I just contacted Photomatix concerning this issue. They have developed the HDR plugin, which takes a series of bracketed exposures and picks the best portions of each to produce a composite of the best exposures for each area of the scene.
Now I want to find an equivalent program which accepts a sequence of images taken at varying hyperfocal distances in order to produce an image with a larger than expected depth of focus. The alternative would be simply to select the best, in-focus portions of each exposure and combine them for the desired result.
Photomatix thought that Photoshop CS4 has a capability in this regard.
I took that picture earlier today. the problem is that the background looks to fake. like there no depth of field between the people and the background. i have attached another picture showing that there depth of field between the person face and the bricked background.
how to create "Depth of field" in photographs but the effect is not really what I want.In all of the tutorials they create two layer and blur one of them, then apply a mask and gradient it to create the effect of dof. This is not what I wan't because it does't make the scene gradually more blurry, it only creates an extremely blurry layer and applies it gradually.
So what I'm looking for is a filter or plugin that gradually increases the strength of a blur using a mask.
Have you ever wanted to make a photo seem to have shorter depth of field? Prior to Photoshop CS6 this was no small feat to achieve digitally and end up with a pleasing and visually believable result.
Photographers know that setting the aperture wide can change the mood of a shot completely. Sometimes getting the DOF just right can make the difference between an "also ran snapshot" and an award winning photograph.
With today's smaller digital sensors - and even with big sensors if too small an aperture is available - sometimes we get an image that's exposed right, that's composed well, that's caught the moment. More of it is sharp than we'd like, and the background or foreground is simply distracting.
Enter the new Photoshop CS6 blur filters.With the Tilt-Shift variant, one can progressively blur pixels based on a definable gradient/mask, so that we get that familiar progressive front-to-back blur change.
Armed with this powerful new capability, and with the subject masking/separation facilities we've had for a couple of versions now, this becomes possible:
1. Separate subject from surroundings with a good mask - e.g., quick select, refine edge, make a new layer with just the parts you want to remain sharp showing on it. A good mask isn't difficult to make any more! Hide this layer when done.
2. Remove the subject, at least around the edges, from the background layer underneath, e.g., by selecting using the above mask, expanding the selection, and doing Content Aware Fill and/or Cloning. This is important because in the subsequent blur operation we don't want parts of the sharp subject blurring into the background. That just looks weird.
3. Use Photoshop CS6's Tilt-Shift Blur to visually shorten the DOF in the background layer, with the center point and unblurred region set to coincide with the position of the subject in the shot. Adjust the settings to taste, which isn't as much of a crap shoot any more since the blurs actually update in real time on screen.
4. Make the layer above visible, maybe do some things with the lighting (which is fairly easy, now that subject is separated from the background), and voila, a whole new feel to the photo.
I understand that there is a method to increase Depth of Field for a static subject at reasonable magnification, (say a dragonfly at X1), by taking a number of pictures, each focussed at different points along the length of the image, and then combining in photoshop and possibly (?) blending.
Or would it be better to place them in layers and progressively erase the out of focus areas.
I get black blobs whenever I drag my cursor to mark the area specified to be in focus. Am I missing a setting to make that blackened area invisible? When I click "done" the part of the photograph to be in focus is still covered with black.
The depth of field tool is not working in my copy of Elements 12. Trying to use "Simple" mode after having sucess using this on a friends computor. I can add blur but the gradient tool has no effect??
I'm still learning after effects and having fun with it. I'm just curious about something. Is there a way to eliminate the depth of field with particles? Example: When I zoom out with the camera in CC particle world, the particle (energy wave I create) goes blurry. Is the depth of field a default option? Cause when I create a camera the depth of field is off.
Photoshop's 3D rendering offers us the ability to create imagery that's virtually perfect. It even allows us to specify the depth of field, from infinite, to reasonably short.
My question to you is this: Does shortening the depth of field increase or reduce the visual impact of a rendering? I offer these examples for you to judge:
I can't quite decide which I like better. The one that's sharp edge-to-edge seems a bit more like eye candy, but the one with the short DOF seems maybe more realistic. On the other hand, blurring things always feels a bit like hiding imperfection, when in this case it's hiding perfection.
For whatever reason(s), after applying the 'Depth of Field' effect, the cloning tool no longer works properly. If I open another image, the tool works just fine but if I return to the image where the 'Depth of Field' was applied, the 'clone' no longer stays after the mouse button is released. That is, the effect seems to be temporarily applied under the brush and immediately disappears when the brush is moved or the mouse button is released?
When I use the gradient tool in simple depth field in photoshop element 10 my whole image unblurs even when I chose a smal area to focus. It used to work well before but for one reason or another, it stopped. I uninstalled my program and that didn't fix the problem.
I found a video tutorial on how to make a depth of field effect from a photo. However, the video quality was so bad I couldn't even see what they were doing and clicking on.
Any process or where I can look for step by step instructions to achieve this effect?
After selecting 2 (or more) files and right clicking and choosing Multi camera sequence from source, I drag the newly created sequence on to the time line but all I get is the two files on the time line stacked over one another. the sequence never gets created.
When opening photos through Bridge into Photoshop CS5, all photos open in 8 bit mode. Bridge shows my photos in 16 bit Mode. How can I change the default settings in Photoshop CS5 to open into 16 bit Image Mode?
If I click on Open image on a 16 bit image in Raw Photoshop opens as 16 bit. But if I open it from within photoshop or from Bridge, it opens as 8 bit (when it was a 16 bit TIFF image)
i'm trying to add a degree of depth to this image and also trying to create everything that is white to be transparent. i'm kinda lost, any suggestions would be appreciated. Photoshop 7.0
Photoshop seems to be converting pictures that I open to 8-bit from 24-bit: before the problem I think it was converting to 16-bit because Photoshop doesnt seem to support 24-bit but I cant remember.
I've been using Photoshop CS4 for about 4-5 weeks now without any problems and this just seems to have come out nowhere. The problem doesn't seem to be related to Camera Raw at all because I don't use it to import my pictures, so the "Workflow Options" don't seem to have any effect on the converting. I've also tried to delete the preferences file and that doesn't help either.
A friend of mine asked me if a could find a quality pic (intenet) of some gold bars. I searched iStockPhoto and downloaded one .eps file whitch I wasn't too happy with. Then I searched Google (large images) without a result. In desperation I searched Microsoft Office Clipart and found something (.jpg) I might be able to improve. I've used PS7 for some time but with this 8 bit image I feel "blocked" on where to start making the image looking more natural colourwise. Could someone please put me on the right track? Thank you. (I hope I've got the linking to the img. OK)
getting the best results when creating 3D images in Photoshop. I've been experimenting in the creation of 3D images using a 2D source using Photoshop CS5. The output is intended to be a lenticular print.
[URL]
I've achieved some good results by converting my single 2D image into multiple layers, creating 3D postcards and adjusting the parallax and focal plane. This gives a good illusion of depth in the image, but (in my experience at least) I can't get a layer to look like it's popping out of the screen.
I've also tried using a single image and creating a depth map from a greyscale image. This does work to make it look like the image pops out of the screen, but I can't get the same illusion of depth that I get in the other case without distorting the image.
What I'd like to do is combine both methods, using the depth map for the foreground layer and using parallax and focal plane settings for the background. Unfortunately I can't get this to work. If I use a semi-transparent layer as the basis for the depth map I get a light grey fringe around my target layer when I apply the greyscale mask and if I then try and set the parallax and focal plane settings as I would have in the first scenario, the layer with the depth map becomes unusable.
I use an older version of Photoshop. It is able to import and read a 16 bit depth file. Though it is limited in what it can do with this bit depth, it can do the levels and curves adjustments on an image. I want to have the best quality scan to start with for photo restoration in my older Photoshop. I won't be able to directly import the file with my older Photoshop from the scanner. If I scan a photo as a 16 bit 600 ppi image, I'm afraid color information will be lost when I open it in the older Photoshop. Is there any way I can open and save such a file without losing all that good color information? I know I would need to save it in a format that supports 16 bit depth like png versus jpeg.
If I take an image that's 8 bits/channel and convert it to 16 bits/channel, Photoshop will tell me I have a 16 bits/channel image, even though it only contains 8 bits/channel of real information (I suppose the other 8 bits are all zero).
If someone gives me a 16 bits/channel image, is there any way that I check how many bits/channel of real information there are in it?
8 and 16 bits aren't the only options. For instance, I believe my Nikon CoolScan V ED film scanner is documented as providing 14 bits/channel. And, of course, some images may have fewer than 8 bits/channel.
I tried the solution given in another message to change the doc to BITMAP mode and greyscale. When I open the file to work on it, CS2 says its CMYK / 8 bit. Is the file truly 1 bit depth? Our scanning software won't allow the creation of templates on any other color depth.
I have attached an image photographed recently. I wud like to get your help on this. Is there any way that i cud use photoshop and make it more metallic and the diamonds look more attractive. Or is it that i shud have cared before photograhing the object.I am attaching the image and the look and feel that i wud like to get. If any one want to have a look into the real image i can send the raw too.
