STF mode in Maxxum 7 recreated for DSLR's

by Photosopher Without addressing the oddness in the hand/mouth area of your sample, what works adequately enough for quick web shots does not always translate properly for large art or portfolio images worthy of lengthy closeup inspection. As with any Photo Shop blurring technique, the texture of the blurred area is nearly impossible to match to the texture of the non blurred area.

This was a quick example, and somewhat overdone with the blurring, only to illustrate the possibility.

Starting from a picture with more dof and applied slightly used, the pp is barely or not visible.

Both techniques are not the same as the result of a real STF picture.

Changing the aperture often changes the focal length of the lens. And shooting a series of pictures to stack is only possible with static subjects.

And blur is by definition the absence of texture.







Edited by dekie - 27 May 2011 at 13:47

PieterB How much time did this cost you?

Much less time than shooting and stacking 6 pictures.

And with the refine edge tool in CS5 it is quite easy to create a mask
in a more complex picture. The sample used here is an easy one.

Gr.

Example of lens blur applied on a Sony R1 image

original



after lens blur in PS, and lightening the background




Edited by dekie - 26 May 2011 at 00:21

I just got a Minolta 85mm f1.4 and was wanting to try this technique out on this lens. Here are the results. I experimented with different f-stop ranges and with using different numbers of photos in the composite. I believe that using at least 7 images while varying the aperture at 1/3 stop increments gives the best results (this is the 7 image f1.4-2.8 case).

here is the original at f1.4



and here are comparison of the different setups I tried. Using only 3 or 4 images in the STF composite, it is pretty easy to see the overlapping image circles in the out of focus areas. Its hard to see this in the small image (darn you flickr). So here is a download for the original. Unfortunately it wont be permanently available. The image is full resolution from my a700.

tleeds wrote: Old topic, but I figured I'd interject. I've used the STF and done a couple of these photoshop versions. ...The real star (and the reason the lens is so nice) is the STF part. Smooth Trans Focus <- They're referring to the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus. On most lenses, that transition is abrupt and well defined. The STF magically gets progressively sharper as you approach the focal plane and progressively blurrier as you leave it. This is why images taken with the STF seem to *jump*. Focus on the STF is a gradient instead of being a hard cutoff.

Since you've got the STF lens and done several of the photoshop STF images, could you show us any examples of this?

dekie wrote: Recreated the effect in Photoshop with two layers and a layer mask on the f1.7 version of your picture. Lens blur on the upper layer. This method is usable on handheld pictures with moving objects.

What did you do to the masked layer? Did you apply a gaussian blur or lens blur filter in photoshop?

Edited by photoman - 18 May 2011 at 22:18

Old topic, but I figured I'd interject.

I've used the STF and done a couple of these photoshop versions.

The point everyone seems to be missing is that the STF lens great bokeh is just a side effect. The real star (and the reason the lens is so nice) is the STF part. Smooth Trans Focus <- They're referring to the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus. On most lenses, that transition is abrupt and well defined. The STF magically gets progressively sharper as you approach the focal plane and progressively blurrier as you leave it. This is why images taken with the STF seem to *jump*. Focus on the STF is a gradient instead of being a hard cutoff.

Some of the photoshop renders here exhibit that awesome STF transition, but others look like regular photos with slightly better bokeh.

The STF is always a strange beast to use. It works better for some shots than others. (A portrait with a far-off background is not a good use of the lens or technique)... but a portrait taken at an oblique angle with your subject close to the background is a wonderful use of the lens.

I'm guessing because there's less outlining going on in the upper left.

I guess I will give this a try this weekend. Maybe with the Zeiss 135 3.5 M42. Although I have to check whether the aperture still closes correctly.

A friend of mine, Nikon user, will try this probably tonight on his new 14-24 2.8.