what do you think about the depth of field of this picture?[pic] - GoFuckYourself.com

dyna mo · 06-03-2009, 08:10 AM

how is such a narrow DOF done? what camera settings would you guess for this? fstop, shutter, focal length?? is a DOF preview required to get such a shot?

u-Bob · 06-03-2009, 08:13 AM

*insert pic of blind person*

stickyfingerz · 06-03-2009, 08:24 AM

Sorry thats done in post. Well part of it was done by the camera but not all of it. You can see the image if you open it in a new tab.

dyna mo · 06-03-2009, 08:31 AM

is the pic nt showing in the thread? it is here eh.

anyhoo, here it is hosted elsewhere.

Twistys Tim · 06-03-2009, 08:34 AM

still no photo...

dyna mo · 06-03-2009, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twistys Tim

still no photo...

totally bizarre, hosted at 2 different places and i can see them in the thread.

lolz, oh well.

420 · 06-03-2009, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

*insert pic of blind person*

I'll describe this for those of us who are blind.

There is a picture of Ray Charles playing piano. His glasses have cleverly been turned into red x's and there is a caption that reads "Can't see shit".

dyna mo · 06-03-2009, 08:44 AM

3rd host

stickyfingerz · 06-03-2009, 08:46 AM

Yes done in post quite easily. Thats a diff pic than the first one you posted though. From the same set though.

munki · 06-03-2009, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 420

I'll describe this for those of us who are blind.

There is a picture of Ray Charles playing piano. His glasses have cleverly been turned into red x's and there is a caption that reads "Can't see shit".

UFGators2007 · 06-03-2009, 09:17 AM

I see it now...and its hot!

Grapesoda · 06-03-2009, 09:19 AM

looks like alienskin bokeh was used

Sebastian Sands · 06-03-2009, 09:27 AM

total mistake

stickyfingerz · 06-03-2009, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bm bradley

looks like alienskin bokeh was used

Done just as easily by creating a new layer with blur, then erasing the portion you want unblurred.

quantum-x · 06-03-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Done just as easily by creating a new layer with blur, then erasing the portion you want unblurred.

Not really. That gives you a two dimensional blur. DOF is 3D ;)

NaughtyRob · 06-03-2009, 09:32 AM

Looks like in post to me, why they would want to blur the pussy in that pic is beyond me.

pornguy · 06-03-2009, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quantum-x

Not really. That gives you a two dimensional blur. DOF is 3D ;)

If thats a 3d blurr its a bit on the soft side as its really hard to see it that way. At least on my screen. To me it looks more like a new layer with a blur like sticky said..

MaskedMan · 06-03-2009, 09:36 AM

Zoom macro:

Same effect on a quarter
forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=31912819

stickyfingerz · 06-03-2009, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quantum-x

Not really. That gives you a two dimensional blur. DOF is 3D ;)

To me it just looks like the blur layer was erased with a softened edge. But I bow to Quantums experience as I could be wrong.

woj · 06-03-2009, 09:43 AM

I thought you just need a "fast" lens for that...

JP-pornshooter · 06-03-2009, 09:44 AM

shoot at 2.8F, lens wide open.. focus on her eyes, re-compose.

quantum-x · 06-03-2009, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

To me it just looks like the blur layer was erased with a softened edge. But I bow to Quantums experience as I could be wrong.

I could very easily be wrong, but here's what I see

Look at her eyelashes (in focus) and the top of her hand - spatially, these are in the same distance from the camera, and in focus.

Now, on her left hand (our right) go down the finger-tips: each one is progressively more blurred / out of focus than the previous, working all the way back to the back of the scene.

If this is faked DOF, it's very well done - because it's correct in terms of spacial positioning.

But I could be wrong

quantum-x · 06-03-2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaskedMan

Zoom macro:

Same effect on a quarter
forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=31912819

It's not a macro lens you twit!
It's just someone shooting w/ a high aperture (probably like 2.8)

The Duck · 06-03-2009, 09:53 AM

I dont like that picture anyway.

seeandsee · 06-03-2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Duck

I dont like that picture anyway.

looks like pussy fail

stickyfingerz · 06-03-2009, 10:07 AM

I only spent like 2 mins on this, but here is the original

Quick duplicate layer, gaussian blur, then erase the area you want in focus, then take the blur tool to the area you want to further blur to make it appear more depth of field like. not perfect, but I know there are a lot of people out there that do this is post and have their technique down much better.

Opps forgot to unblur the watermark lol. And couldn't find a pic that would better suit it. But someone can pretty easily do this in post I thinks.

dyna mo · 06-03-2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter

shoot at 2.8F, lens wide open.. focus on her eyes, re-compose.

when you say "lens wide open" do you mean full telephoto?

i find it hard to get such a narrow DOF at focal lengths <80ish.

dyna mo · 06-03-2009, 10:20 AM

also, what's the proper distance away to achieve this DOF .

thx :-)

quantum-x · 06-03-2009, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

I only spent like 2 mins on this, but here is the original

Quick duplicate layer, gaussian blur, then erase the area you want in focus, then take the blur tool to the area you want to further blur to make it appear more depth of field like. not perfect, but I know there are a lot of people out there that do this is post and have their technique down much better.

Opps forgot to unblur the watermark lol. And couldn't find a pic that would better suit it. But someone can pretty easily do this in post I thinks.

It's obviously fake too ;)

stickyfingerz · 06-03-2009, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quantum-x

It's obviously fake too ;)

hehe well ya. But point being I know there are a lot that either fake or enhance dof. As do you, btw been wanting to show some of your stuff off to a friend of mine, you should do a new thread, or post some pics in the photography thread I started the other day you posted in. Or just post a link to where I can show her some of your stuff.

JP-pornshooter · 06-03-2009, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

when you say "lens wide open" do you mean full telephoto?

i find it hard to get such a narrow DOF at focal lengths <80ish.

lens wide open = 2.8 f
would think the photo was shot with a 70-200 2.8f lens of some sort
so yes telephoto zoom lens, most likely near the 200mm end of the lens

V_RocKs · 06-03-2009, 12:12 PM

Shoot it with my cock and it won't look the same but it'll look even better!

Deej · 06-03-2009, 12:18 PM

The original is NOT a faked DOF...

Dont even question yoruself Quantum

All about the aperture/exposure

rowan · 06-03-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

also, what's the proper distance away to achieve this DOF .

thx :-)

It's really the lens aperture (how much light is let in) that determines the DoF, not the distance to the subject. A smaller f- number will result in more DoF blurring, but it also needs more careful focussing.

Wide open means literally that, the aperture diaphragm inside the lens is wide open.

quantum-x · 06-03-2009, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

hehe well ya. But point being I know there are a lot that either fake or enhance dof. As do you, btw been wanting to show some of your stuff off to a friend of mine, you should do a new thread, or post some pics in the photography thread I started the other day you posted in. Or just post a link to where I can show her some of your stuff.

Most stuff is now online on my dump, in a much more friendly format:
http://www.ninjito.com

burntfilm · 06-03-2009, 02:12 PM

that first one looks like he shot it that way, Whether he intended to or not is beyond me.

dyna mo · 06-03-2009, 02:20 PM

thanks for the inputs everyone

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowan

It's really the lens aperture (how much light is let in) that determines the DoF, not the distance to the subject. A smaller f- number will result in more DoF blurring, but it also needs more careful focussing.

Wide open means literally that, the aperture diaphragm inside the lens is wide open.

i agree that these 2 aspects are quite important but focal length and distances must be figured in to the equation if one is out to achieve DOF type shots.

for instance, f2.8 at 18mm will not have the DOF of f2.8 at 20mm focal length, in fact, most any aperture at wide angles will keep the background relatively focused.

JP-pornshooter · 06-03-2009, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

thanks for the inputs everyone

i agree that these 2 aspects are quite important but focal length and distances must be figured in to the equation if one is out to achieve DOF type shots.

for instance, f2.8 at 18mm will not have the DOF of f2.8 at 20mm focal length, in fact, most any aperture at wide angles will keep the background relatively focused.

most lenses come with DOF charts where you can see the DOF range at various f stops and zoomed positions..or you can look it up online.
i used to do shoots for Barely Legal magz, they want everything flat, the entire image in focus.. in order to do that you have to shoot at f9-f11 with most glass and never zoom in more than probably 60mm
most adult web photogs shoot at f5.6 unless they are doing something special..

SilentKnight · 06-03-2009, 04:01 PM

A favorite DOF shot a few summers back.

420 · 06-03-2009, 04:14 PM

Depth of field is hot.

JP513 · 06-03-2009, 05:35 PM

Assuming you don't want to post-process all your DOF needs, here's how to achieve shallow depth of field optically:

f/2.8 isn't large enough unless the focused and non-focused area are farther apart than I see in this picture. For a human body to both in and out of focus, I would go at least to f/1.8, and 1.4 if you can.

Wide angle lenses won't work too well. Although a tele lens in needed, the factor that really determines DOF is the ratio of how far away the out of focus are is to the focused area, relative to the ratio of the how far away the focused are is to the lens. In other words, if you're 200 feet away from the in focus subject, and the intended defocus are is only 2 feet, it won't be very much out of focus--that's only 1%. However, if you're much closer, like 10 feet away from the focused area, the intended defocus area still 2 feet, that's fully 20%. That should really throw the background out of focus, especially with a f/1.4 lens.

Given the environment in this pic, 50mm, which has the same field of view as a 75mm lens on a cropped sensor, could work fine if you're 8-12 feet away. Bottom line, get as close as you can without resorting to wide angles and try to fill the frame.

Shutter speed doesn't have anything to do with DOF whatsoever. But obviously it's important for proper exposure, which is always fundamental.v

6 cents baby

Deej · 06-03-2009, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP513

Assuming you don't want to post-process all your DOF needs, here's how to achieve shallow depth of field optically:

f/2.8 isn't large enough unless the focused and non-focused area are farther apart than I see in this picture. For a human body to both in and out of focus, I would go at least to f/1.8, and 1.4 if you can.

Wide angle lenses won't work too well. Although a tele lens in needed, the factor that really determines DOF is the ratio of how far away the out of focus are is to the focused area, relative to the ratio of the how far away the focused are is to the lens. In other words, if you're 200 feet away from the in focus subject, and the intended defocus are is only 2 feet, it won't be very much out of focus--that's only 1%. However, if you're much closer, like 10 feet away from the focused area, the intended defocus area still 2 feet, that's fully 20%. That should really throw the background out of focus, especially with a f/1.4 lens.

Given the environment in this pic, 50mm, which has the same field of view as a 75mm lens on a cropped sensor, could work fine if you're 8-12 feet away. Bottom line, get as close as you can without resorting to wide angles and try to fill the frame.

Shutter speed doesn't have anything to do with DOF whatsoever. But obviously it's important for proper exposure, which is always fundamental.v

6 cents baby

voa · 06-03-2009, 06:35 PM

No picture for me here, cant see that picture

dyna mo · 06-04-2009, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP513

Assuming you don't want to post-process all your DOF needs, here's how to achieve shallow depth of field optically:

f/2.8 isn't large enough unless the focused and non-focused area are farther apart than I see in this picture. For a human body to both in and out of focus, I would go at least to f/1.8, and 1.4 if you can.

Wide angle lenses won't work too well. Although a tele lens in needed, the factor that really determines DOF is the ratio of how far away the out of focus are is to the focused area, relative to the ratio of the how far away the focused are is to the lens. In other words, if you're 200 feet away from the in focus subject, and the intended defocus are is only 2 feet, it won't be very much out of focus--that's only 1%. However, if you're much closer, like 10 feet away from the focused area, the intended defocus area still 2 feet, that's fully 20%. That should really throw the background out of focus, especially with a f/1.4 lens.

Given the environment in this pic, 50mm, which has the same field of view as a 75mm lens on a cropped sensor, could work fine if you're 8-12 feet away. Bottom line, get as close as you can without resorting to wide angles and try to fill the frame.

Shutter speed doesn't have anything to do with DOF whatsoever. But obviously it's important for proper exposure, which is always fundamental.v

6 cents baby

good stuff!

Iron Fist · 06-04-2009, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP513

Assuming you don't want to post-process all your DOF needs, here's how to achieve shallow depth of field optically:

f/2.8 isn't large enough unless the focused and non-focused area are farther apart than I see in this picture. For a human body to both in and out of focus, I would go at least to f/1.8, and 1.4 if you can.

Wide angle lenses won't work too well. Although a tele lens in needed, the factor that really determines DOF is the ratio of how far away the out of focus are is to the focused area, relative to the ratio of the how far away the focused are is to the lens. In other words, if you're 200 feet away from the in focus subject, and the intended defocus are is only 2 feet, it won't be very much out of focus--that's only 1%. However, if you're much closer, like 10 feet away from the focused area, the intended defocus area still 2 feet, that's fully 20%. That should really throw the background out of focus, especially with a f/1.4 lens.

Given the environment in this pic, 50mm, which has the same field of view as a 75mm lens on a cropped sensor, could work fine if you're 8-12 feet away. Bottom line, get as close as you can without resorting to wide angles and try to fill the frame.

Shutter speed doesn't have anything to do with DOF whatsoever. But obviously it's important for proper exposure, which is always fundamental.v

6 cents baby

Out of the fucking way people! Professional coming though....

Dood · 06-04-2009, 08:35 AM

Does this one have DOF or just strange blur?

I actually removed the lens and held it up backwards to emulate a macro lens. That's why it shows the aperture at zero.

dyna mo · 06-04-2009, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharphead

Out of the fucking way people! Professional coming though....

no shit eh. now i just have to find a f/1.4 telephoto! i'm thnkng of picking up the 85mm f/1.8

the only nikon lens i can find with 1.4 is a 50mm

JP513 · 06-04-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharphead

Out of the fucking way people! Professional coming though....

LOL, thanks for the props, you and 2 others. I hope it helps explain DOF better.

I'm actually not a professional, though I shoot like one!

JP513 · 06-04-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

no shit eh. now i just have to find a f/1.4 telephoto! i'm thnkng of picking up the 85mm f/1.8

the only nikon lens i can find with 1.4 is a 50mm

Hey man. You can get a Sigma 30mm that has an f/1.4 that works for Nikon and I think they have a Canon mount too. The 50/1.4 is a great lens if you can drop the benjamins on it.

The 85/1.8 is an outstanding lens. I might get one but for now, an 80-200/2.8 meets most of my needs. And I have a 50/1.8 so if I need 85mm and f/1.8, I use the 50mm, and walk backwards!

Don't sweat it if you can't drop the cash on an f/1.4. I think you can get a 50/1.8 for around $125. A 1.4 costs a lot more, but often is worth it.

JP-pornshooter · 06-04-2009, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

no shit eh. now i just have to find a f/1.4 telephoto! i'm thnkng of picking up the 85mm f/1.8

the only nikon lens i can find with 1.4 is a 50mm

f1.8 - 85mm is a fine prime lens...
good luck with it and dont forget to show us the outcome of your studies.

06-03-2009, 08:10 AM	#1
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 65,354	what do you think about the depth of field of this picture?[pic] how is such a narrow DOF done? what camera settings would you guess for this? fstop, shutter, focal length?? is a DOF preview required to get such a shot?

06-03-2009, 08:34 AM	#5
Twistys Tim Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Twistys HQ Posts: 1,923	still no photo... __________________ $100 PPS Xmas Promo [email protected] ICQ 311545482 Skype timmy_vee

06-03-2009, 08:44 AM	#8
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 65,354	3rd host Last edited by dyna mo; 06-03-2009 at 08:48 AM..

06-03-2009, 09:17 AM	#11
UFGators2007 Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 1,739	I see it now...and its hot! __________________ "I use the Google to pull up maps."

06-03-2009, 09:27 AM	#13
Sebastian Sands Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: ICQ: 211-417-740 Posts: 5,223	Randy West hospitalized.. wish him the best! total mistake

06-03-2009, 08:13 AM	#2
u-Bob there's no $$$ in porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: icq: 195./568.-230 (btw: not getting offline msgs) Posts: 33,063	insert pic of blind person

06-03-2009, 08:24 AM	#3
stickyfingerz Doin fine Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 24,983	Sorry thats done in post. Well part of it was done by the camera but not all of it. You can see the image if you open it in a new tab.

06-03-2009, 08:31 AM	#4
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 65,354	is the pic nt showing in the thread? it is here eh. anyhoo, here it is hosted elsewhere.

06-03-2009, 08:46 AM	#9
stickyfingerz Doin fine Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 24,983	Yes done in post quite easily. Thats a diff pic than the first one you posted though. From the same set though.

06-03-2009, 09:19 AM	#12
Grapesoda So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Montana Posts: 46,238	looks like alienskin bokeh was used

06-03-2009, 09:32 AM	#16
NaughtyRob Two fresh affiliate progs Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Inside teen pussy Posts: 29,602	Looks like in post to me, why they would want to blur the pussy in that pic is beyond me. __________________ [email protected] Skype: 17026955414 Vacares Web Hosting - Protect Your Ass with Included Daily Backups

06-03-2009, 09:36 AM	#18
MaskedMan Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 12	Zoom macro: Same effect on a quarter forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=31912819 __________________ Time Required To Make This Post: 3.4s

06-03-2009, 09:43 AM	#20
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	I thought you just need a "fast" lens for that... __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

06-03-2009, 09:44 AM	#21
JP-pornshooter Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: westcoast usa Posts: 4,007	shoot at 2.8F, lens wide open.. focus on her eyes, re-compose. __________________ "Obscenity is whatever gives the Judge an erection." -- Author Unknown

06-03-2009, 09:53 AM	#24
The Duck Adult Content Provider Industry Role: Join Date: May 2005 Location: Europe Posts: 18,243	I dont like that picture anyway. __________________ Skype Horusmaia ICQ 41555245 Email [email protected]

06-03-2009, 10:07 AM	#26
stickyfingerz Doin fine Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 24,983	I only spent like 2 mins on this, but here is the original Quick duplicate layer, gaussian blur, then erase the area you want in focus, then take the blur tool to the area you want to further blur to make it appear more depth of field like. not perfect, but I know there are a lot of people out there that do this is post and have their technique down much better. Opps forgot to unblur the watermark lol. And couldn't find a pic that would better suit it. But someone can pretty easily do this in post I thinks.

06-03-2009, 10:20 AM	#28
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 65,354	also, what's the proper distance away to achieve this DOF . thx :-)

06-03-2009, 12:12 PM	#32
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,409	Shoot it with my cock and it won't look the same but it'll look even better!

06-03-2009, 12:18 PM	#33
Deej I make pixels work Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: I live here... Posts: 24,386	The original is NOT a faked DOF... Dont even question yoruself Quantum All about the aperture/exposure __________________ Deej's Designs n' What Not Hit me up for Design, CSS & Photo Retouching Icq#30096880

06-03-2009, 02:12 PM	#36
burntfilm Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Brooklyn NY, Providence, RI Posts: 972	that first one looks like he shot it that way, Whether he intended to or not is beyond me. __________________ Sorta...

06-03-2009, 04:01 PM	#39
SilentKnight Megan Fox's fluffer Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: shooting pool in Elysium Posts: 24,818	A favorite DOF shot a few summers back.

06-03-2009, 04:14 PM	#40
420 cuck Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 11,571	Depth of field is hot. __________________ <!--BEGIN SIMUTRONICS PLAY BUTTON CODE --> <p align="center"> <a href="http://buddy.play.net/dr?TMOREAU1"> <img src="drplay.gif" width="128" height="64" alt="Play DragonRealms!"></a></p> <!--END SIMUTRONICS PLAY BUTTON CODE -->

06-03-2009, 05:35 PM	#41
JP513 Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Republic of Barebackistan Posts: 1,914	A Quick DOF lesson Assuming you don't want to post-process all your DOF needs, here's how to achieve shallow depth of field optically: f/2.8 isn't large enough unless the focused and non-focused area are farther apart than I see in this picture. For a human body to both in and out of focus, I would go at least to f/1.8, and 1.4 if you can. Wide angle lenses won't work too well. Although a tele lens in needed, the factor that really determines DOF is the ratio of how far away the out of focus are is to the focused area, relative to the ratio of the how far away the focused are is to the lens. In other words, if you're 200 feet away from the in focus subject, and the intended defocus are is only 2 feet, it won't be very much out of focus--that's only 1%. However, if you're much closer, like 10 feet away from the focused area, the intended defocus area still 2 feet, that's fully 20%. That should really throw the background out of focus, especially with a f/1.4 lens. Given the environment in this pic, 50mm, which has the same field of view as a 75mm lens on a cropped sensor, could work fine if you're 8-12 feet away. Bottom line, get as close as you can without resorting to wide angles and try to fill the frame. Shutter speed doesn't have anything to do with DOF whatsoever. But obviously it's important for proper exposure, which is always fundamental.v 6 cents baby

06-03-2009, 06:35 PM	#43
voa Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 16,532	No picture for me here, cant see that picture

06-04-2009, 08:35 AM	#46
Dood Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: MidSouth US Posts: 353	Does this one have DOF or just strange blur? I actually removed the lens and held it up backwards to emulate a macro lens. That's why it shows the aperture at zero. __________________ Traffic-Out We sell quality text link clicked traffic