how is such a narrow DOF done? what camera settings would you guess for this? fstop, shutter, focal length?? is a DOF preview required to get such a shot?
-
-
*insert pic of blind person* -
Sorry thats done in post. Well part of it was done by the camera but not all of it. You can see the image if you open it in a new tab.Comment
-
is the pic nt showing in the thread? it is here eh.
anyhoo, here it is hosted elsewhere.
Comment
-
-
<!--BEGIN SIMUTRONICS PLAY BUTTON CODE -->
<p align="center">
<a href="http://buddy.play.net/dr?TMOREAU1">
<img src="drplay.gif" width="128" height="64" alt="Play DragonRealms!"></a></p>
<!--END SIMUTRONICS PLAY BUTTON CODE -->Comment
-
-
Yes done in post quite easily. Thats a diff pic than the first one you posted though. From the same set though.Comment
-
I see it now...and its hot!"I use the Google to pull up maps."Comment
-
looks like alienskin bokeh was usedComment
-
Randy West hospitalized.. wish him the best!
total mistakeComment
-
Comment
-
Looks like in post to me, why they would want to blur the pussy in that pic is beyond me.Comment
-
PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic
AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online!
TChicks.com | Angeles Cid | Mariana Cordoba | MAILERS WELCOME!Comment
-
Zoom macro:
Same effect on a quarter
forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=31912819Time Required To Make This Post: 3.4sComment
-
I thought you just need a "fast" lens for that...Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000
Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager
Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip ManagerComment
-
shoot at 2.8F, lens wide open.. focus on her eyes, re-compose."Obscenity is whatever gives the Judge an erection." -- Author UnknownComment
-
I could very easily be wrong, but here's what I see
Look at her eyelashes (in focus) and the top of her hand - spatially, these are in the same distance from the camera, and in focus.
Now, on her left hand (our right) go down the finger-tips: each one is progressively more blurred / out of focus than the previous, working all the way back to the back of the scene.
If this is faked DOF, it's very well done - because it's correct in terms of spacial positioning.
But I could be wrong
Comment
-
Comment
-
-
-
I only spent like 2 mins on this, but here is the original
Quick duplicate layer, gaussian blur, then erase the area you want in focus, then take the blur tool to the area you want to further blur to make it appear more depth of field like. not perfect, but I know there are a lot of people out there that do this is post and have their technique down much better.
Opps forgot to unblur the watermark lol. And couldn't find a pic that would better suit it. But someone can pretty easily do this in post I thinks.Comment
-
also, what's the proper distance away to achieve this DOF .
thx :-)Comment
-
It's obviously fake too ;)I only spent like 2 mins on this, but here is the original
Quick duplicate layer, gaussian blur, then erase the area you want in focus, then take the blur tool to the area you want to further blur to make it appear more depth of field like. not perfect, but I know there are a lot of people out there that do this is post and have their technique down much better.
Opps forgot to unblur the watermark lol. And couldn't find a pic that would better suit it. But someone can pretty easily do this in post I thinks.Comment
-
hehe well ya. But point being I know there are a lot that either fake or enhance dof. As do you, btw been wanting to show some of your stuff off to a friend of mine, you should do a new thread, or post some pics in the photography thread I started the other day you posted in. Or just post a link to where I can show her some of your stuff.
Comment
-
Shoot it with my cock and it won't look the same but it'll look even better!Comment
-
The original is NOT a faked DOF...
Dont even question yoruself Quantum
All about the aperture/exposure
Comment
-
It's really the lens aperture (how much light is let in) that determines the DoF, not the distance to the subject. A smaller f- number will result in more DoF blurring, but it also needs more careful focussing.
Wide open means literally that, the aperture diaphragm inside the lens is wide open.Comment
-
Most stuff is now online on my dump, in a much more friendly format:hehe well ya. But point being I know there are a lot that either fake or enhance dof. As do you, btw been wanting to show some of your stuff off to a friend of mine, you should do a new thread, or post some pics in the photography thread I started the other day you posted in. Or just post a link to where I can show her some of your stuff.
http://www.ninjito.com
Comment
-
that first one looks like he shot it that way, Whether he intended to or not is beyond me.Sorta...Comment
-
thanks for the inputs everyone
i agree that these 2 aspects are quite important but focal length and distances must be figured in to the equation if one is out to achieve DOF type shots.
for instance, f2.8 at 18mm will not have the DOF of f2.8 at 20mm focal length, in fact, most any aperture at wide angles will keep the background relatively focused.Comment
-
most lenses come with DOF charts where you can see the DOF range at various f stops and zoomed positions..or you can look it up online.
i used to do shoots for Barely Legal magz, they want everything flat, the entire image in focus.. in order to do that you have to shoot at f9-f11 with most glass and never zoom in more than probably 60mm
most adult web photogs shoot at f5.6 unless they are doing something special.."Obscenity is whatever gives the Judge an erection." -- Author UnknownComment
-
A favorite DOF shot a few summers back.
Comment
-
Depth of field is hot.
<!--BEGIN SIMUTRONICS PLAY BUTTON CODE -->
<p align="center">
<a href="http://buddy.play.net/dr?TMOREAU1">
<img src="drplay.gif" width="128" height="64" alt="Play DragonRealms!"></a></p>
<!--END SIMUTRONICS PLAY BUTTON CODE -->Comment
-
A Quick DOF lesson
Assuming you don't want to post-process all your DOF needs, here's how to achieve shallow depth of field optically:
f/2.8 isn't large enough unless the focused and non-focused area are farther apart than I see in this picture. For a human body to both in and out of focus, I would go at least to f/1.8, and 1.4 if you can.
Wide angle lenses won't work too well. Although a tele lens in needed, the factor that really determines DOF is the ratio of how far away the out of focus are is to the focused area, relative to the ratio of the how far away the focused are is to the lens. In other words, if you're 200 feet away from the in focus subject, and the intended defocus are is only 2 feet, it won't be very much out of focus--that's only 1%. However, if you're much closer, like 10 feet away from the focused area, the intended defocus area still 2 feet, that's fully 20%. That should really throw the background out of focus, especially with a f/1.4 lens.
Given the environment in this pic, 50mm, which has the same field of view as a 75mm lens on a cropped sensor, could work fine if you're 8-12 feet away. Bottom line, get as close as you can without resorting to wide angles and try to fill the frame.
Shutter speed doesn't have anything to do with DOF whatsoever. But obviously it's important for proper exposure, which is always fundamental.v
6 cents baby
I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I wish I was drinking wine instead.Comment
-
Assuming you don't want to post-process all your DOF needs, here's how to achieve shallow depth of field optically:
f/2.8 isn't large enough unless the focused and non-focused area are farther apart than I see in this picture. For a human body to both in and out of focus, I would go at least to f/1.8, and 1.4 if you can.
Wide angle lenses won't work too well. Although a tele lens in needed, the factor that really determines DOF is the ratio of how far away the out of focus are is to the focused area, relative to the ratio of the how far away the focused are is to the lens. In other words, if you're 200 feet away from the in focus subject, and the intended defocus are is only 2 feet, it won't be very much out of focus--that's only 1%. However, if you're much closer, like 10 feet away from the focused area, the intended defocus area still 2 feet, that's fully 20%. That should really throw the background out of focus, especially with a f/1.4 lens.
Given the environment in this pic, 50mm, which has the same field of view as a 75mm lens on a cropped sensor, could work fine if you're 8-12 feet away. Bottom line, get as close as you can without resorting to wide angles and try to fill the frame.
Shutter speed doesn't have anything to do with DOF whatsoever. But obviously it's important for proper exposure, which is always fundamental.v 6 cents baby
Comment
-
No picture for me here, cant see that pictureComment
-
good stuff!Assuming you don't want to post-process all your DOF needs, here's how to achieve shallow depth of field optically:
f/2.8 isn't large enough unless the focused and non-focused area are farther apart than I see in this picture. For a human body to both in and out of focus, I would go at least to f/1.8, and 1.4 if you can.
Wide angle lenses won't work too well. Although a tele lens in needed, the factor that really determines DOF is the ratio of how far away the out of focus are is to the focused area, relative to the ratio of the how far away the focused are is to the lens. In other words, if you're 200 feet away from the in focus subject, and the intended defocus are is only 2 feet, it won't be very much out of focus--that's only 1%. However, if you're much closer, like 10 feet away from the focused area, the intended defocus area still 2 feet, that's fully 20%. That should really throw the background out of focus, especially with a f/1.4 lens.
Given the environment in this pic, 50mm, which has the same field of view as a 75mm lens on a cropped sensor, could work fine if you're 8-12 feet away. Bottom line, get as close as you can without resorting to wide angles and try to fill the frame.
Shutter speed doesn't have anything to do with DOF whatsoever. But obviously it's important for proper exposure, which is always fundamental.v 6 cents baby
Comment
-
Out of the fucking way people! Professional coming though....Assuming you don't want to post-process all your DOF needs, here's how to achieve shallow depth of field optically:
f/2.8 isn't large enough unless the focused and non-focused area are farther apart than I see in this picture. For a human body to both in and out of focus, I would go at least to f/1.8, and 1.4 if you can.
Wide angle lenses won't work too well. Although a tele lens in needed, the factor that really determines DOF is the ratio of how far away the out of focus are is to the focused area, relative to the ratio of the how far away the focused are is to the lens. In other words, if you're 200 feet away from the in focus subject, and the intended defocus are is only 2 feet, it won't be very much out of focus--that's only 1%. However, if you're much closer, like 10 feet away from the focused area, the intended defocus area still 2 feet, that's fully 20%. That should really throw the background out of focus, especially with a f/1.4 lens.
Given the environment in this pic, 50mm, which has the same field of view as a 75mm lens on a cropped sensor, could work fine if you're 8-12 feet away. Bottom line, get as close as you can without resorting to wide angles and try to fill the frame.
Shutter speed doesn't have anything to do with DOF whatsoever. But obviously it's important for proper exposure, which is always fundamental.v 6 cents baby
i like wafflesComment
-
Does this one have DOF or just strange blur?
I actually removed the lens and held it up backwards to emulate a macro lens. That's why it shows the aperture at zero.
Traffic-Out
We sell quality text link clicked trafficComment
-
I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I wish I was drinking wine instead.Comment
-
Hey man. You can get a Sigma 30mm that has an f/1.4 that works for Nikon and I think they have a Canon mount too. The 50/1.4 is a great lens if you can drop the benjamins on it.
The 85/1.8 is an outstanding lens. I might get one but for now, an 80-200/2.8 meets most of my needs. And I have a 50/1.8 so if I need 85mm and f/1.8, I use the 50mm, and walk backwards!
Don't sweat it if you can't drop the cash on an f/1.4. I think you can get a 50/1.8 for around $125. A 1.4 costs a lot more, but often is worth it.I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I wish I was drinking wine instead.Comment
BUY MY SIG - 50$/Year
Comment