Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: "Landscape Blurs" in software?  (Read 2205 times)
Statistician
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« on: February 26, 2009, 05:30:46 PM »
ReplyReply


I have a question about "Landscape Blurs" (by Alain Briot).  Can't one do the blurring in software? The software can imitate the shaking that creates the blur. One needs smearing that contains a systematic component plus a random component. The user would specify the characteristics of each component.

The "shaking" would correspond to moving the camera various ways in the sensor plane and various tilts of the sensor plane (shift and tilt!).
 

Comments?

Thanks.
Logged
jdemott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 434


« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2009, 05:43:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I've experimented some with both techniques--blurring in camera and blurring in Photoshop.  For me, at least, the in camera results are better, but they are unpredictable.  You have to take many exposures to get one that you like, but when you get a good one, it has a natural-looking quality that I can't duplicate in Photoshop.  Given that there are so many people doing various creative things in the digital darkroom, I'm sure there are some photographers who find they get just the look that they like with blurring in Photoshop.  This is probably a classic case of "YMMV."
Logged

John DeMott
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 613


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2009, 06:15:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a series called "Painted Light" that I do using a digital back and camera movement.  In fact just did a selection of these for the Maternity Center for Texas Children's Hospital.  They are soft and natural looking and I don't think I could get this effect in Photoshop.  Even if I could, doing that kind of manipulations with software is just against my personal photographic ethics for my own work (ie: software blurring to mimic camera movement). Eleanor

Quote from: jdemott
I've experimented some with both techniques--blurring in camera and blurring in Photoshop.  For me, at least, the in camera results are better, but they are unpredictable.  You have to take many exposures to get one that you like, but when you get a good one, it has a natural-looking quality that I can't duplicate in Photoshop.  Given that there are so many people doing various creative things in the digital darkroom, I'm sure there are some photographers who find they get just the look that they like with blurring in Photoshop.  This is probably a classic case of "YMMV."
Logged

jdemott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 434


« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2009, 06:48:02 PM »
ReplyReply

After posting the above, I gave it a bit more thought and decided this deserves a slightly more complete answer.

The blurring technique is one of those wonderful creative acts that forces you as a photographer to confront what is essential and important about the subjects you are photographing.  When the colors and shapes, even though blurred, somehow make sense and communicate the essence and beauty of your subject, then you have truly seen something.  The process of interacting with the subject and trying to find the lucky combination of camera movement and exposure that will work is part of the joy of the technique.  To me, the joy of seeing the subject and interacting with it are reflected in the results, which I find are best with the in camera technique.

For many people, including myself, there is also creative joy in the digital darkroom.  One can interact with the images and explore them and try to bring out their nature through processing and printing.  If someone finds they can experience and communicate the creative process of exploring the subject through some sort of blurring in Photoshop, I say more power to them.  If you are truly working creatively, it ain't faking whether you do it in camera or in Photoshop.  But if you are just trying to imitate rather than to see and to create...that is something else.  Perhaps that is what Eleanor is getting at when she talks about mimicking.
Logged

John DeMott
teo.karp
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2009, 10:18:39 AM »
ReplyReply

i really liked the article
this is a pic from a film scan i did a while back when i bought my first slr a canon 500n ..i can't really remember if it was deliberate or not but i kind of liked the results and it looked really nice on print(without the nasty grain seen here,it was shot on superia 100)..it was for an art class assigment and i remember that the teacher liked it..moreover he entered it in a local student competition   and i won the category  
ps:just resised for the web,no other alterations
« Last Edit: March 01, 2009, 10:20:51 AM by teo.karp » Logged
LoisWakeman
Guest
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2009, 09:44:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I think part of the fun of this technique is seeing what you get - the unpredictability means you are never quite sure what you'll see on the screen - sometimes rubbish, but sometimes good.

I am not aware of any existing filter software that allows you, for example, to specify a vector path to duplicate the movement the camera made. Perhaps others here know better?
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad