1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

turning an 18-200 into an F2.0 lens

Discussion in 'People' started by Scott Sherman, Jul 17, 2007.

  1. Original image
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    edited image with fake boqeh
    View attachment 106520
    a bit more blur in the background
    View attachment 106521

    As we all know in photography the holy grail of lenses in portraits is the boqeh that makes the subject stand out to be the immediate focus of the image. The problem (stating the obvious) is that the lenses that are so good at this are also heavy and expensive.

    This shot is taken with an 18-200 at f8 1/400 sec, 80mm and iso 250.

    Here is the before and the after edited in PS3 by selecting the subject and then doing a lens blur on the background to achieve the boqeh that might only be available in, say an 85 f1.4 lens without the weight or expense. It took me about 45 seconds to edit in PS. This is just a quick sample. For a finished image, I would have done more of a gradient blur at the base to make it more realistic.

    I know that an 18-200 will never replace an 85mm f1.4 lens for portraits, but what do you think of this edit and the potential for those that don't want to spend the cash or can't carry the weight or size of the better portrait lenses.

    Just curious and I thought it might make an interesting discussion. Your 2 cents welcome.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 17, 2007
  2. Edward,
    You make a valid point. I don't expect PS to replace quality lenses. But it can really come in handy for those who could not get the portrait effect with the lenses they have or because of lighting or environmental conditions.

    Here is the same photo with another pass to create more blur. You can pretty much make the background what ever you want it to be or evenmake it monocromatic for even more contrast.

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
  3. The first shot is very dramatic and works beautifully. The biggest problem with using PP to change the background is when it is behind very fine detail such as the hair on the woman in the first picture. You can still see some green color from the original image. It can be done obviously, but it takes a bit more effort.

    I must say, that I really love the new selection and blurring tools (to name just two tools that I love in this edition) in PS 3. They are really amazing and the hair or smoke or water splash forgrounds are now easier and faster than ever before to isolate to the finest of detail.

    I must say, the post production, to me is as much or more fun than the actual shooting of the image. I say that because I don't shoot professionally and I typically do not shoot hundreds or thousands of shots a day or even in a shoot. If that were the case, I would much rather have a cutting edge lens on a cutting edge camera.

    But for me as a guy who plays at photography, Photoshop and Painter and NX are wonderful toys.
  4. cotdt


    Jul 14, 2007
    Bay Area, USA
    nice work, but i feel it doesn't quite look the same as real bokeh. you can always tell if it's real bokeh or photoshop blur. i think a better technique is to use a prime lens.
  5. I can see by your signature that you have some of the better lenses for soft bokeh. I don't think that the public at large will be nearly as discriminating as you or the majority of posters in this forum. Having sold a few pictures at street fairs, I know that the public is pretty ignorant when it comes to the technical aspects of photography.

    For years, the most common (dozens and dozens of people asked this) question asked of by people looking at my work was, "is it digital or is it real?"

    I would also be willing to bet that in the hands of a competent Photoshop artist, it would be very difficult if not impossible for even a discriminating photographer to tell the image has been edited. Photographs are constantly being challenged now a days in criminal court to prove they are not altered and flash memory manufacturers have had to go to the extreme of developing special flash drives that can not be manipulated because people are getting so good at it. I have seen forgery's that you would probably not even question if handed to you with several other bills when making change.
  6. I think this could be quite useful in certain situations.
  7. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    hey, is that digital or is that real? ..lol
    ....(looks good)....
  8. Are you asking if it is really Mozart or a digital copy of Mozart?
  9. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    he looks a tad pale, must be digital ...:940:
  10. yamo


    Jun 28, 2007
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Uh, the last time I looked PS CS3 wasn't exactly free nor did CS2 last as long as a good lens... :biggrin: Not to mention the cost of developing the post processing skill set, the capture skill set being something of a given, uh to get to the post-processing in the first place.

    That said it's all manipulation of a sort whether it's of the light rays on the way to to sensor, the in camera conversions, sharpening, etc. or post processing. Pick your poison(s).

    I enjoy post-processing myself, but prefer to reserve it for those things that I can't (uh, or didn't) capture.


  11. OnlyJess243

    OnlyJess243 Guest

    talk about a good way to get out of bad situations! good job! id do it if i needed to..especially when the sole purpose of a picture is to ONLY bring out a certain subject, sometimes the background goes with the picture and sometimes it just doesnt.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.