Is this possible?

[FrankieTDouglas]

I've been pondering the chances of this being an (easy) reality.

We use digital cameras. Our lenses have electronic information. We edit digitally.

I wonder if there's a program that increase aperture in post with one simple step? Say if I shoot in f/22 and then later in post I wish I would have used a 2.8 or 3.5. Inside my editing program, I could select which lens I used and increase the aperture, therefore reducing the depth of field in the photo but still retaining what the photo would look like if I had originally used the 2.8 or such.

I'm assuming this function would be lens-specific in order to accurately recreate out of focus elements each lens produces. But if the point of focus is recorded in the meta data in your photo, then the app would use that as the centering for the increasing of aperture.

I don't think it could work the other way and increasing focus because it'd have to create, but out of focus is a possibility because it utilizes a clear image and then breaks it down.

Is there anything out there like this?

 

[seenew]

Sounds like a pipe dream.
Digital images contain only two dimensional data. Mapped out pixels or whatever. There's no three dimensional data to give such a program an idea of which pixels represent areas that are further or closer. At least, this is speaking from my experience and knowledge. I think the best you could do is manually selecting areas and using Photoshop's blur tool.

 

[Abstract]

Photoshop. Blur. Done.

Would the photo also get brighter and brighter as you increased the aperture size?

 

[BlackDan]

I've been pondering the chances of this being an (easy) reality.

We use digital cameras. Our lenses have electronic information. We edit digitally.

I wonder if there's a program that increase aperture in post with one simple step? Say if I shoot in f/22 and then later in post I wish I would have used a 2.8 or 3.5. Inside my editing program, I could select which lens I used and increase the aperture, therefore reducing the depth of field in the photo but still retaining what the photo would look like if I had originally used the 2.8 or such.

I'm assuming this function would be lens-specific in order to accurately recreate out of focus elements each lens produces. But if the point of focus is recorded in the meta data in your photo, then the app would use that as the centering for the increasing of aperture.

I don't think it could work the other way and increasing focus because it'd have to create, but out of focus is a possibility because it utilizes a clear image and then breaks it down.

Is there anything out there like this?

Impossible....

 

[macgfxdesigner]

Coming soon...

You probably are using today a camera with an auto focus feature and chances are good that you are satisfied with your shots. Except that once the camera has made a choice to focus on a particular element, the picture is taken. And sometimes, it's not the decision you would have taken. According to LinuxElectrons, Texas, a team of computer scientists from Stanford University has developed a camera which might help. By inserting a microlens array between the main lens and the photosensor, their "light field camera" takes one shot, but also captures information about light conditions. And you can later compute "photographs in which subjects at every depth appear in finely tuned focus." However, his new technology will probably appear for applications such as security surveillance and commercial photography before landing in your personal camera. Read more....

 

[Buschmaster]

Impossible....

Um, 5 or 10 years ago you would've said the same to almost everything Photoshop does today and especially to how fast and easy it can do it all. Technology is crazy... Never doubt it.

 

[ChrisA]

You can not do this in one simple step. The problem is that the software would have to know what pixels are in the forground and which are in the background. That said I do this kind of thing all the time.

What I do is select the subject using the verious seletion tools I then invert the selection so the background is selected. Then a "fuzz" the edages if the selection and apply the "blurr" filter. Many times I will also perform a slight color desaturation too. Reducing the amount of color in the background makes the subject seem brighter but does not in any way distort the subject's colors so the effect appears natural

As a final touch some times I will seclt for the eages of the frame and darken them slightly. This is the same is "edge burning" in the darkroom. It exploits another trick in the why the eyes work -- they always see color and brightness as relative

Then many times I will aply a selective sharpening too. I'll select for the subject eyes with a fuzzy edged mask and sharpen that area.

Some times I will go as far as applying the full list above more then onece with different selections. The trick is to make only fine changes so they don't look like photoshop edits.
I've read much of Ansel Adam's writtings and have to agre with him. His prints where highly manipulated in the darkroom and in many cases looked nothing like a straight print off the negative but also his prints don't look manipulated.

Look at Nikon's new software: "Capture NX" it will do this kind of thing with much less effort then in PS but still not in one step. You don't need a nikon camera. The problem in the NX is PPC only and I will simply not buy any more PPC only software butr the 30 day evaluation is free.

 

[extraextra]

Not to be rude, but what exactly would you shoot with f/22 (and then need to change to f/2.8)?

And doing the blur in PS always look a little weird.