You Are Not a Photographer - Bad Photography Blog

You aren't logged in Register

No Mistaking The Focus Of This One

Oh I wouldn’t walk on that bridge if I was you! It’s far too blurry to be safe.

49 Comments
  1. blippo says:

    i guess ‘masking’ isn’t their strong point….
    really like the twinkly white bits around her……that be good fotoe editings

       3 likes

  2. KNOTTY says:

    I could do a better job with 2 photos, an exacto knife and rubber cement.

       11 likes

  3. Rebecca says:

    SIGH.

       0 likes

  4. Art_Student13 says:

    She looks like she’s been cut out and pasted on a blurry image.

    Now i admit, i’ve had some trouble with trying to add blur to my images. I no longer do it because I always end up messing it up somehow, but I understand that the blur is supposed to be behind the subject or really close in front and clear in the back.

    Oh yeah, nice outline around her. Really makes us believe that it wasn’t edited.

       7 likes

    • Georgi says:

      The blur is easy… F2.8

         27 likes

      • Snappy says:

        Why use the correct gear and settings when you got Photoshop? Aperture, schmaperture…. its all overrated.

           1 likes

    • LOLZ says:

      All you have to do in your editing is, in CS5, make a duplicate layer, then add a smart or gaussian blur (preference, really) you the added layer. Close your original layer so you can clearly see what you are erasing. Then, when you have everything erased that you don’t want blurred (do it in small stages so you can back up easily) ‘open’ the original layer so you can see how much blurring you want. Highlight your added layer, and adjust the opacity to the desired setting. Piece of cake.

         1 likes

      • Andy says:

        The fact that you’re even suggesting erasing and backing up is scaring me. How about being a bit more pro and using a layer mask???

           1 likes

      • LOLZ says:

        Does it really matter what terms I use? Christ on a cracker, I was trying to explain it to even someone who doesn’t use photoshop 24/7 could probably still figure out what I was trying to say, but then you walk in, shove your uppity-ass comment in, with no useful contribution to make whatsoever. Does it make you feel more important to talk above others, rather than trying to contribute to the conversation? What kills me is, you and your ‘pro’ comment would suggest that you are a professional, yet are not linking to your own stuff. Hmmmm.

           8 likes

    • Melissa R. says:

      Art Student – the blur you speak of comes from (as Georgi says) using a wide aperature (wide opening on lens). I’ve never seen it added in post-production effectively. Even if it could be, it doesn’t make sense to. Once you spend some time learning the 3 main points of exposure, it will become second nature.

         4 likes

  5. Nikki says:

    is it me or is her shoes in focus while her legs are out of focus???

       0 likes

    • Ali says:

      Her legs look a bit funky, period. She clearly has decently muscular legs– it looks like fauxtog tried to “airbrush”/smooth out the definition a little bit, making them look blurry and out of focus, while leaving her shoes with a drastically contrasting, “in focus,” sharpness.

         1 likes

  6. lequeen says:

    um. a 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm would have allowed a better bokeh if that was the intent. and they’re super cheap to rent. duh.

       0 likes

  7. Kat says:

    Clearly, she is a vampire as she’s floating across this blurry bridge.
    What a bad copy/paste job.

       1 likes

  8. Catie says:

    You guys. Blur is ALWAYS to be achieved IN CAMERA. To the people posting above that they tried to edit it in….no. no no no. And to this fauxtog, get a lens with better aperture.

       25 likes

    • Kimmy B. says:

      Or buy a camera with interchangeable lenses… I’m having a hard time believing this was shot with a DSLR.

         2 likes

    • blippo says:

      if you know how to synthesize a depth of field blur in ps…then that’s good…it can look realistic…
      but, it takes knowing how to work the filter, and also knowing abit about 3 dimensionality in everyday life…..
      sadly, lot of people don’t understand either.

         0 likes

    • Mike says:

      Sadly this could have been a decent photo had the fauxtographer invested in a better lense along with investing the time to learn how it works

         1 likes

    • LOLZ says:

      but you know, to be fair, sometimes when you are editing, a shot that you thought would look better with clearly defined backgrounds, might strike you as something you could use a little gaussian blur to it. It happens. Even the best of us misread a shot that we regret later, and you just want to tweak it a bit. but there is a clear right and wrong way to do it.

         2 likes

      • Derek says:

        Nothing ever strikes me as needing some gaussian blur, because bokeh is more than simple blur. The ‘bloom’ that occurs in defocused areas cannot be replicated with gaussian blur, which is one of the reasons hack blur jobs like this are so easy to spot.

           3 likes

  9. Mac says:

    It’s unfortunate really because compositionally it really wouldn’t have been a bad shot. Ruined by too much post! Again!

       4 likes

  10. Alicia says:

    Can we talk about the contrast between the subject and the scenery? The blur is ridiculous but the complete desaturation of the scenery looks just as bad! There’s is so much wrong with this I can’t even…

       0 likes

  11. kr says:

    that coul of been a good shot too .

       0 likes

  12. Wow says:

    This is SO bad. So, so bad.

       0 likes

  13. MP says:

    Trying to mix low depth of field with wide-angle? Troll science has the answer!!! Buy an expensive 10 mm f1.2 lens and cross your fingers while shooting!

       1 likes

    • Giles says:

      You can always use the Brenizer Method, for shallow Depth of Field works well even with an OK lens.

         2 likes

  14. Pelham says:

    Pity cause it’s sooo close to almost being a decent shot…like uhm if she’d actually been walking across said bridge instead of being c&p’d in…

    There’s no point mentioning ‘bokeh’ to a fauxtog, they’d probably think it’s some obscure brand of camera!!

       4 likes

  15. SL says:

    Prime lenses….fake blurs rarely work people!

       1 likes

  16. LOLZ says:

    I can’t decide if this is a copy/paste or piss-poor editing. The lack of shadow would suggest c/p, but to be fair, where the blur was ‘missed’ (as someone else pointed out above, see lack of blur close to the legs) it matches with the bridge deck, and it also looks extremely cloudy. Meh, not a fan of the photo in general, the posing is too posed, and makes her butt look huge when it clearly isn’t, the dof is off, and the cars in the parking lot behind her (which is why, I suspect, the blur was added) shoulda have been avoided altogether.

       0 likes

  17. Sharyn says:

    Look it’s a ghost bridge!!!!

       0 likes

  18. Andreas says:

    Listen, all you nay sayers. This isn’t photoshop at all, this is MASTERFULL use of a PC lens, this photographer has such wicked control of the focus plane that he/she can LITERALLY wrap it around the subject. This might be through combining a PC lens with a DC lens, by using gaffers tape you can actually do the special bokeh-control-wrap-perspective, you just have to use a D4 to do it correctly. Its new tech people, like auto-smile-capture.

       4 likes

  19. NicCole says:

    Is that even her real hair?

       0 likes

  20. Tawny says:

    The Brenizer Method would have worked a lot better here as I’m guessing they didn’t have the right lens to achieve the look they were going for.

       0 likes

  21. Angela says:

    This site proves daily that technology has been the worst (and best) thing to happen to creative professions.

       4 likes

  22. mo says:

    oh my … lots of fauxtogs and fauxtog advice about artificial depth of field in this thread.

       5 likes

  23. Ann says:

    Wow, yeah…no. LOL. Assuming it wasn’t a c-p job, it looks like they were manually blurring the background and choked when they got to her legs, thus leaving these awkward unblurred marks. I’d love to see the original. I bet it wasn’t too awful, in its way. Why did this happen?

       0 likes

  24. yikes says:

    Hey Mo, ummm do you actually read your own blog or do the rules not apply when it concerns you? Sometimes you really should shut up you pompous blow hard.

       0 likes

  25. LIPhotoguy says:

    Ummm, is the left side (her right) of her head shaved? Maybe it’s just an illusion thrown in there but it you follow her hairline around it looks like it goes from a nice healthy head of hair to bald.

       0 likes

  26. NickE says:

    Fake depth of field rarely ever works. This is an example of the worst fake depth of field I have seen. :-S

       0 likes

  27. Frankie says:

    oh come on people…funky blur aside, and the selective color and everything else that could have been, should have been and never will be…..they composed it using the rule of thirds…..pity they didn’t follow all the other rules. *sarcasm*

    Seriously though, put PS away, and challenge oneself using in camera settings…the results are more rewarding.

       0 likes

  28. I’m 99% sure that she’s photoshopped on to a blurry bridge. She’s not even sized right to be standing on a that bridge.

    I’m an amateur photoshopper myself, and I would either do a better job than that, or just not attempt such and idiotic concept.

       0 likes

    • Derek says:

      She’s not photoshopped in. The bad cutout job around her legs shows that the boards around them were once in focus.

         1 likes

  29. Roula says:

    OMG. Horrible. Just buy the right lenses, use shallow d.o.f and DON’T BLUR, people.

       0 likes

  30. Adam says:

    Its obv the bokah from the amazing lens

       0 likes

  31. roger says:

    She looks like a ho prostitute. Just look at that pose.

       0 likes

  32. Capt. Obvious says:

    All of you who are suggesting better ways to add blur in PS are in fact, fauxtographers. I know this is probably difficult to hear, but real photographers don’t use PS as a crutch. This is basic stuff that you should be doing with the proper gear.

       3 likes

  33. DHMN says:

    Remember the toys we had as kids.. with the plastic “paper” cutouts of people, animals, etc and placed them on a background?

       0 likes

  34. kay says:

    You are all obviously not photographers. You can tell that she was added into the photo because she is not to scale!!!! And I’m not a photographer at all!

       0 likes

Would you like to login? Get an Account!