"It's supposed to be out of focus!" Soft-focus is one of the great misnomers of all time. What is called soft focus has nothing to do with how the lens is focused, and is rather an effect achieved by placing materials such as silk stockings, cotton gauze or vaseline in front of the lens. But many students don't learn this until they attempt soft focus by shooting things slightly out of focus, and become laughing stocks in class by defending their footage with this phrase.
So have fun, experiment (please don't blame me for any damage to the lens) - but above all else try to follow the challenge.
Yes, I see a large number of shots potentially being out of focus for this challenge. I would suggest to persons entering this challenge to do their homework and look up some real examples of soft focus on the web or in photography books before submitting.
One example for those who watched 'Moonlighting' in the 80s w/ Cybill Shepherd and Bruce Willis - it drove me nuts every time they cut to Cybil's face and used a soft filter (which was every single shot of her!!!!)
Thanks for the definition and confirmation. I always had the feeling that soft focus was often misused here on DPC as well, but wasn't certain.
John - nice shot and effect. Am I right that you used DOF to get the background blur? It also enhances the softness. Didn't you do some experiments using stockings to achieve the soft focus effect? How did that work out? (From someone without a soft filter - at the moment...)
Thanks for the definition and confirmation. I always had the feeling that soft focus was often misused here on DPC as well, but wasn't certain.
John - nice shot and effect. Am I right that you used DOF to get the background blur? It also enhances the softness. Didn't you do some experiments using stockings to achieve the soft focus effect? How did that work out? (From someone without a soft filter - at the moment...)
Yes.. f/5.6 @ 300mm on that shot for dof...
I did some experiments with my sony using pantyhose for a soft focus filter and i was not incredibly happy with my results, but i did not pursue it in depth like I should have...
I'd also ask the same neatimage question for the Katja picture - it has all the hallmarks of that filter (unnaturally smooth skin and so on...)
I don't think her skin look "unnaturally smooth". I still see plenty of texture on her face (i.e., to the left of her nose). It isn't completely devoid of texture and just solid shades of color. If NeatImage (or equivalent) was applied, it was done in what I consider typical "glamour shot" fashion, where minor imperfections are removed while still providing detail.
I'd also ask the same neatimage question for the Katja picture - it has all the hallmarks of that filter (unnaturally smooth skin and so on...)
I don't think her skin look "unnaturally smooth". I still see plenty of texture on her face (i.e., to the left of her nose). It isn't completely devoid of texture and just solid shades of color. If NeatImage (or equivalent) was applied, it was done in what I consider typical "glamour shot" fashion, where minor imperfections are removed while still providing detail.
I agree, Eddy! I tried a few high key shots and mine came out just like this. The face was soft and clean. I think it has alot to do with lighting.
I'd also ask the same neatimage question for the Katja picture - it has all the hallmarks of that filter (unnaturally smooth skin and so on...)
If NeatImage (or equivalent) was applied, it was done in what I consider typical "glamour shot" fashion, where minor imperfections are removed while still providing detail.
Fair enough - I find most glamour shots look unnaturally smooth too - I've never seen anyone who actually looks like that (hence the 'unnatural'). In particular, its noticeable around the eyes and nose - the soft blooming and so on is quite common with neatimage - though something else could well have been used to achieve the effect.
Its strange, I found the other shot that you questioned, looked more natural than this one.
Its strange, I found the other shot that you questioned, looked more natural than this one.
That is definitely strange, because I don't see any skin detail at all in FullyFocused's picture. Perhaps downsizing the image caused the detail to be lost, but the posted shot just doesn't look "right" to me. The skin shading reminds me more of a manequinn than it does real skin.
Its strange, I found the other shot that you questioned, looked more natural than this one.
That is definitely strange, because I don't see any skin detail at all in FullyFocused's picture. Perhaps downsizing the image caused the detail to be lost, but the posted shot just doesn't look "right" to me. The skin shading reminds me more of a manequinn than it does real skin.
I think its because I expect someone younger to have skin like that, compared to the other shot.
