| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/24/2006 06:45:57 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
One SC or another posted a nice tutorial on how to use gaussian blur to acheive soft focus in PP so it is legal in basic (also says in the rules I believe). |
Kirbic did... I used it, because I didn't feel like finding a pair of hose or cleaning up vaseline (again).
|
|
|
|
08/24/2006 06:47:20 PM · #177 |
Finally its steady, all the comments seem to like the photo and softeness so thats good :)
Votes: 105
Views: 159
Avg Vote: 6.3238
Comments: 10
Favorites: 1
|
|
|
|
08/24/2006 06:48:17 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
One SC or another posted a nice tutorial on how to use gaussian blur to acheive soft focus in PP so it is legal in basic (also says in the rules I believe). |
Yeah, saw that. I understand that it's legal, but I'm not sure the voters actually like the use of it in this challenge, coz at the end of the day, it's a straight up photo with blur added. This confuses me. Isn't using blur the same as using hose or gel, in the sense that the photo is essentially focused (sharp) but you've added in the softness...?
Bah.. I dunno... |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 06:53:42 PM · #179 |
Well, I did use gaussian blur on mine, and my score is down to about 3.9. Now I wish I had left it sharper. I would have gotten a better score. Oh well, I crashed with my first challenge entry with the new camera. As to soft focus, I tried to achieve it with a fogmaker filter, but didn't like the results. Tried saran wrap, but it did not diffuse anything. Tried using some bacon grease on a glass piece, but that was horrible. So I relied on shallow dof and gaussian blur. Well, I guess unless you invest in a $200 filter, you can't really get successful soft focus.
Anyway, I have posted an image using the fogmaker filter. It isn't horrible, but I really liked my entry much better.
Message edited by author 2006-08-24 18:58:39. |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 06:56:14 PM · #180 |
| I used gaussian blur on mine too, but I think it's the other flaws with the shot that have brought my score down. |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 07:01:10 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by ladymonarda:
Well, I guess unless you invest in a $200 filter, you can't really get successful soft focus.
|
With Guassian blur method:
Votes: 113
Views: 165
Avg Vote: 6.3009
Comments: 13
Edit: I actually prefer software Soft-Focus over filters in my work as I have more control of the final product.
Message edited by author 2006-08-24 19:02:55.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2006 07:04:42 PM · #182 |
Me too Leroy.
Votes: 105
Views: 145
Avg Vote: 5.0571
Comments: 4
Two comments love it, two comments are struggling to see the softness.
(edit to change 'votes' to 'comments')
Message edited by author 2006-08-24 19:06:04. |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 07:14:23 PM · #183 |
Also gaussian blur method.
Votes: 118
Views: 155
Avg Vote: 6.0000
Comments: 6
I think the biggest problem is people blurred it but didn't fade the blur enough to make it look in focus but soft. There's so many shots that are first of things that should not be soft (action shots, etc...) but then there are things that just look blurry.
I always find it amazing that sometimes the average score can come back to an exact number like this.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2006 07:57:10 PM · #184 |
Gaussian blur method as well:
Votes: 117
Views: 196
Avg Vote: 7.5128
Comments: 25
Favorites: 6
Wish Lists: 1
Updated: 08/24/06 07:55 pm
Stoked beyond belief. |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 08:05:05 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Gaussian blur method as well:
Votes: 117
Views: 196
Avg Vote: 7.5128
Comments: 25
Favorites: 6
Wish Lists: 1
Updated: 08/24/06 07:55 pm
Stoked beyond belief. |
Holy $&#@!!! Uh...nice score. :) |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 08:07:40 PM · #186 |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 08:07:49 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Gaussian blur method as well:
Votes: 117
Views: 196
Avg Vote: 7.5128
Comments: 25
Favorites: 6
Wish Lists: 1
Updated: 08/24/06 07:55 pm
Stoked beyond belief. |
Uhh...congratulations in advance on your ribbon!
LOL |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 08:08:49 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by BradP:
From my score, I must have used the wrong kind of stocking.
Should I have asked her to take it off first? |
*shakes head*
Had a "looks pretty blurred" comment, now get a "looks pretty sharp" comment.  |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 08:12:28 PM · #189 |
Well, I now know why my photo isn't doing as well as I thought it should. I had a friend look at it and discovered that a certain OOF part of my photo is just a wee bit too subtle that some people are probably missing what makes a 5.5 photo worth a 6.5. People don't look at it long enough to see. Anyway, here is my update:
Votes: 120
Views: 151
Avg Vote: 5.4167
Comments: 12
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 08/24/06 08:10 pm
|
|
|
|
08/24/2006 08:14:06 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Votes: 117
Views: 196
Avg Vote: 7.5128
Comments: 25
Favorites: 6
Wish Lists: 1
Updated: 08/24/06 07:55 pm
Stoked beyond belief. |
awesome! im pretty sure I know which one is yours :)
Message edited by author 2006-08-24 20:14:34.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2006 08:15:22 PM · #191 |
With the Out of Focus method:
Votes: 101
Views: 133
Avg Vote: 4.8218
Comments: 4
just kidding, I used the Gaussian blur method but it's not doing very good.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2006 08:30:24 PM · #192 |
Votes: 100
Views: 133
Avg Vote: 5.3000
Comments: 3
Finally got my 100th vote. |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 09:34:52 PM · #193 |
My actual scores are low right now, but I got the nicest comment from posthumousand that meant so much more than any score. Thanks!
Message edited by author 2006-08-24 21:35:36. |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 09:59:02 PM · #194 |
slowly moving up... keep it going that way everyone!!! lets bring it over 5 again!!! :-)
a little motivation... |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 10:05:31 PM · #195 |
| At 6.1 *Yawns* I wish the voting would end already |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 10:14:03 PM · #196 |
Votes: 108
Views: 133
Avg Vote: 5.1204
Comments: 5
|
|
|
|
08/24/2006 10:15:57 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by Alain_cdn:
With the Out of Focus method:
Votes: 101
Views: 133
Avg Vote: 4.8218
Comments: 4
just kidding, I used the Gaussian blur method but it's not doing very good. |
I've got a surprise for my method of achieving soft focus. I happened upon it by accident and it was very interesting trying to perfect it.
Votes: 119
Views: 161
Avg Vote: 5.7395
Comments: 7
Favorites: 1
I think that voters don't think that it is "out of focus" enough but rather too sharp. But I'm sure that if I had entered it into any other challenge it would have gotten dinged for not being sharp enough.
In the photographer's comments I put a comparison picture of the same subject without my soft focus method applied. There is a big difference, but it won't matter until voting is over and the comparison can be seen.
edit for typo
Message edited by author 2006-08-24 22:16:34. |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 03:05:13 AM · #198 |
Hmmm. Well, I predicted my low score would be between 5.1-5.3, but I was apparently too optomistic. Ah well, I won't cry too much over this one; there were a lot of good entries. I just hope this one doesn't end up as my lowest score. That would suck >_<
Votes: 118
Views: 179
Avg Vote: 4.9492
Comments: 6
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 03:18:46 AM · #199 |
I'm doing much worse than expected...
Votes: 116
Views: 146
Avg Vote: 4.2328
Comments: 3
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 07:44:41 AM · #200 |
dpc voters don't actually want soft focus, they want focus that is only somewhat sharp :P
they're missing all the fun. if you stare at my entry and unfocus your eyes, an igunana pops out.
Message edited by author 2006-08-25 07:48:58. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 01:00:06 PM EDT.
