Adobe Photoshop and CS

[ukcatfan]

I could be wrong, but it's always been my understanding that your depth of field starts at the point of focus and extends outward{farther away}, so if you focused on a building, bushes close to or beyond should be in focus, while bushes/objects in front of would not be.


to me the pic looks oK.. could you either post the original or email it to me for better viewing..

You do actually have DOF closer than the subject, but how much depends on the distance of the focus point in relation to the aperture and focal length. Try using this website to calculate. http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

I took a guess at what Jann used with 28mm, f/8, and subject distance 150 ft. It came back with DOF from 15.2 ft. to infinity. That gives 134.8 ft. of DOF in front of the focus point. Jann, put in your true numbers and see if that helps.

Kevin

 

[cpbjgc]

I myself couldn't see any problem with the colors. I would say the lack of sharpness is depth of field issue as well, given the apeture value you are using. This is something I have really been struggling with myself going from my point-and-shoot to a DSLR. I never thought about selective focus, or even heard of DOF before I started looking at DSLRs, as my old camera pretty much had everything in focus most the time. There is a good article about the topic here with some links for programs to help calculate DOF: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dof.shtml.

 

[JR6ooo4]

You do actually have DOF closer than the subject, but how much depends on the distance of the focus point in relation to the aperture and focal length. Try using this website to calculate. http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

I took a guess at what Jann used with 28mm, f/8, and subject distance 150 ft. It came back with DOF from 15.2 ft. to infinity. That gives 134.8 ft. of DOF in front of the focus point. Jann, put in your true numbers and see if that helps.

Kevin

I was under the impression that DOF was even forward and behind the focus point, but I guess I was wrong. Thanks for the info.

Mikeeee

 

[ukcatfan]

Also, I could be totally wrong here and it wouldn't be the first time. I thought that in order to get the greatest sharpness or dof you should use a smaller aperature - something that starts around 22(at least that is what I thought I had read in Bryan Petersons books)?

The smaller aperture will increase DOF all of the time, but it is not the sharpest aperture of the lens. Every lens is different, but typically the sharpest is about two-three stops from wide open according to everything I have read and been taught. From my personal tests, this seems to hold true. On a typical zoom then, the sharpest should be around the f/7-f/11 area, but that varies according to the lens' widest aperture. Look at the f stop scale on this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number. One thing to note though is that typically the lens will be sharper closed all the way down compared to wide open. Think of a steep slope going up from the widest aperture then peaking at the sharpest aperture with a smaller slope going out to the narrowest aperture. At least that is how it was described to me in my optics section of an Astronomy lab class I took in college.

Kevin

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

Another question ... is it possible that the trees/bushes were moving in a breeze and that the (very slight) blurriness is caused by motion?

Stepping up the shutter speed would help with that.

 

[Anewman]

Another issue not mentioned might be that there could be slight underexposure in the DARK BUSHY areas of the photo which could be causeing that discoloration Jan is mentioning. I cant see the issue she is describing with the image at this size.

Jan Maybe a crop would help?

I notice you shot at ISO 100.

I was under the impression that DOF was even forward and behind the focus point, but I guess I was wrong. Thanks for the info.

Mikeeee

If this were accurate once a lens reached the xx'-INFINITY focus point it would mean that EVERYthing would be in focus, but that is not the case it only means that everything beyond xx' is in focus. Yes I imagine you would get an area infront of xx' to be infocus but not everything.

When shooting at a focus chart with a small DOF we are talking inches which can make the focused area look even. IMO if the target point on a focus chart is IN focus the lens is working regardless if the area infront of the target point is not, but I do agree that some users would consider that back focused. If you take a longer focus chart(Yard stick maybe) and perform the same test a little bit farther away the "in focus" area should start moving farther behind the target point as the dof gets bigger.

Also, I could be totally wrong here and it wouldn't be the first time. I thought that in order to get the greatest sharpness or dof you should use a smaller aperature - something that starts around 22(at least that is what I thought I had read in Bryan Petersons books)?

Larger DOF yes, but sharpness not so much.
Yes smaller aperture would help with sharpness IF lack of DOF was causing the issue in the first place, but it would not make the already in focus subject sharper as UKCATFAN mentioned it would actually hurt.

 

[jann1033]

when i used the calculator kevin linked to( thank btw), his guesses were pretty accurate, it was 33mm f8, i think maybe closer to 200 ft but i am bad at distances...anyway with those figures the limits were 21 ft to infinity,in front of subject which was house or barn was 179 ft, (don't remember which now but they are pretty equal distance from the road where i was) the bushes were probably 10 ft tops in front of the house, trees to the right of barn behind it. so according to all that they should be focused unless i am misunderstanding something...

i am wondering if it's the fringing mentioned. it's in every shot i take with this lens (so i don't think it's dof, iso or anything like that since it would change if i changed those things i'd think,) that has similar subject of bushes...maybe due to the twigs' color fringing they kind of blur together/look fuzzy and purple to my eyes.( or maybe it's my eyes who knows)
after repair try number 1 there was really bad white and purple edges to some stuff in photos not sure if that is similar or not or maybe i just didn't notice it before but i kind of don't think so.

so if it is the fringing is there any remedy to that except photoshop? ie if it's just this lens( which it is so guessing it's the lens not sensor) is it worse in certain situations or something or is the only solution post processing?
the lens is much sharper now, probably as good or better in that area as before it broke but this purple stuff is driving me nuts...i probably could lighten it some in photoshop, i think i pretty much posted as was except for crop due to wanting to see what was up.

i forgot i had taken a couple photos with this lens and the same subject with my 70-200 lens of another photo...the color with the 28-135 is much bluer overall...so maybe that is making the brown look purplish to me( being married to a painter for 30+ yrs has made me a color "neurotic" or "connoisseur", depending on how you look at it ) and probably just the lower sharpness is enough to make the smaller contrasty parts ie trunk and branches blurrier? hard to tell with the "blurry" of the two dueto the terrible camera shake in the 28-135 one( I was leaning against the car while it was on )
Thanks for the help everyone!

 

[jann1033]

28-135 lens ( obviously no sharp due to zoom but it shows the fringing)

vs 70-200 lens just as comparison

this article says it's due to light waves falling on different planes in lens so guessing it might be repairable in post processing but not actually in taking a photo..have to check inpse5 to see how or if possible
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=chromatic+aberration

 

[boBQuincy]

A search for "purple fringing correction" turned up some ideas and even a free filter that looks like it might help.
http://www.sd3.info/pf828/PFree/PFree0-1.html

I don't know if the filters can be run in PSE but if so this might be an answer to the problem.

 

[RitchG]

IIRC, the Adobe RAW plug-in also has a de-fringing setting. Are you shooting RAW? One of the processes often done in-camera to make a TIFF or JPEG is sharpening, which might add to the fringe.
---Ritch

 

[jann1033]

thanks bob, the filter works in ps5...it helped take if from "holy smokes that's awful!!" to "looks like you have a little fringing there" in one click ..i'll have to play and see if i can get it better.
RitchG i do shoot raw but i'll have to see about the adobe one, i know one i can't get to work in elements. thanks for your help!

 

[DVC Jen]

Now I see it!

Thanks for the close up shot. I will have to look and see if I have anything like that goin on.

 

[jann1033]

crazy glutton for punishment fanatic that i am i talked to canon again and they said it should be fixable so my little 28-135 is leaving for the big city once again so watch it come back ca free and soft, with the is broken again then i will cry or scream..dependsi will turn this into an l quality lens if it kills me in the process

 

[iluvdisnee]

Just wanted to share:

Here's a Selective Coloring Tutorial I put together. I've found this to be the easiest way to do it. For Rosy Cheeks just adjust the opacity of the color to where it looks natural on the top bar where it says "opacity"

I took this photo of my BIL's peach tree a few weeks ago:


Step 1 - Open Your Photo in Photoshop (I'm using Elements here but it pretty much applies to most of the versions of Photoshop)

Step 2 - In Your Layers Select GRADIENT MAP

Step 3 - Select Black & White Gradient

Step 4 - Your Photo will turn black and white like THIS:

Step 5: Change Your Forground Color to BLACK (Lower Left Corner of Your Tools) and Select Your Paint Brush from your Tools. Zoom in on the area you want to Colorize and begin "Painting" it...it will bring the original color back.

I like to zoom back out on my image while I'm painting just to make sure it looks good:

Step 6 - Once You are done Coloring your Image the way you want it, Change Your Forground Color (Again on the Lower Left area of your Tools) to White. You can now use your paintbrush to "Clean up" any area's you may have colored outside the lines on. Switch back to black to recolor an area. Here is the finished product:

BEFORE:

AFTER:

 

[disneyfan2]

Thank you!
I hope to try this soon!

 

[Ratpack]

Thanks!! I have done this several times, but I always have to stop and think how to do it. Now I can just refer back to this thread or print it out.

 

[bradk]

wow.. thanks.. i don't use PS and to be honest, i didn't really read/follow your tutorial, but the images sparked the idea in me and I never really had any clue how to do it before, but now i kinda do

original:

now:

 

[bradk]

this is becoming way too easy and too fun.. i discovered a more simplified technique than what i did before.. i use paintshop pro.. the hair's a bit of a challenge though.. still a little bit on top left grey.. took 5 mins at most

 

[LMarge]

Thank you for the tutorial!!! I'm a "visual" person and really needed to see what the screens should look like! I've tried it before, but whatever I was doing seemed to take forever!! 'll play around with a few tonight and try to post tomorrow!! DH will love this, something else to keep me from finishing folding the laundry!!!

 

[Beka]

I'm so glad I stopped by here today! I tried my hand at it in Photoshop, since I do'nt have the Elements, and did it a different way, but had the same results:

I just duplicated the layer, desaturated the top layer, and "erased" what I wanted to be in color. FUN! Thank you!