David Hamilton Technique?????
Jason: Man of Action
breathing puts a nice mist on his lens.
http://www.flash.net/~wesch
Thomas Tenchi Tenzen Fraser wrote:
> How does photographer David Hamilton get that soft focus look??
> It seems that parts of his photos are soft and other parts are in
> perfect focus??
> Thank you.
J Greely
>How does photographer David Hamilton get that soft focus look??
If he didn't do it deliberately, much of it could be mistaken for poor
technique. Shoot without a lens hood, shoot with the lens wide open,
shoot handheld at slow shutter speeds, use fast film, focus manually,
and then maybe add diffusion filters to the lens (commercial or
home-made). Basically, his style grew organically out of personal
feedback, with little regard for technical issues.
-j
len...@my-dejanews.com
small piece of food wrap across the front of your lens or lens shade, then a
rubber band around the lens (or shade) to hold the wrap in place. Smooth
away obvious wrinkles. View a subject through the wrap. There may be some
overall softening, but clear wrap free of wrinkles doesn't dramatically alter
the image.
Make note of the highlights in the scene you are viewing. Daub petroleum jelly
in small swirls on the food wrap "filter" so that the highlights in the scene
will pass through that portion of the "filter".
Now you'll see the beginnings of a sharp/unsharp technique without an
equipment investment. Similar results can be obtained using Cokin holders,
cheap UV filters, and stuff like hair spray, modeling cement, clear silicone
sealant, etc.
Usually a 12-exp. roll and the local 1-hour lab will provide feedback pronto.
In article <3669771A...@interlog.com>,
Thomas Tenchi Tenzen Fraser <ten...@interlog.com> wrote:
> How does photographer David Hamilton get that soft focus look??
> It seems that parts of his photos are soft and other parts are in
> perfect focus??
> Thank you.
>
--
************* Len Cook, Photographer ***************
** 20 years of photojournalism -- DANG that was fun! ***
But there's more to life than News, Sports and Weather, eh?
http://www.glamourline.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Peter Nelson
J Greely wrote in message ...
>Thomas Tenchi Tenzen Fraser <ten...@interlog.com> writes:
>>How does photographer David Hamilton get that soft focus look??
>
>technique. Shoot without a lens hood, shoot with the lens wide open,
>shoot handheld at slow shutter speeds, use fast film, focus manually,
>and then maybe add diffusion filters to the lens (commercial or
>home-made). Basically, his style grew organically out of personal
>feedback, with little regard for technical issues.
You forgot the Vaseline on the skylight filter!
---peter
J Greely
>You forgot the Vaseline on the skylight filter!
I included that under "add diffusion filters (commercial or home
made)".
-j
Colyn
<ten...@interlog.com> wrote:
>How does photographer David Hamilton get that soft focus look??
>It seems that parts of his photos are soft and other parts are in
>perfect focus??
>Thank you.
In 1973 while I was stationed in Hawaii, I got the chance to watch DH
at work.. He gave a talk on technique afterward.. His technique is
simple, just shoot wide open with vasoline smeared on the filter and
shoot during early morning and/or late evening..
Zachi Klopman
> >It seems that parts of his photos are soft and other parts are in
> >perfect focus??
does anyone know how to do it digitally (i.e. photoshop)? is there a
special plug-in
for soft-focus effects?
Thanks,
Zachi Klopman
Fell free to visit some of my works via http://i.am/zachi
Colyn
Go to filters, scroll down to blur then click on gaussian blur.. You
can adjust the amount of blur to suit you taste..
liam darkfaer d'tristesse
<78EDC919CC3513F0.7DBD081E...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
colyn....@airmail.net (Colyn) wrote:
That makes it _out of focus_, not _soft focus_.
It's not easy to emulate good bokeh/soft focus lens in photoshop.
A way to approximate it is to have the original layer, then make a
duplicate of the layer, gaussian blur it, and then make it merge with the
original at 25% or so using multiply, screen, or overlay.
You'll get a focused core with some residual blur around it... it's close,
but not quite right.
-jon
len...@my-dejanews.com
the mask. Then use the mask to filter a Gaussian blur of the highlights in
the original image onto a new layer. Adjust the opacity of the new layer to
get the effect you like. Experiment with a variety of threshold values as
well as opacity.
In article <366C0CFF...@inter.net.il>,
Zachi Klopman <zac...@inter.net.il> wrote:
> > >How does photographer David Hamilton get that soft focus look??
> > >It seems that parts of his photos are soft and other parts are in
> > >perfect focus??
>
> does anyone know how to do it digitally (i.e. photoshop)? is there a
> special plug-in
> for soft-focus effects?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Zachi Klopman
>
> Fell free to visit some of my works via http://i.am/zachi
>
>
pro...@my-dejanews.com
Zachi Klopman <zac...@inter.net.il> wrote:
> > >How does photographer David Hamilton get that soft focus look??
> > >It seems that parts of his photos are soft and other parts are in
> > >perfect focus??
>
> does anyone know how to do it digitally (i.e. photoshop)? is there a
> special plug-in
> for soft-focus effects?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Zachi Klopman
>
> Fell free to visit some of my works via http://i.am/zachi
>
ĄWHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!
PLUG-INS for copy seems to Hamilton?
The Hell be with you, ĄSacrilego!.
Well, you know... sniff (I'm crying), If you see some Hamiltonian you will
see that the medium value is over 59. See at the histogram and attemp get
some thing like it with the "curve" control on photoshop. (Ctrl M on version
3).
Why people want "know how" if theres is no ideas to work?
Colyn
d'tristesse) wrote:
>That makes it _out of focus_, not _soft focus_.
Gaussian blur is not out of focus, it gives a soft focus look.. If
used properly with a combination of color manipulations you can
approximate the soft focus look such as DH's work...
>It's not easy to emulate good bokeh/soft focus lens in photoshop.
You haven't played much with photoshop.. There are endless variations
that can be done to a photo with PS..
J Greely
>Gaussian blur is not out of focus, it gives a soft focus look..
Used by itself, gaussian blur *is* out of focus.
Fading the blur improves it considerably, by allowing the original
sharp image to show through, but you still end up with highlights and
shadows blurred the same amount. Applying the blur to a duplicate
layer and carefully merging them with the shadow blending slider split
gives something closer to traditional soft focus. You still might want
to mask off the eyes so they stay completely sharp.
>>It's not easy to emulate good bokeh/soft focus lens in photoshop.
>You haven't played much with photoshop.. There are endless variations
>that can be done to a photo with PS..
He didn't say it was impossible, just that it wasn't easy. That is
definitely true.
-j
Matt Kaarma
Hamilton. Look closely and see that the images are sharp in a way that makes
them beautiful. Try thinking about a 50mm lens with small chips in it and
careful control of lighting and exposure and colour composition. Things
ain't what they always seem.
Matt.
Peter Nelson wrote in message <74cg5l$7fp$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>...
>
>J Greely wrote in message ...
>>>How does photographer David Hamilton get that soft focus look??
>>
>>technique. Shoot without a lens hood, shoot with the lens wide open,
>>shoot handheld at slow shutter speeds, use fast film, focus manually,
>>and then maybe add diffusion filters to the lens (commercial or
>>home-made). Basically, his style grew organically out of personal
>>feedback, with little regard for technical issues.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Colyn
wrote:
>colyn....@airmail.net (Colyn) writes:
>>Gaussian blur is not out of focus, it gives a soft focus look..
>
>Used by itself, gaussian blur *is* out of focus.
You are correct in a since.. Gaussian blur needs to be used in
conjunction with masks to obtain the results comparable to DH's work..
But gaussian blur is not out of focus.. Gaussian blur can be compared
to the Leica 90mm f/2.2 Thambar lens... While you have focused the
lens for sharp focus, the image is slightly blurred..
>Fading the blur improves it considerably, by allowing the original
>sharp image to show through, but you still end up with highlights and
>shadows blurred the same amount. Applying the blur to a duplicate
>layer and carefully merging them with the shadow blending slider split
>gives something closer to traditional soft focus. You still might want
>to mask off the eyes so they stay completely sharp.
My preference is to use the blur over the whole pic then go into Paint
Shop Pro and use the sharpen tool where I want areas to be sharp...
Colyn
<mat...@mail.comcen.com.au> wrote:
>You can try all of those things and I bet you can't get the same effect as
>Hamilton. Look closely and see that the images are sharp in a way that makes
>them beautiful. Try thinking about a 50mm lens with small chips in it and
>careful control of lighting and exposure and colour composition. Things
>ain't what they always seem.
>Matt.
I have seen a number of photos done by a local photographer employing
the DH technique in photoshop that look just like DH's work.. It takes
time, but with a little patience, you can do a lot with photoshop..
DH's technique is simple, use filters smeared with vasoline and shoot
wide open in early morning or late evening light.. That's all there is
to it..
Moreno Polloni
>You can try all of those things and I bet you can't get the same effect as
>Hamilton. Look closely and see that the images are sharp in a way that makes
>them beautiful. Try thinking about a 50mm lens with small chips in it and
>careful control of lighting and exposure and colour composition. Things
>ain't what they always seem.
Hmmm. I have an old 50.
Can someone lend me a chisel?
J Greely
>My preference is to use the blur over the whole pic then go into Paint
>Shop Pro and use the sharpen tool where I want areas to be sharp...
Ick! I think I'll stick with fading or masking the blur to restore
some of the original sharpness rather than trying to digitally
reconstruct the sharpness after blurring it away. I can't see your way
producing better results with less obvious digital artifacts.
-j
J Greely
>You're simply undoing what you did with the mask and gaussian blur..
Exactly; I'm restoring the original sharpness, either completely or
partially. It's easy to throw bits away; but very difficult to get
them back.
-j
liam darkfaer d'tristesse
<F99F1CA94AC0B231.8D1E09FB...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
colyn....@airmail.net (Colyn) wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec 1998 18:06:04 -0500, li...@hell.org (liam darkfaer
> d'tristesse) wrote:
>
>
> >That makes it _out of focus_, not _soft focus_.
> Gaussian blur is not out of focus, it gives a soft focus look.. If
> used properly with a combination of color manipulations you can
> approximate the soft focus look such as DH's work...
> >It's not easy to emulate good bokeh/soft focus lens in photoshop.
> You haven't played much with photoshop.. There are endless variations
> that can be done to a photo with PS..
heh... i've been using it since 2.0 *shrug* i just tend to prefer to use
it to retouch, not bastardize photographs.
please do elucidate on your colour methods... in retrospect, i'm curious
now what you've done. do you have any samples online?
i've seen a lot of shots that were done with a nikkor DC lens or the hassy
old chrome 150mm, as well as shots with the zeiss softar. let me tell you,
if they looked like they were just gaussian blurred in photoshop, the
photographer knew he didn't get the focus right.
look at any picture with good bokeh and you will notice gaussian blur
style rings in the background; that's what you get when you have out of
focus highlights, not IN focus highlights.
if you overlay a focused core on top of the gaussian blur correctly, it'll
get close. if you overlay a brigher focussed core on top of a darker,
subtle gaussian blur, it won't look bad. if you get the highlight halation
so it doesn't penetrate into the shadows... that's not bad at all. if you
get the sharp core right, the halation right, the gradiant falloff right,
the balance right, and the masking right... you ought to write a plugin to
photoshop to turn a bad bokeh image into a good bokeh image. that'll sell
really well.
it's not as easy as just gaussian blurring the whole thing. that's what
you get when you throw a stocking or vaseline or a really really cheap
"soft focus" filter on the lens.
to cover my ass... you might be able to emulate DH's look -- i haven't
been able to find a bookstore who carries it in stock, so I can't say.
maybe he actually throws his lens out of focus! i don't know. maybe he
uses a cheap soft focus lens with lots of vaseline...if so...then please
disregard everything i've said.
just my elite, snotty take on it. =)
-jon
liam darkfaer d'tristesse
> First create a highlight mask using the Threshold control. Blur the edges of
> the mask. Then use the mask to filter a Gaussian blur of the highlights in
> the original image onto a new layer. Adjust the opacity of the new layer to
> get the effect you like. Experiment with a variety of threshold values as
> well as opacity.
I take back what I said earlier about it being difficult to emulate the
right look, and I also recant anything I might have said about being a
photoshop guru.
This makes for a very nice subtle effect. I like it! Thanks, Len Cook.
I'll be sure to remember this technique.
I do NOT retract what I said about gaussian blur not being a soft-focus
effect, and looking back in the thread, I _DO_ reiterate that DH uses
vaseline on his filter!
-jon
liam darkfaer d'tristesse
<jgr...@corp.webtv.net> wrote:
The post earlier by Len Cook (that i followed up on) really has the best
way -- mask in the highlights with Thresholds, then use that to mask a
gaussian blur and merge that with the base image.
It looks great. Very, very subtle.
-jon
Colyn
wrote:
>colyn....@airmail.net (Colyn) writes:
>>My preference is to use the blur over the whole pic then go into Paint
>>Shop Pro and use the sharpen tool where I want areas to be sharp...
>
>Ick! I think I'll stick with fading or masking the blur to restore
>some of the original sharpness rather than trying to digitally
>reconstruct the sharpness after blurring it away. I can't see your way
>producing better results with less obvious digital artifacts.
>
>-j
You're simply undoing what you did with the mask and gaussian blur..
You just have to be careful not to overdo it with the sharpen tool...
Colyn
wrote:
>colyn....@airmail.net (Colyn) writes:
>>My preference is to use the blur over the whole pic then go into Paint
>>Shop Pro and use the sharpen tool where I want areas to be sharp...
>
>Ick! I think I'll stick with fading or masking the blur to restore
>some of the original sharpness rather than trying to digitally
>reconstruct the sharpness after blurring it away. I can't see your way
>producing better results with less obvious digital artifacts.
>
>-j
I work with my images in tif format usually a 10-20meg or larger file
till I get them the way I want them then save to jpg.. I save them as
a high quality file then have them printed either 5x7 or 8x10.. I have
displayed a few and people did not realize they were computer
generated prints..
liam darkfaer d'tristesse
<1E756A59E6C52949.5703926A...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
colyn....@airmail.net (Colyn) wrote:
> On 10 Dec 1998 17:17:48 -0800, J Greely <jgr...@corp.webtv.net>
> wrote:
>
> >colyn....@airmail.net (Colyn) writes:
> >>Gaussian blur is not out of focus, it gives a soft focus look..
> >
> >Used by itself, gaussian blur *is* out of focus.
> You are correct in a since.. Gaussian blur needs to be used in
> conjunction with masks to obtain the results comparable to DH's work..
> But gaussian blur is not out of focus.. Gaussian blur can be compared
> to the Leica 90mm f/2.2 Thambar lens... While you have focused the
> lens for sharp focus, the image is slightly blurred..
That's called spherical abberation, and is, in most lenses, considered
an abberation. When light from all areas of the rear element don't
converge on the same point, that's just a design flaw that's been
"accepted". Whether that's due to astigmatism, I don't dare guess.
-jon
Colyn
wrote:
>colyn....@airmail.net (Colyn) writes:
>>You're simply undoing what you did with the mask and gaussian blur..
>
>Exactly; I'm restoring the original sharpness, either completely or
>partially. It's easy to throw bits away; but very difficult to get
>them back.
>
>-j
The purpose of programs such as paint shop pro or photoshop is to
create.. If you are scared to learn the functions of your program, why
even use it in the first place.. That's the reason they were put there
in the first place..
Part of the fun for me is creating, not just modifying what is already
there.. It's too easy to modify.... no fun....
a_g...@hotmail.com
> an abberation. When light from all areas of the rear element don't
> converge on the same point, that's just a design flaw that's been
> "accepted". Whether that's due to astigmatism, I don't dare guess.
Astigmatism is when an object is distorted, but still in sharp focus. For
instance, if a black circle on a white background is rendered as an oval,
even a sharp oval, that's astigmatism.
- Arved
--
Arved Grass Photography * Orange Park, FL * http://photo.onlineexpress.net
J Greely
>The purpose of programs such as paint shop pro or photoshop is to
>create..
That's one use. It's not the only one, particularly in the context
of photography.
>If you are scared to learn the functions of your program, why
>even use it in the first place..
An interesting conclusion to draw from the fact that I disagree with
your unsophisticated use of certain filters and recommend an
alternative that requires greater expertise with the tools. Please
don't project your own insecurity onto me.
-j
J Greely
>I _DO_ reiterate that DH uses vaseline on his filter!
Not exclusively, by any means, and by itself it's not sufficient to
get similar results. A quick glance through "25 Years of an Artist"
reveals a variety of techniques. Soft diffused light (sometimes
filtered through pastel fabrics), slow shutter speeds, panning,
wide-open lenses, fast grainy film, deliberate flare, and more.
-j
Nathan Shafer
>
> First create a highlight mask using the Threshold control. Blur the edges of
> the mask. Then use the mask to filter a Gaussian blur of the highlights in
> the original image onto a new layer. Adjust the opacity of the new layer to
> get the effect you like. Experiment with a variety of threshold values as
> well as opacity.
This sounds neat, but I didn't follow all of it, would you mind going
through it again a little more slowly?
First of all, I'm not familiar with the Threshold control - where is it
and how is it used?
Second: Are you duplicating onto a second layer JUST the highlights,
or the image MINUS the highlights? Or is it the whole image on a new
layer, but the mask has been used to keep the blur effect away from
the highlights, or ONLY in the highlights?
Thanks,
Nathan