has written - he thinks it's legal. Shannon says maybe. Brad (humorously) feels he has to sneak it past SC. Can we see the problem?

What if I use it in conjunction with a TOTALLY legal effect to eliminate my background objects? What if I use ONLY curves to make a background disappear and then use DOF Pro to blur - according to a depth map - the remaining visible area. This would also cause a "blur" to the "black" background. Is that legal or illegal? I think the rules about "removing major elements" is in DIRE need of reconsideration.

Oops, I'm hijacking my own thread. Sorry to all. I mean all of this constructively :)

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

06/07/2005 05:53:49 PM · #19

Originally posted by scalvert:

It's probably fine in Advanced Editing. I was just smacking Brad for suggesting he might try to fool the SC. ;-)

Moi?
If I ever have or do try and fool the SC, it will happen only because I didn't know it and was too stupid to realize I was.

Intentional - never.
Stupidity - very much a given.

CEJ

Canon EOS-40D

06/07/2005 06:07:24 PM · #20

Originally posted by bear_music:

I have that and Lens Corrector Pro, which is priceless.
Robt.

I take it then you would recommmend this plug-in as well?

Side note: I got the gothic glow file but PSE2 will not recognize it. At least I can't get it to. I like that effect too. I think it would be great for the 'glass' pics I have.

ElGordo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

06/07/2005 06:21:22 PM · #21

I do not understand the fascination with shallow DOF images. In my opinion, blurry images are unpleasant to view. Yes I do understand the concept of 'bokeh', an aberration made fashionable by photographers. Give me a crisp f/64 image anytime!

06/07/2005 07:30:41 PM · #22

Originally posted by nards656:

What if I use it in conjunction with a TOTALLY legal effect to eliminate my background objects?

Therein lies the problem. There IS no legal way to eliminate background objects if they comprise a significant part of your image. Going back to my hypothetical image... if you have a big elephant clearly standing in your background, then it must be in the final image too. You can blur it, change its color, dodge it, burn it, and otherwise abuse the poor creature, but it should still be visible in the final image. Using any tool to remove (disappear, wipe away, eliminate, totally obscure, make unrecognizable, etc.) such a significant thing (or an entire detailed background) would result in a DQ. If your background was basically featureless to begin with (a light overall texture or color for example), then it should be basically featureless in the final image, too. Therefore, changing a blank gray background to blank white is OK, but using any tool to create an object (stars, window frames, etc.) would be a problem. Removing an insignificant detail (like a twig, power line, or stray bird) in your image is OK.

Whether or not a tool itself is legal or meant to duplicate a camera effect is irrelevant. Pasting a partially transparent image on top of another duplicates a double exposure, but that doesn't make it legal. The editing rules were intended to let people make the most of the captured image, NOT to invent new things that didn't exist in the original.

Bear in mind that this is my personal understanding, and other SC members might not have quite the same "definition," but that's why we have a diverse group of people to discuss and vote on such things. Hopefully, this makes at least one opinion a little more clear for you. We're working to clarify some of the gray areas, and hopefully we can wrap it up soon.

06/07/2005 07:36:05 PM · #23

Originally posted by scalvert:

We're working to clarify some of the gray areas, and hopefully we can wrap it up soon.

Would that be only the gray areas on your elephant or elephants in general?

06/07/2005 07:51:33 PM · #24

Originally posted by BradP:

Would that be only the gray areas on your elephant or elephants in general?

Turns out it was a white elephant. My initial post here was just to poke fun at you, but I didn't see the fiendish "rules discussion" trap you had set for me. Looks like you got the last laugh. ;-)