FYI - Cross posted to DPR
I should think this could be useful at times with all m43s users! This technique should be usable for non-ACDSee users whose software comes equipped with a similar toolset.
It will change the output into a fake image.
I am not anti post processing, but shall draw a line where I cannot go beyond.
If I want certain bokeh, I shall look for a lens which can produce it but not faked it through computer and show it off to my audience.
YMMV.
5 Likes
Thatâs your option, of course. Do you sharpen your images? Denise them? Purity is a sliding scale of gray.
2 Likes
Folks often shoot subjects with fast lenses in order to get greater background blur than when seen by the human eye⌠so what does it matter if this blur is accomplished via the lens or software?
1 Like
99% of time I wonât.
A big question always come to my mind is when we can nail the focusing, why the photo would need sharpening? Would it because of the IQ of the lens?
This might be a normal workflow for RAW shooter because it has skipped the in-camera JPG engine, this is just to redo the missing procedures of RAW only. Totally different from fake bokeh.
Permit me to say FAKE is not real. Fast lens can produce DoF thinner than we human eye can see, but it is what it is. Fake DoF is sort of alteration of what our camera can capture. What is your opinion on AI generated image as photo?
More specifically on bokeh, what is the point to fake it? Simply to produce a beautiful image for appreciation or to cheat my audience or myself?
As said we should have a line on many fronts. Where to draw the line would be varied, just not for me.
Personally I wouldnât use âfake bokehâ (or âsky replacementâ et al) in any image but I do occasionally remove blemishes. It matters not whether Iâm removing sensor dust spots or discarded environmental litter, the result is of course a fake image. Acceptable for my purposes but a massive no-no for a photojournalist, for example.
This argument has existed as long as photography itself - but convincing fakes were much, MUCH harder to achieve with analogue technology; even the humble âunsharp maskâ was a difficult process requiring great skill and precision. There were remarkably good âin cameraâ fakes too - the Cottingley Faries springs to mind, and in most cases the fakes were made for deception. Unfortunately we now have simple tools that remove the need for any skill at all so fakes are everywhere. Fortunately most lack the skill of a 16-year old girl with a plate camera in 1917 so are easily spotted as fake - unlike the Cottingley Faries.
1 Like
AI-generated images are it own artistic discipline, IMO. But that has nothing to do with âfake bokehâ.
Is software-generated bokeh any worse than the non-true-to-life color we see in most images, be it film or digital? How about B&W - the majority of the population see the world in color, so isnât B&W âfakeâ? Stacked images? The Brenizer Method?
IMO there is a difference between âenhancingâ an image and completely changing the context, such as the aforementioned sky replacement. But even then, where is the line drawn?
It seems to me that âfake bokehâ is a pretty small blip on the radar of verisimilitude in photography.
1 Like
To me, a âfakeâ image is one which cannot have occurred.
For example, if I was to take an architectural shot of a church say.
Sky or bokeh replacement would leave the building intact, and who can prove what the weather was like at the time - so long as I do not replace it with a tornado!
Removing the church spire or transposing another tower onto the church makes it false, as this would not have happened.
It is all down to personal âred-linesâ. There was an entry in a photo competition - which did well - of a boxing match where the photographer had combined the ring and contestants with another (more photogenic) building and audience. The photogenic building was arts orientated and never featured boxing, but future historians are likely to view the resulting image as proof that fights took place in the listed historic building. That, I object to.
1 Like