Mystery of this tecnique

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by jcorreia, Apr 29, 2006.

  1. jcorreia

    jcorreia Guest

    Hi,
    Please take a look at this photos from Terri Weifenbach...

    http://www.photoeye.com/_cache/e84e6d00688cc2072219c9b76db1e780.jp

    [img:60514e2903]http://www.photoeye.com/_cache/167948410d0bca46f6c4ff856c442bff.jpg[/img:60514e2903

    [img:60514e2903]http://www.photoeye.com/_cache/96b59429fc157d0662d9d532cb6ec67c.jpg[/img:60514e2903


    I'm trying to get close to this effects, but it seems impossible wit
    a normal lens.

    Have you any idea how to dismantle this mystery?

    Thanks in advance,

    J+

    PS: If you know similar effects/photos, please leave here a lin
     
    jcorreia, Apr 29, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. jcorreia

    Annika1980 Guest

    That was either done in post or with a Lensbaby.
     
    Annika1980, Apr 29, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. -spam.invalid (jcorreia) wrote in

    First off, for anyone trying to see all three photos, paste just
    the portions between the bracketed names into your browser.

    As for the technique, my best guess is a fast lens (2.8 or wider),
    wide open, and focused roughly 2 meters away. Could be further dependng
    on the focal length - this distance is assuming a 50mm lens. One without
    very good bokeh, too.

    The odd effects, especially from the first one, would seem to be
    caused by diffraction around extremely close objects in the frame, so far
    out of focus that they're almost invisible. Notice how, in the photo with
    the house, the details seem to double and darken in areas where the
    branches cut across the frame.

    Shooting in bright, high-contrast conditions seems to enhance the
    rough bokeh, and the spots on the red tree in the background definitely
    indicate that it's wide open - otherwise you'd have hexagonal or
    octagonal shapes to them.

    Hope this helps. Good luck!


    - Al.
     
    Al Denelsbeck, Apr 29, 2006
    #3
  4. jcorreia

    no_name Guest


    What it looks like is selective focus using Depth of Field.

    In that first image, he focused the lens as close as it would focus and
    then moved the whole camera forward until the one branch of flowers in
    the middle came into focus.

    The really out of focus white blobs are flowers closer to the lens than
    it can focus. The closer they are to the lens, the bigger and less
    defined they appear. The backdrop is too far away to be in focus.

    To get that much effect, you need a reasonably fast lens and shoot wide
    open. Focusing the lens to closest focus & wide open gives the absolute
    minimum depth of field.

    Adjust the lens focus so it's at closest focusing distance. Walk into
    the scene moving the whole camera until something comes into focus and
    snap the picture.
     
    no_name, Apr 29, 2006
    #4
  5. jcorreia

    Advocate Guest

    To call the first photo "not very good bokeh" was overly kind.
     
    Advocate, Apr 29, 2006
    #5
  6. jcorreia

    Paul Furman Guest

    Fixed links:



    Al's advice should work. I'm not certain the lens is necessarily awful
    in the bokeh department, it might just be very challenging conditions.
    This is the one that shows the worst ring effect:
    http://www.photoeye.com/_cache/96b59429fc157d0662d9d532cb6ec67c.jpg
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 29, 2006
    #6
  7. jcorreia

    Bandicoot Guest

    [SNIP]
    Waterhouse stops, anyone? ;-)


    Peter
     
    Bandicoot, Apr 30, 2006
    #7
  8. Lefty Bigfoot, Apr 30, 2006
    #8
  9. jcorreia

    Paul Furman Guest

    Any lens can look like that with strong highlights out of focus.
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 30, 2006
    #9
  10. jcorreia

    Annika1980 Guest

    You're close. I'm quite sure it was done with a Lensbaby, which gives
    a similar look.

    http://lensbabies.com/
     
    Annika1980, Apr 30, 2006
    #10
  11. jcorreia

    Mark² Guest

    Shallow depth of focus...set to a distance beyond the close elements, and in
    front of the farthest elements in teh image. It's really not particularly
    difficult, provided you have a lens you cna shoot using large-ish apertures.
     
    Mark², Apr 30, 2006
    #11
  12. jcorreia

    Mark² Guest

    Photoshop has a plug-in for this effect.

    Google it under, "Oops."

    There's another one that's similar called, "#*%$#@&!!"
     
    Mark², Apr 30, 2006
    #12
  13. jcorreia

    Paul Furman Guest

    Here's another gallery from the same artist:
    <http://www.photoeye.com/gallery/for...tion=1&Door=1&Portfolio=Portfolio5&Gallery=1>

    I think it must be a very fast lens, and/or large format.
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 30, 2006
    #13
  14. jcorreia

    Matt Clara Guest

    I disagree, lensbabies have a sharp area and the edges appear stretched.
    None of these images shows that characteristic stretching of the edges.
     
    Matt Clara, Apr 30, 2006
    #14
  15. jcorreia

    Paul Furman Guest

    Yeah I think they must be large format. It's just very unusual to see
    large format intentionally shot with shallow DOF like that for landscapes.
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 30, 2006
    #15
  16. I am no way a pro, so please forgive my very humble thought.
    I remember trying a weird technique using a clear Cokin filter over my
    lens (with an adapter to hold the filter in place). I smoothed a very
    tiny amount of Vaseline in designated places on the filter to give it a
    sort of watercolour effect. Of course you would have to tell the lab
    that the blurred effect is on purpose. You would have to use manual
    focusing of course.
     
    helensilverburg, Apr 30, 2006
    #16
  17. jcorreia

    Mark² Guest

    These are the sort of shots you could likely pull off with the late Canon
    50mm f1.0
     
    Mark², Apr 30, 2006
    #17
  18. jcorreia

    Matt Clara Guest

    Yes. But large-format has less depth of field than 35mm, and so could be
    pulled off that way, too. I'm not sure this couldn't be done with a short
    telephoto f1.8-2.8, as well.
     
    Matt Clara, May 1, 2006
    #18
  19. jcorreia

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Nikon 180 mm f2.8 on either a K1 ring or PK-11 extension would get ultra
    short DoF.

    In fact, many longer lenses on very short extension tubes could allow
    closer focus without being a macro shot.
     
    Gordon Moat, May 2, 2006
    #19
  20. jcorreia

    Bandicoot Guest

    All I meant was: wide open isn't the only way to have a circular aperture.
    Actually quite a few of my Pentax lenses have apertures that stay nearly
    circular, and a number of my LF ones do too, esp. the older ones and those
    in Compur shutters. But Waterhouse stops are the most perfectly circular
    way of stopping down.



    Peter
     
    Bandicoot, May 3, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.