Plug in

P
Posted By
PH
Jan 30, 2007
Views
464
Replies
13
Status
Closed
Anyone know of a Depth of Field plugin for photoshop?
Related Tags
plug-in

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

R
Roberto
Jan 31, 2007
If you are using Photoshop CS2 look for the lens blur filter. It will do what you want quite nicely.

ljc

—
Do not assume that because I didn’t reply to your comments that you are correct or that I am wrong or that I am correct and your are wrong. You can assume that you bore me!

"PH" wrote in message
Anyone know of a Depth of Field plugin for photoshop?

P
PH
Jan 31, 2007
"Little Juice Coupe" wrote in message
If you are using Photoshop CS2 look for the lens blur filter. It will do what you want quite nicely.
Thanks I found that to work pretty well but was looking for an alternative to look a little more realistic.
P
PH
Jan 31, 2007
"Little Juice Coupe" wrote in message
If you are using Photoshop CS2 look for the lens blur filter. It will do what you want quite nicely.
Thanks I found that to work pretty well but was looking for an alternative to look a little more realistic.
P
PH
Jan 31, 2007
"Little Juice Coupe" wrote in message
If you are using Photoshop CS2 look for the lens blur filter. It will do what you want quite nicely.
Thanks I found that to work pretty well but was looking for an alternative to look a little more realistic.
K
KatWoman
Jan 31, 2007
"PH" wrote in message
Anyone know of a Depth of Field plugin for photoshop?

I use CS

but I do this by making a dupe layer over my orig
use Gaussian blur on it
make a mask to clear the area of the subject so it looks sharp then use a gradient on the mask starting at the subject and radiating outward (or linear from front to back)
so it seem the blur is less at the edge of the subject and will increase further away line a telephoto
N
noone
Jan 31, 2007
In article <8tQvh.6065$ says…
Anyone know of a Depth of Field plugin for photoshop?

Aside from the replies, if you wish to diminish the DoF, Andromeda has a filter, with a bit more control built in. Do not have it on my laptop, so I don’t have it’s official name handy. Might be in their LensDoc suite.

Hunt
P
PH
Feb 1, 2007
Looks like the Varifocus plugin. Thanks

"Hunt" wrote in message
In article <8tQvh.6065$ says…
Anyone know of a Depth of Field plugin for photoshop?

Aside from the replies, if you wish to diminish the DoF, Andromeda has a filter, with a bit more control built in. Do not have it on my laptop, so I
don’t have it’s official name handy. Might be in their LensDoc suite.
Hunt
R
Roberto
Feb 1, 2007
I would suggest you take the time and learn how to use it. If you use masks and stuff to control it it looks very real.

ljc

—
Do not assume that because I didn’t reply to your comments that you are correct or that I am wrong or that I am correct and your are wrong. You can assume that you bore me!
I
InfoDevGuy
Feb 2, 2007
On Jan 30, 6:24 pm, "PH" wrote:
Anyone know of a Depth of Field plugin for photoshop?

Check here:

http://photoshop.pluginsworld.com/plugin.php?directory=adobe &software=photoshop&plugin=717

Thanks,
Loren
N
noone
Feb 4, 2007
In article <Ezawh.3431$ says…
Looks like the Varifocus plugin. Thanks

"Hunt" wrote in message
In article <8tQvh.6065$ says…
Anyone know of a Depth of Field plugin for photoshop?

Aside from the replies, if you wish to diminish the DoF, Andromeda has a filter, with a bit more control built in. Do not have it on my laptop, so I
don’t have it’s official name handy. Might be in their LensDoc suite.
Hunt

Sorry that I could not nail the name, especially as I’m setting up Production Studio (with PS & AI) on a new workstation. I just didn’t have the disk handy. I’ve used it in the past – back when more ADs wanted that "look." I always shoot the best, that I can, then manipulate it for the final product. All it takes is one concept change to spoil a shoot. Capture with soft-focus, and the end-client will then want it "sharp as a tack!"

Glad you got it,
Hunt
R
ronviers
Feb 4, 2007
On Feb 3, 7:05 pm, (Hunt) wrote:
I always
shoot the best, that I can, then manipulate it for the final product. All it takes is one concept change to spoil a shoot. Capture with soft-focus, and the end-client will then want it "sharp as a tack!"
Glad you got it,
Hunt

Hi Hunt,
Does that mean you shoot with the idea of capturing as many sharp pixels as possible? In my camera group there is a definite bias towards getting everything right inside the camera. I don’t know if it is a point of pride or maybe legacy issues of dealing with film but they are adamant. I bought into that idea until I began to realize how much can be done easily with PS. Now I am beginning to think, not being a photo journalist, that I should just concentrate on composition and lens selection, with the goal of maximizing sharp pixels, and leave all special effects for later. Is this what you are talking about when you say you shoot the "best" you can?

Brgds,
Ron
N
noone
Feb 6, 2007
In article ,
says…
On Feb 3, 7:05 pm, (Hunt) wrote:
I always
shoot the best, that I can, then manipulate it for the final product. All
it
takes is one concept change to spoil a shoot. Capture with soft-focus, and
the
end-client will then want it "sharp as a tack!"
Glad you got it,
Hunt

Hi Hunt,
Does that mean you shoot with the idea of capturing as many sharp pixels as possible? In my camera group there is a definite bias towards getting everything right inside the camera. I don’t know if it is a point of pride or maybe legacy issues of dealing with film but they are adamant. I bought into that idea until I began to realize how much can be done easily with PS. Now I am beginning to think, not being a photo journalist, that I should just concentrate on composition and lens selection, with the goal of maximizing sharp pixels, and leave all special effects for later. Is this what you are talking about when you say you shoot the "best" you can?
Brgds,
Ron

Ron,

Pretty much. I come from a history of having a fine custom lab next to my studio. They did emulsion-stripping, and compositing long before Scitex was invented. They had a cut-n-paste guy with the sharpest X-acto you have ever seen, and a lady, who could do things with dyes and bleach, that still amaze me. Also, my client-base is international advertising, so some of the "golly- gee-whiz" effects were not in use then. I learned to create the best possible image, then use the tools available to make it fit the AD’s concept. Also, many images were used for a dozen different ads/brochures, so it was always better to have the best raw [note lower-case "r," to differentiate between RAW] image.

I saw a lot of shooters, who filed out negative carriers/trans. carriers, etc. to "prove" that they cropped in camera. I always shot "tight," and many AD’s learned that they had to make me move the camera back, just a bit, to give them "wiggle-room."

With the advent of Scitex, I knew that I was looking at the future, and almost bought an early unit – ~US$1M for SW & HW. Luckily, my partner, and I, did not, as there were soon too many in Denver, to support the need. A lot of sep -houses took a big hit on those machines. However, I embraced PhotoStyler, when it hit the PC. Moved to PS, when it was ported for the PC and have never looked back.

If one has the best possible image, and an understanding of the tools to create the client’s wildest dreams, that is the way that I’d go. Besides, Vaseline on an optical flat, in front of the lens, is just a tool, right?

Now, if my clients had been of the "cutting-edge" mindset, I may have learned to to it ALL in the camera. As it is, I do all that I feel will contribute, then just use different tools to complete the process. Looking back, I still see that about 60% of my portfolio is analog, with much "assembly" in-camera, then the final work in the lab. The rest is digital.

I do not fault those, who feel that everything MUST be done in-camera. That is what they feel most comfortable doing. I do feel that a few wear a "badge of courage," and will defend a less than optimum result, by saying, "hey, what do you want? I did it ALL in-camera." Whatever makes the client happy. Besides, what are the various items that one hangs in front of the lens, over the lights, etc., but TOOLS? PS is only a tool to an end.

Hunt
P
plugsnpixels
Feb 7, 2007
There is a list of focus-adjustment plug-ins and applications with that capability listed under "Focus adjustment" at http://www.plugsandpixels.com/imageeffects.html

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections