Diffused, but still sharp?

[Tim Gray]

One technique to try is to duplicate the layer, add gaussian blur to taste then adjust the transparency.

[Howard Smith]

The digital diffusion sounds interesting, and I admit I have never tried it.  But I am wondering about its effect.

When I use film and diffuse on the camera, the effect I get is a sharp yet diffused image where the highlites bleed into the shadow and mid tones.  When I print an undiffused negative and diffuse during printing, the shadows bleed into the hightlites.  Can these two effect be done digitally in PS?

[PeterS]

I used the same technique with a Canon G1, 1 shot focused on the object, another one taken with the object defocused. Then put as separate layers in Photoshop and blended according to what I wanted.
Freeman Patterson describes this using slide transparencies and calls it "photo-impressionism". Google on that term, and you will get the information you need.

Peter

[Mr Hako]

Easy way, I breathe on the lens (well, on the UV filter) and wait until it clears a little, then shoot.

[boku]

Michael et al,

I am very much interested in the technicque used for the current home page image. I have seen it in a number of different forms but wonder if there is a consistent way of producing this. It appears to be diffuse and sharp all that the same time. Sort of like an Impressionist technique.



Thanks in advance to all that care to contribute!

[Me2]

Check this tutorial:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/gaussian.shtml

[Willowroot]

I am still stuck in the Stone Age using film  :: so when I want to create an effect like this, I do a double exposure with one exposure sharply focussed and the other out of focus.  You can vary the effect by varying the ratio of exposure and the amount you throw the second exposure out of focus.

You can also make two images, one in, one out of focus, and use a slide sandwich to put them together.

Jason

[-Andrew-]

Willowroot,

Could you post an example of a double exposure - one in focus and one out?  Is it successful?

THanks

Andrew

[Willowroot]

Willowroot,

Could you post an example of a double exposure - one in focus and one out?  Is it successful?

THanks

Andrew

I have done very few of these, and it was a long while ago . . . so they're buried somewhere in my drawer of slide boxes  

I'll see what I can do about experimenting with it a bit more and if I get something decent I'll post it up.  Might take a while though - film, you know . . .

[Howard Smith]

I reprinted a portrait using the sharp layer and a diffused layer, blended togther.  It looked good to me.  The nice thing about this is, the results can be changed at will.  If you diffuse the original, you areprety much stuck with it.

As for taking images, I like to use a diffusion filter like a Softar I, II or III.  Expensive, but the results are predictable and repeatable.  Breathing on the lens leads to varying results.  Using vasoline on a skylight filter is messy at best.  Dirt sticks to it and it gets all over me and the rest of my gear, then dirtsticks to everything.

I looked at the Canon info on their soft focus lenses.  It appears the effect is different from defocusing the original.  I have used the Mamiya soft focus 135mm lense and it is one of the sweetest portrait lenses I have ever seen.  When used by a real expert (not me), it really produces nice images.