«

This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
Microsoft!!!

No doubt about it... Purists will fall in love with a F/1.0 lens that costs
as much as a small car. They often cite background blur (Bokur) and
sharpness as the reason. I might state up front that I own such a lens and
love it!!

My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much... *IF*
you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!

I put together a quick and dirty description of how to achieve this " Bokur
effect" in Photoshop (CS3) from a P&S camera which has a very deep depth of
field for the same field of view as a FF sensor camera.
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Blur.htm

Disclaimer:
I'm an owner of DSLRs and far too many expensive lenses.
I use them professionally but I also use an FZ50 Panasonic P&S and an
Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit
these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water!

I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S owners.
Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
civil responses... And pigs do fly!

Enjoy,
Douglas

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 09:21:50 +1000, "Douglas" <> wrote in
<fiq5s0$45q$>:

>I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
>with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S owners.
>Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
>civil responses... And pigs do fly!

Amen. Except that last bit.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 09:21:50 +1000, "Douglas" <> wrote:

>This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
>Microsoft!!!
>
>No doubt about it... Purists will fall in love with a F/1.0 lens that costs
>as much as a small car. They often cite background blur (Bokur) and
>sharpness as the reason. I might state up front that I own such a lens and
>love it!!
>
>My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
>out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much... *IF*
>you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!
>
>I put together a quick and dirty description of how to achieve this " Bokur
>effect" in Photoshop (CS3) from a P&S camera which has a very deep depth of
>field for the same field of view as a FF sensor camera.
>http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Blur.htm
>
>Disclaimer:
>I'm an owner of DSLRs and far too many expensive lenses.
>I use them professionally but I also use an FZ50 Panasonic P&S and an
>Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit
>these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water!
>
>I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
>with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S owners.
>Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
>civil responses... And pigs do fly!
>
>Enjoy,
>Douglas
>


That's bokeh , from the Japanese word boke, but then , accuracy has
never been a strongpoint.

On Nov 30, 1:21 pm, "Douglas" <j...@the.group> wrote:
> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
> Microsoft!!!
>
> No doubt about it... Purists will fall in love with a F/1.0 lens that costs
> as much as a small car. They often cite background blur (Bokur) and
> sharpness as the reason. I might state up front that I own such a lens and
> love it!!
>
> My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
> out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much... *IF*
> you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!
>
> I put together a quick and dirty description of how to achieve this " Bokur
> effect" in Photoshop (CS3) from a P&S camera which has a very deep depth of
> field for the same field of view as a FF sensor camera.http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Blur.htm
>
> Disclaimer:
> I'm an owner of DSLRs and far too many expensive lenses.
> I use them professionally but I also use an FZ50 Panasonic P&S and an
> Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit
> these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water!
>
> I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
> with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S owners.
> Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
> civil responses... And pigs do fly!
>
> Enjoy,
> Douglas

Nice job on the background blur.

But then would you really need an f/1.0 lens, I believe my 50mm f/1.8
would have worked rather well, and saved a lot of time in Photoshop,
and the 50mm f/1.8 cost less then $70.

If you happen to have that camera in hand and grabbed the shot while
the grabbing was good then I can fully understand. If you picked up
the P&S when the DSLR was sitting right there next to it, well I don't
believe even you would do that.

Scott

On Nov 30, 6:21 pm, "Douglas" <j...@the.group> wrote:
>
> My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
> out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much... *IF*
> you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!

That may be your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, but of
course it is wrong.
Maybe someday you'll show us tests from a fair comparison instead of
one where the photos are taken at different exposure settings with
different post-processing.
But I ain't holding my breath.

"Scott W" <> wrote in message
news:b12388fe-0b42-4efa-b41f-...
> On Nov 30, 1:21 pm, "Douglas" <j...@the.group> wrote:
>> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
>> Microsoft!!!
>>
>> No doubt about it... Purists will fall in love with a F/1.0 lens that
>> costs
>> as much as a small car. They often cite background blur (Bokur) and
>> sharpness as the reason. I might state up front that I own such a lens
>> and
>> love it!!
>>
>> My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
>> out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much...
>> *IF*
>> you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!
>>
>> I put together a quick and dirty description of how to achieve this "
>> Bokur
>> effect" in Photoshop (CS3) from a P&S camera which has a very deep depth
>> of
>> field for the same field of view as a FF sensor
>> camera.http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Blur.htm
>>
>> Disclaimer:
>> I'm an owner of DSLRs and far too many expensive lenses.
>> I use them professionally but I also use an FZ50 Panasonic P&S and an
>> Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit
>> these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water!
>>
>> I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
>> with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S
>> owners.
>> Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
>> civil responses... And pigs do fly!
>>
>> Enjoy,
>> Douglas
>
> Nice job on the background blur.
>
> But then would you really need an f/1.0 lens, I believe my 50mm f/1.8
> would have worked rather well, and saved a lot of time in Photoshop,
> and the 50mm f/1.8 cost less then $70.
>
> If you happen to have that camera in hand and grabbed the shot while
> the grabbing was good then I can fully understand. If you picked up
> the P&S when the DSLR was sitting right there next to it, well I don't
> believe even you would do that.
>
> Scott

I did it to prove a point Scott. Someone asked in rec.photo.digital about
using Photoshop blur for backgrounds from P&S cameras. I did that shot to
demonstrate a quick and dirty proceedure to do this as well as provide a
camera blured version for comparrison. All shots were at between 200 and
300mm FL (35mm equivlant).

Douglas

"Annika1980" <> wrote in message
news:ec351f13-18fe-4b00-851a-...
> On Nov 30, 6:21 pm, "Douglas" <j...@the.group> wrote:
>>
>> My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
>> out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much...
>> *IF*
>> you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!
>
> That may be your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, but of
> course it is wrong.
> Maybe someday you'll show us tests from a fair comparison instead of
> one where the photos are taken at different exposure settings with
> different post-processing.
> But I ain't holding my breath.
>
>

I wish you would. I'd take a lot longer to produce one.

It seems to me there is an imbalance somewhere in your perverted thought
process.

You do over all your "pics" in Photoshop before posting them. You do mine
over too but that's another story, isn't it?

I never used to bother with "dressing up" my stuff for Internet display and
you rubbished me for putting up your idea of lousy images. So now I do them
over in Photoshop so they "look" as bad as yours ...and you want to see a
"fairer" comparison?

Fair is when you take a photo in conditions beneficial to what? The P&S or
the DSLR?
Fair is when you use exposures a camera is designed for or when they benefit
one of the cameras more than the other?

True fairness is when the final photo is produced. Only then does it matter
and when they both look identical, the comparison is correct. When I showed
a Panel of photographic judges (as I have done recently) a bunch of
Panasonic prints intermixed with 20D prints, they couldn't pick which was
which. Why is it you need to see a lopsided comparison to fortify your
investment in gear you can't find a use for?

Why can you not just accept that your camera is useless underwater but an
Olympus E330 is fantastic and your camera is impossible to hand hold with
shutter speeds of 1/15th but a Panasonic FZ50 is in it's element doing that?
Please do hold your breath while I take the scenic route to pick up the
camera and get you some "fair" comparisons.

Douglas

Colin_D wrote:

> I hate to say this Doug, but the grass under the boy's feet should be in
> focus, or at least nowhere near as unsharp as you have it. It looks
> very unnatural, and nothing like a wide-aperture shot from a good lens
> would look like.
>
> I keep out of trouble these days, so I am not inviting a slanging match
> here, just a technical observation about that image.
>
> Colin D.
>

That could also be taken as an advantage of the Photoshop approach over
the wide-aperture approach - more control over the defocus, instead of
simply focusing on a certain plane.

I've noticed the same thing with laminate flooring - people are so
concerned that it look realistic, meaning like wood. Yet carpet doesn't
have to look like fur, and tile doesn't have to look like stone.

All that said, I suppose often the subject is roughly planar, so
focusing on just that plane is a nice convenience.

Douglas wrote:
> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
> Microsoft!!!
>
> No doubt about it... Purists will fall in love with a F/1.0 lens that costs
> as much as a small car. They often cite background blur (Bokur) and
> sharpness as the reason. I might state up front that I own such a lens and
> love it!!
>
> My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
> out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much... *IF*
> you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!
>
> I put together a quick and dirty description of how to achieve this " Bokur
> effect" in Photoshop (CS3) from a P&S camera which has a very deep depth of
> field for the same field of view as a FF sensor camera.
> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Blur.htm
>
> Disclaimer:
> I'm an owner of DSLRs and far too many expensive lenses.
> I use them professionally but I also use an FZ50 Panasonic P&S and an
> Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit
> these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water!
>
> I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
> with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S owners.
> Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
> civil responses... And pigs do fly!
>
> Enjoy,
> Douglas
>
>
I hate to say this Doug, but the grass under the boy's feet should be in
focus, or at least nowhere near as unsharp as you have it. It looks
very unnatural, and nothing like a wide-aperture shot from a good lens
would look like.

I keep out of trouble these days, so I am not inviting a slanging match
here, just a technical observation about that image.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Nov 30, 9:21 pm, "Douglas" <j...@the.group> wrote:
>
> Fair is when you take a photo in conditions beneficial to what? The P&S or
> the DSLR?
> Fair is when you use exposures a camera is designed for or when they benefit
> one of the cameras more than the other?

No, clueless, FAIR is showing two images from different cameras taken
with the same exposure settings and processed the same way. That's the
only way you can compare equipment properly. It's called controlled
testing ... look it up.

>
> True fairness is when the final photo is produced. Only then does it matter
> and when they both look identical, the comparison is correct.

Uh, no, that doesn't make any sense. You aren't trying to make the
photos look alike. You take the photos with the same settings so that
the differences between the cameras can be noted.
Geez, even you can't be this thick. I think you're just trolling me.
Nobody is that ****in stupid. Are they?


>When I showed
> a Panel of photographic judges (as I have done recently) a bunch of
> Panasonic prints intermixed with 20D prints, they couldn't pick which was
> which.

I don't doubt that. I'm sure all of them were equally wretched.

>Why is it you need to see a lopsided comparison to fortify your
> investment in gear you can't find a use for?

Once again you are confused. I want a fair comparison. You are the
one who makes it lopsided by underexposing one and overexposing the
other. Then you try to sharpen up your Crapasonic pic and declare it
the winner.

Whatever. Keep shooting with your shitty cameras. Who cares?
Keep pretending that you have a 5D or a fleet of 20D Canons.
Matters not to me.

As for my finding a use for my gear, I do OK.
I'm currently working on a macro pic that'll blow your socks off.
Just wait till my new motherboard comes in next week and I get my
computer back up and running.