John nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/19 14:21:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:56:01 +0100, Tim Nikias
> <JUS### [at] gmxnetWARE> wrote:
> 
>> John wrote:
>>>> If you've got plenty of time try to add a focal blur :-)
>>> Please don't do that it always looks like you are just trying to copy
>>> a photo not render a realistic scene.
>> I think it depends. Some focal blur *is* realistic after all, but only 
>> if you're actually taking a photo of something in the foreground or such 
>> where you'd need a lense. Try looking at various Photographer's sites 
>> and check their "focal blur". Depending on the scene, it might really add.
>>
>> But on this one, I agree. Landscape images seldomly have focal blur. 
>> It's most common on extreme close-ups that something in the background 
>> gets blurred. Or on miniatures, because those are close-ups as well, but 
>> don't look like it from the setting. ;-)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tim
> 
> I well understand focal blur.  If I say it myself I am quite a good
> photographer.   With my macro photography I try as much as possible to
> get rid of it.   As far as I am concerned the only time that focal
> blur is realistic is when you are trying to simulate a photograph.
> 
> If you are trying to simulate what your brain "sees" then there is no
> place for focal blur.
> 
> (In my opinion trhat is <grin>)
> 
> John
Unless you want to simulate a very small, but deep, scene extremely close to the 
observer's eyes.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
A lack of leadership is no substitute for inaction.

Post a reply to this message