Comments on: Comparing Photoshop’s Lens Blur Filter to a Real Tilt-Shift Lens

By: Christopher

Christopher — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:03:51 +0000

2 Questions:

1. When you have the quickmask gradient on the area you want do you release the mask by pressing Q or do you leave it on and take it through the lens blur?

2. WordPress: Your site is nice, informative and big, what template are you using?

By: Pieter Manders

Pieter Manders — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:40:24 +0000

Interesting stuff! All the miniature effect I ever applied was done with a tilting lens. I like to think that a lens beats photoshop simulation but your comparison proofs that it can be hard to tell the difference.

My guess:
#1 Photoshop
#2 TiltShift

Here’s two videos that I made with a tilting lens: http://www.youtube.com/8088nl

By: Carla

Carla — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:52:06 +0000

Can I still guess? I guess #1 is the real deal, because of the perspective – the buildings are straight-up, and not on a slant, which is why people taking photos of architecture use this lens.

By: lose weight

lose weight — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 03:49:20 +0000

nice read there…. just bookmarked it…

By: Mayukh

Mayukh — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:04:26 +0000

This is so dumb. You are missing the sweetest point. You can always use photoshop to simulate the blur but you will never be able to put extra sharpness in. On the other hand, you are only writing about how TS lens can be used to selectively focus a part of the scene. But what about the magic? TS can extend the depth of view to keep everything in focus. That is why people get TS lenses. Normal lenses will never be able to do that. TS will always win. You better go out and keep taking pictures rather writing these nonsense blog.

By: kyllenikka

kyllenikka — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:31:45 +0000

If your are talking about photo manipulation, then you are talking in a general way. As what other people said, photo manipulation is too broad. There are a lot of thing to study if you want to become a good photographer. I would also say that if you have great lens, then that’s an advantage.

By: Hamunaptra

Hamunaptra — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:06:11 +0000

#1 is PS – the transition from sharp building to blurred water tower is far too abrupt. And although the bokeh balls in the most distant building are amazingly distinct, those on the shorter building in front of it are not. To do a really realistic depth of field simulation, PS would need a Z-plane (distance from the camera to every point in the image), not just a hand-generated mask. I suppose you could go to great effort to hand-create a realistic mask, but that would be art, not photography :-). Does PS have a filter to compute distance from parallax in a stereo image?

By: LM Kurt

LM Kurt — Thu, 05 May 2011 03:51:12 +0000

Photo manipulation is too broad… lots of things to study… also having a great lens is an advantage…

By: Shadrack

Shadrack — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:14:43 +0000

Photo manipulation is as old as photography itself, contrary to the idea of a photo having inherent verisimilitude. Though not obviously visible to human eyes, image manipulation can be detected by some sophisticated tools, like Photoshopped Image Killer. Which tells you whether your image has been Photoshopped given the image or the image's URL.

By: Summer Camps

Summer Camps — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 03:22:26 +0000

Maybe you could edit the webpage title Comparing Photoshop’s Lens Blur Filter to a Real Tilt-Shift Lens | The Cleverest to more suited for your webpage you make. I liked the the writing nevertheless.