Using a lens blur with the gradient tool

[verysame]

@R C-R please, just take a deep breath and do some research. None of what you posted has anything to do with the topic. Besides, I can show you a pleasant dof with any, crappy, lowres image. If possible, the lower the res the better. Come back when you have a better idea of what we are discussing here.

Seriously, none of the solutions suggested in this thread can deal with the question the OP posted nor with the z-depth, where things can actually only get even worse.

So, once and for all, despite Affinity Photo has a Lens Blur filter, which would make the user mistakenly believe it can be used as any other Lens Blur in any other editing software, it actually cannot. It's deceiving to say the least since myself, as I'm sure other users, thought it could be used in the same way because of: 1) its name - Lens Blur and 2) The presence of bokeh controls, though basic, but still, present.

Why on earth a filter like that exists if it can't be used for professional results, is beyond my understanding. Unless maybe, like I said earlier, some users are happy with it as is or worse, some other users don't even know what is meant for or how to use it.

For the record: this topic could have ended after the first 2-4 posts. All the words that followed didn't add anything nor solved the issue. Over and out.

[walt.farrell]

6 hours ago, Big_Stan said:

Yes, achieving a "realistic looking" DOF is my goal.  There are numerous PS tutorials that show how to accomplish DOF with various degrees of sophistication (subtlety).  I tried to modify a couple of the PS tutorials to work in AP with no success. 

 

Perhaps this question will simply demonstrate my inexperience, but if you're looking for depth of field why don't you use the depth of field live filter? What do you get with the other methods you're trying that's better?

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, verysame said:

None of what you posted has anything to do with the topic.

The OP asked how to get a realistic depth of field effect. As far as I am concerned, that is the topic. My suggestion is to use the Affinity Photo filter designed to do that. I am not the only one to suggest that, but even if no one did the name of that filter should be a pretty good clue about that.

As for the rest of it, Affinity Photo is not any other software. It is not a great idea to assume that everything in it will work the same as in other software, because it won't.

[verysame]

4 minutes ago, R C-R said:

The OP asked how to get a realistic depth of field effect. As far as I am concerned, that is the topic. My suggestion is to use the Affinity Photo filter designed to do that. I am not the only one to suggest that, but even if no one did the name of that filter should be a pretty good clue about that.

Oh boy, you didn't even read what the OP asked:

Quote

I have seen several PS tutorials for applying a lens blur with a gradient

And knowing your attitude, this will go on and on...

 

 

[R C-R]

4 hours ago, verysame said:

Oh boy, you didn't even read what the OP asked:

Did you not see this post, which said as follows?

Quote

Yes, achieving a "realistic looking" DOF is my goal.  There are numerous PS tutorials that show how to accomplish DOF with various degrees of sophistication (subtlety).  I tried to modify a couple of the PS tutorials to work in AP with no success. 

 

[lepr]

.

[R C-R]

25 minutes ago, owenr said:

In Photoshop, for example, DOF can be simulated by specifying distances with a greyscale image, a z-depth image, where the intensity of each pixel indicates the distance from the camera of a corresponding pixel in the original image.

However, since @Big_Stan never mentioned having a z-depth image, I think it is reasonable to assume he did not have one, & is looking for a some other generalized method to simulate that effect.

30 minutes ago, owenr said:

In Affinity Photo's Lens Blur, there is no provision for a z-depth image and all of the image is blurred equally as if the original scene was flat on a wall in front of the camera.

There is no provision for that in the Live Depth of Field filter either, but lacking said z-depth image I still think using that filter rather than the Lens Blur one is the way to go in Affinity Photo, particularly combined with painting on its mask to control where & how much of the image is affected.

[lepr]

.

[lepr]

.

[R C-R]

26 minutes ago, owenr said:

This result is still poor, but I think it's better than the Affinity attempts posted so far.

I kind of like the effect in this DOF fake.afphoto file, if for no other reason than it uses just two Live Depth of Field filters & their effects can be adjusted by changing their opacities as well as with their parameter sliders. But to each their own.

[lepr]

.

[walt.farrell]

4 hours ago, owenr said:

In Affinity Photo's Lens Blur, there is no provision for a z-depth image and all of the image is blurred equally as if the original scene was flat on a wall in front of the camera.

I wasn't asking about the use of Lens Blur, but rather Depth of Field blur. The image is not all blurred equally with the DoF blur.

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, owenr said:

Looks weird. You have placed the centre of focus a few feet in front of the camera, yet you also have made the near trees more blurred than the far distance.

Like I said, to each their own. The center of the elliptical DoF filter is placed on the part of the image I wanted in sharp focus, but if you don't like that, disabling that layer & changing the amount of the tilt shift one, maybe combined with some painting on its mask, might be more like what you want.

Of course, none of these techniques really place the center of sharp focus anywhere in front of the camera, not even in PS with a z-depth greyscale map. They are all effects applied in the XY plane of the image, so it is all fakery of one sort or another. How much & where to apply it is always going to depend on the effect one wants to achieve, personal preferences, how much time one wants to spend doing it, & so on.

I like the effect I got best, but that is just me. I don't expect anyone else to agree. In fact, I would be surprised if they did.

[lepr]

.

[lepr]

.

[R C-R]

25 minutes ago, owenr said:

I was saying that you've made the nearby trees more blurred than the most distant part of the photo when they should be less blurred since you wanted the sharpest focus in the foreground.

But I did not want everything in the foreground to be in the sharpest focus. I thought I had made that quite clear. If not, perhaps I will have to consider resigning my commission as Captain Obvious. 

[firstdefence]

None of the images take into account the tree branches and leaves location in regard to the Z-depth plane and Blurring across the screen as a job lot however good it may look is not how it would actually look if taken by a camera.
Consequently this discussion is pretty much a waste of time if you don't regard the Z-Depth relationship. 

Having a blur Bokeh'd or otherwise across the board on an image like this makes the image look odd, like you don't notice immediately but as soon as someone tells you what's wrong you get that "Ah, yes, I see" moment.

[lepr]

.

[firstdefence]

2 minutes ago, owenr said:

What's clear is that you have never utilised z-depth images to fake DOF and I'd wager that you have next to no experience of photography beyond a smart phone.

 

How much ya wanna bet?

[lepr]

.

[lepr]

.

[firstdefence]

It makes sense that those things would not all blur the same, albeit subtle, the blur or effect trying to be achieved is one of realism not a Photoshop bodge job, anyone can blur the top of an image and fade that blur for the cheesy out of focus look but realism is a sensible goal.

[carl123]

Too much testosterone in this thread now. Will be back tomorrow to see if anyone had more ideas on how to achieve more realistic DOF effects.

 

[R C-R]

5 minutes ago, owenr said:

What's clear is that you have never utilised z-depth images to fake DOF and I'd wager that you have next to no experience of photography beyond a smart phone.

Actually, I have have been taking photographs for over 50 years, beginning long before there were such things as smartphones, or for that matter personal computers, Photoshop, & such. I started off with manual SLR film cameras that did not even have built-in light meters, auto-focus modes, or any of the other stuff typical of contemporary cameras. I still have a fondness for that kind of work but I got rid of my old Nikon bodies, lenses, light meters, etc. because I am too old to lug around all that stuff.

 In recent years I have used z-depth DoF images occasionally, but only in connection with 3D apps, which is the only way I have to get accurate, non-faked ones, & of course that is not applicable to photographs taken with conventional cameras. For the fake stuff, I don't use 'synthetic' z-depth images, mostly because I don't like the fake results they produce any better (to me) than what I can achieve with other techniques & take just as long to tweak to get something that looks halfway decent.

Maybe it is different for others. I try to avoid commenting on that because I don't think it is appropriate to speak for anyone besides myself & it too often leads to these personal attacks I want no part of. There are plenty of places on the web for that. I do not think we need that here. YMMV.

[lepr]

.