# Faking it:  Who needs a $1900 lens?



## inTempus (Sep 3, 2009)

If you can't afford a $1900 Canon 85mm f/1.2L lens, just fake it.  

Example:







I decided that it might look better with a little bokeh.  






Man I love digital and Photoshop.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 3, 2009)

Odd how the close clouds are blurred but the distant ones are in focus, kind of


----------



## loopy (Sep 3, 2009)

Great job!


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 3, 2009)

Gradient map I'm guessing? Try two. One up and one down.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 3, 2009)

I'm glad i don't get bokeh like that


----------



## Overread (Sep 3, 2009)

This is always triky to do though - for websize as the sizes posted its rather easy, but for large images and certainly for images with a very detailed dividing boarder between in focus and out of focus its very time consuming to do right.

I have read of methods like this, though most people consider it best that you have the good bokeh before you start - eg here (scroll down to base for the background section).
Juza Nature Photography

I think its because its very easy to overdo it (and to mess up the dividing line on something like the grass in your shot and have it as a hard boundary rather than diffuse) and get a very unnatural look


----------



## xiangji (Sep 3, 2009)

doesn't quite look right to me...


----------



## itznfb (Sep 3, 2009)

I like the first one better.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 3, 2009)

Wow, you rock man.



*headdesk*


----------



## inTempus (Sep 3, 2009)

The dividing line is actually down around her ankles.


----------



## HeY iTs ScOTtY (Sep 3, 2009)

no fake clouds in this one??


----------



## ::trainwreck:: (Sep 3, 2009)

xiangji said:


> doesn't quite look right to me...



I dunno, there's just something about it I can't put my finger on. I guess it works, but as soon as I saw it I knew it was photoshopped. There's just something about it...


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 3, 2009)

Well, it was a valiant effort, and if you showed it to someone a little less experienced, they may even think it was done by an 85 1.2, but I've seen some shots from that lens, and it would be darn hard to match. 

I am guessing Alien Skin Bokeh PS plug-in?


----------



## inTempus (Sep 3, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Well, it was a valiant effort, and if you showed it to someone a little less experienced, they may even think it was done by an 85 1.2, but I've seen some shots from that lens, and it would be darn hard to match.
> 
> I am guessing Alien Skin Bokeh PS plug-in?


You're right, yes... Alien Skin Bokeh plug in and about 5 minutes of masking off the area I wanted blurred.  I'm sure if I applied myself I could do far better.

Here's another example I did.  Just learning the tool really.

Before:






After:






Again, a very quick edit.


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 3, 2009)

Again, very nice... but you forgot to blur the area visible through the left rear window. 

I think a combination of Mask Pro 4 and this plug-in could do some very interesting things.


----------



## camz (Sep 3, 2009)

It's actually fairly easy to do.  I would brush or magic wand the smaller area.  If the smaller area isn't the area I wanted blurred inverse the selection and then apply a lens blur layer.  It makes perfect sense if the background is flat and the whole background has equal distance from the lens.  But if the background pans out then I think the $1900 lens might actually come in handy


----------



## xiangji (Sep 3, 2009)

Again it doesn't look right to me... 

Is it because the part your blurred is to the same degree??? I'm guessing it's because of perspective. 

Should the top right hand corner of the shot be more blurred than the top left???? 

Maybe too consistent?


----------



## xiangji (Sep 3, 2009)

I need to be quicker with my posts lol


----------



## Plato (Sep 3, 2009)

I'm a real fanatic regarding selective focus.  However, this example with the young girl and the clouds looks bad, really bad.  The best thing that I can say about it is that it's a great example of how to use PP to ruin a shot.

The old Ford is acceptable except that the out-of-focus antenna detracts significantly from the shot.


----------



## camz (Sep 3, 2009)

xiangji said:


> I need to be quicker with my posts lol



lol we all do it


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 3, 2009)

The car one looks like tilt-shift to me.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 3, 2009)

inTempus said:


> JerryPH said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it was a valiant effort, and if you showed it to someone a little less experienced, they may even think it was done by an 85 1.2, but I've seen some shots from that lens, and it would be darn hard to match.
> ...



Looks more like "miniature faking" than "bokeh faking".  I know that's not what you were going for, but that's what I'm seeing.  It just makes the car look fake.



Did you go straight for the 1.2, or did you try the 1.8 first?  I'd be interested in hearing how those two compare, as far as bokeh goes...


----------



## inTempus (Sep 3, 2009)

I actually used a custom setting, 12% I believe.  The default for the 85L is 20%.


----------



## Restomage (Sep 3, 2009)

Or you could buy a zoom lens and zoom in to control DOF better....


----------



## Derrel (Sep 3, 2009)

The car one does look more like the fake miniature effect than real out of focus bokeh. If yo want a great bokeh lens, there's no need to spring for the Canon 85/1.2 L; you'd get prettier bokeh with less green CA from a used Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-D lens. The Canon f/1.2 throws the backdrops out of fous, but has an unfortunate tendency toward double-lining and making hash on real-world items like tree branches, foliage, and anything that has a strong "line" in it.

If you want pretty bokeh,seriously, consider the Nikon 85/1.4 and an inexpensive $17 bronze adapter to plop it onto your Canon. You'll get better bokeh, and the focusing will be pretty fast by hand on a decent Canon body.

Or, if you want a longer lens with *adjustable* bokeh, look into the Nikkor 105mm f/2 AF-D Defocus Control lens. That lens is one of the absolute best Nikon lenses when shooting right toward bright lights--strobes, monolights, or the sun. It is one of the easiest-focusing lenses ever made,and has adjustable background defocus,as well as built-in adjustable soft focus/diffusion.

To me, somebody who's a bokeh fanatic, using adapted lenses on Canon bodies is the way to go to get bokeh that a particular Canon lens simply cannot deliver, or just to use lenses that happen to be for Nikon mount on bodies other than Nikon. The Photoshopped bokeh effects always look faked because,well, they are faked. Each lens has its own drawing style and its own bokeh signature; where the PS fakery really falls flat on its face is when you have point light sources in the background--like Christmas tree lights, or water droplets, or simple light areas coming in through foliage...PS fakery will not work on those situations--it cannot render the point light sources realistically. You ought to consider owning at least 1 or two Canon to M42 thread mount adapters and 1 or 2 Canon to Nikon F mount adapters; there are 50 years worth of older MF Nikkor lenses,some with good,unusual bokeh, that will plop right onto a Canon body, like the 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor-H, and the 35mm f/2 Nikkor O.C. Both have bokeh that can not be replicated by modern lenses.


----------



## Antithesis (Sep 3, 2009)

There's no actual focusing plane, which makes it look weird. Less so on the one of the girl, but even then, you'd need the perspective from a longer telephoto to make it look realistic at all. Something shot with that focal length from that distance would look far different. I think there needs to be more blurring as you head off towards the horizon.


----------



## Moe (Sep 3, 2009)

I think the title says it all. Faking it. And it shows. As far as the first pic goes, it probably looks photoshopped to even a beginner. They may not be able to put their finger on it, but they'll say she just doesn't look right. Especially looking at her against the cloudy background. It creates a in-focus/out-of-focus gradient, but bokeh? Nah. One thing for me is the blur getting stronger going from bottom to top. The problem with this is from her ankles to the horizon, the background is getting further, so the blur _should_ increase, like it does. However, starting from the horizon and moving up in the photo, the background (clouds) moves closer. So, shouldn't the background from the horizon up get a little less blurry as you move up in the photo? Man, I hope I'm explaining this right, I think I've gone crosseyed.  

The take home point is that this may improve some people's photos. Many of the photos you've posted, however, have been excellent.  Too much "gimmicky" PP will only take them down a notch.  But you did say you were just learning this, so who knows.


----------



## kundalini (Sep 3, 2009)

Swing and a miss on the "afters" for me.  Too obvious it is post work rather than purposed in the field.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 3, 2009)

I'm just playing...


----------



## kundalini (Sep 3, 2009)

manaheim said:


> I'm just playing...


*Notes on 3rd grade report card*

"Chris doesn't seem to use his time wisely."



:lmao:


----------



## manaheim (Sep 3, 2009)

kundalini said:


> *Notes on 3rd grade report card*
> 
> "Chris doesn't seem to use his time wisely."
> 
> ...


 
Maaaaaaaan that's eerily close to the truth of my elementary school report cards. 

The comments from my high school teachers were similar, but also paired with "makes out with girls in the hallway too much".  I dunno about anyone else, but I consider making out with girls an EXCELLENT use of my time.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 3, 2009)

Still playing... I think I like this one better... not sure if it's quite right, but it's closer...


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 3, 2009)

Is that emulated at f/.45


----------



## GeneralBenson (Sep 3, 2009)

Sorry, but it just looks very, very not real to me.  I've seen a few examples of the AS bokeh plugin, and I have to say, it never looks anywhere near realistic to me.  I don't think it ever looks realistic when you try to add fake bokeh to a background that has depth.  The only times I've seen it look decent are when the subject and the background are on two separate two dimensional planes; like a person in front of a brick wall, but it's a 3/4 shot so you don't see their feet or the ground connecting them to the wall.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 3, 2009)

ppfftt... my fake bokeh was teh awesome!



I'm kidding, it looks like crap.  It was just an intriguing challenge.


----------



## Montana (Sep 3, 2009)

Tharmsen or whatever, just use the 85 1.2 L.    Its dreamy...................


----------



## inTempus (Sep 4, 2009)

I know you guys are probably going to say it stinks, but I like this edit.






It certainly works better where the background is closer and nearly perfectly vertical vs. having a vanishing point.  It doesn't necessarily work with the desaturated look... but I was grabbing different images from my SmugMug to play with.

I think I've mastered the masking... time consuming to say the least.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 4, 2009)

I like that one a lot... I'd never guess it was 'fake' bokeh.

Really makes the subject pop, nice work man.


----------



## RONDAL (Sep 4, 2009)

again the reason the last one works is because you dont see the perspective point where the ground is.

its getting that gradient down to perfection as you move away from the base of the subject and increase it as the background gets further away from the subject the further up their body you go.


----------



## roadkill (Sep 7, 2009)

i can't tell what glass you used in the shots with the girl. no exif data


----------



## roadkill (Sep 7, 2009)

just an aside... wow... manahiem. you might be a little too involved with this forum and all what with all the pact stuff. just MHO


----------



## roadkill (Sep 7, 2009)

i guess i should add that pretty much anyone could take those shots with a nifty fifty. I don't really get where the 1900 dollar lens comes in.....


----------



## manaheim (Sep 7, 2009)

roadkill said:


> just an aside... wow... manahiem. you might be a little too involved with this forum and all what with all the pact stuff. just MHO


 
meh.

I'm on here a lot.  I prefer it when the forum sucks less.  Usually that happens went people aren't being loopy.  That was just an attempt to keep people from being loopy.

Dunno.  Seems to have worked sorta?


----------



## inTempus (Sep 7, 2009)

roadkill said:


> i guess i should add that pretty much anyone could take those shots with a nifty fifty. I don't really get where the 1900 dollar lens comes in.....


It's an edit that simulates a Canon 85mm f/1.2L, hence the title of the thread.


----------



## Moglex (Sep 8, 2009)

inTempus said:


> I know you guys are probably going to say it stinks, but I like this edit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



TBH I thought the one in the OP was ghastly, but this ones really impressive.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Sep 8, 2009)

Moglex said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> > I know you guys are probably going to say it stinks, but I like this edit.
> ...



This one is much, much better, but it still doesn't look quite right.  I think maybeif you feathered the selection slightly.  the line between the subject and the background is just way too crisp.  And I think something about the pattern, or lack there of, of the bokeh just doesn't seem believable to me.  It's really hard to be objectivewhen you already know it's fake.  Tharmsen, you have the 85L, right?  I think you should go set up a tripod, and take a shot at f/1.2, then take one at f/8 or something, and add the fake bokeh, and then compare them.  That would be the real test of how good it is.  Like I said, it's really easy to say something doesn't look right when you already know it's fake.  But if I just saw the shot above and no one said anything, would I know?  Can't say.  I say take two identical shot, one real, one fake,and don't tell us which is which.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Sep 8, 2009)

It might be me, but it looks fake.
If you coud put 2 shots one by the 1.2 lens and a fake side by side you can tell


----------



## skieur (Sep 8, 2009)

Overread said:


> This is always triky to do though - for websize as the sizes posted its rather easy, but for large images and certainly for images with a very detailed dividing boarder between in focus and out of focus its very time consuming to do right.



Of course, the easier approach is to chose depth of field in the edit pull-down menu of Paint Shop Pro X2.

skieur


----------

