Yet another--I'm in 'learning' mode with this camera and its fun. This is not macro, just wide open aperture which worked fairly well, but I wanted more blur background, so used KPT Blur filter. This is wonderful Japanese iris--I wished I remembered its Japanese name--they all have wonderful names like 'White Heron on One Leg' or such (I honestly don't think that's a name, but close LOL). Diane

Any Idea if the blur filter altered the color levels any? Sometimes it seems that the soften filter alters colors in a strange way. Just courious. OH and thanks for the iris! =:-) > Bsteph

Bsteph, I didn't use the blur filter directly. I made 2 layers, blurred the top filter, did a mask of flower and deleted it so that the 'original' colored one was surrounded by 'blur' background. Therefore, the color wasn't altered at all. I always use several layers--usually start with duplicates of original because I don't wish this to happen (altering of color). Hope that helps.

Dang! You have to spoil it by making me have to think about things, dontcha Alpha? NNNGG! F-stop, shutter speed, light density to mass ratio, eddies in the time/space continuum!? Pah - Us Cheapo Digi Users don't have to think about that sort of thing! We just click & save. Click & Save. F-stop indeed. Here's my technical question - was it sunny or overcast? Pah! Mike. (",) P.S. Nice piccy, Diane! ;-D

Okay, first things first. It was partly sunny, as they say in the south here, but it was in a vase on my table on the porch under a white umbrella LOL. F-stop was 2.0. As you can see from the original, on the final pic I used unsharp mask (on just the one layer--the original) and when I merged all the layers, I added just a teeny eensy bit of illumination/flood (custom) in PSP7.02. As I said, I had several layers and on one of them, I used the KPT5 Blur-camera optics. I masked the iris and deleted it from the top layer with the blur. Diane Diane

I forgot to say the original was a whopping big image--2048 x 1756 I think, so resampling it to 400 x 3 something didn't help it.

Well, I've found if I photograph in macro with open stop, it is MUCH more blurred in background (and even more so if I use macro lens). That first pic I posted--the white foxglove--the background was as photographed--very blurred. However, I believe I did that one in manual so fiddled with shutter too. This one was photographed, I believe, in Av (aperture priority) so the shutter speed was 'auto'. Also, if I use the 'portrait' mode (which doesn't allow me to select aperture/shutter, but does allow exposure compensation, white balance, etc.), the background is VERY blurred. I didn't shoot this one at all in portrait mode I don't believe. I'll have to check my RAW files and see if there is one--if there was, I considered it too dark (altho' I could have 'righted' that post or in 'edit RAW' I guess). Oh, I remember a discussion about this on rec.photo.digital--has to do with light sensitivity of the chip, I think. Have to see if I can find that post. Diane

I don't think your unfocused background issue had to do with the light sensitivity of the chip. It has to do with how it focuses. Well OK. I suppose that the sensitivity of the chip to infra red light ( which is probably how it focuses ) can be a slight problem. Try fotographing a hot object in front of a cold background or visa versa. Was it warm when you took this last picture? My sony mavica almost always has problems focusing on windy days or near hills. I assumed that it was due to air current movement and thus a IR focusing issue. What about camera Alpha? Bsteph

Ahhhhh, a D1. NOW--we can all drool (or all of us digital shooters LOL). Diane

Hi Alpha, 28mm going to a 40mm! Can you swap lenses between your cameras? It sounds like they are two different manufactors. It would explain some of the depth of field problem with a different focal length. HOWEVER I would think that the manufactors would compensate for this difference in focal length when they calibrate the camera for focus. Which should not be as much of a problem at 5-6 feet. Also it still does not explain why most digital cameras have this focusing problem. I still think it is a short comming of the electrical system. Bsteph

I'm going to quote a petebiro on www.dpreview.com about this. Its a fairly long thread, but worthwhile reading. For anyone interested go to the above URL, go to forums and 'search' for digital DOF. "Depth of field has to do with the focal length of the lense and the lens opening (2.8 being wide open on many lenses will have LESS dof than the same lens at f11). All that you are doing with a digital camera is changing the cropping of the image. You are only using a small portion of what the lens is capable of covering. One advantage is that many lenses have poorer quality around the edges. Using a digital crops that part of the image out so it is unimportant. Most photos, however, are actually better with "soft" edges (portraits in particular). Enlarging and copy lenses are FLAT FIELD lenses and are usually sharp out to the far corners. Another advantage of the digital is the "percieved" increased focal length, which actually does not change. ie a 200mm is like (it does not become) a 300mm... based entirely on the crop to provide a narrower angle of view. There is a lot of confusion on this subject. Remember YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE FOCAL LENGTH OF A FIXED LENS... ONLY A ZOOM... and it changes within the lens, has nothing to do with film vs. digital." Also, they discuss the Nikon D1 in some depth. I have a Canon G1--a 'prosumer' type camera while the D1 is a digital SLR. Diane

Ted, on the dpreview.com Canon forum made some suggestions for a more 'realistic' type photo so I revisited this (I still have my original RAW file to work with). He felt that my blur which allowed the 'ring' of purple around the iris would not happen in 'real life'--true. So--he suggested cloning a bit of the background around the edges of the flower and then using the KPT5 camera optic blur (well, he uses PS6, I use PSP &.02 and Photopaint 9). I did this but decided on less 'blow out' and, indeed, it is more realistic. I'm not sure, however, which I prefer. The other is a bit more aesthetically pleasing to my eye, but not within the technical realm of photography. Diane (gee, who woulda' thunk my posting this would set off a conversation on DOF. I understood all of this when I used my AE-1, but other things have displaced it in my memory bank and I'm having to get my head around it all over again. The 'digital' thing is, of course, putting boulders in the road. LOL)

Hi Diane, Thank you for the refresher on DOF and f stop to some degree. I think you misunderstood Alpha and I. ( If not nevermind. ) I believe that we were trying to ascertain if or why with digital cameras the DOF is not as great as with a typical camera. Alpha was stating that if he replaced the lenses of his camera the DOF changes. ( This of course makes sense because the optics have changed. ) He, I think, is assuming that the fixed portion of his digital camera, CCD et al., is placed at a different position than most mechanical type cameras and as a result under typical circumstances has a inherently different DOF. My theory is that most digital cameras on autofocus use IR sensors to determine focusing distance. As a result when the subject and the background share similar temperature ranges the digital camera has problems determining how to correctly focus. Which is why I asked you how warm it was. Was there any mention of how a digital camera focuses at dpreview.com? And discussion threads are fine in my opinion. After all this is a forum. Bsteph

Bsteph, that was what that post was about--digital DOF--how it crops, changes as compared to SLR camera. There is a lot more in the thread--maybe I should have selected more from that post and added more from the thread. From what I read, you are fairly right, but also, the 'perceived' DOF seems different (see the 200 mm vs. the perceived 300 mm above). There are a number of workarounds for the focus--in fact, that's a big topic about the G1. I'm using manual focus a lot more--locking focus, then locking exposure--it seems to make some difference at least for me, but I'm just beginning with this camera. My other digital was a bit more than point and shoot but not a lot more--certainly had no control over aperture, shutter, etc. This goes back to my SLR days, but I've forgotten more than I've remembered LOL. And--the digital offers a lot more options than my AE-1 does--and a lot more confusion about what you can do in what 'modes', i.e, what settings have to be made in what modes and when you move from mode to mode, what settings get set back to default. I didn't mean to 'talk down'--heaven help me LOL--I need all the help I can get and suspect that you and Alpha can help me, but this focus thing in digital and its 'perceived' difference for 'same' in SLR is hot topic elsewhere and I just thought I would share it. The 'how'???--its been discussed more than one time--I usually have to do a forum search for the topics--and usually, if you ask a question similar, you get referred to long ongoing threads. Diane

Meant to say that discussion SHOULD be ongoing--I've been on this forum (but in Poser and Bryce) for years, and have seen some long threads--which usually divert to other topics, but usually all helpful. Diane

I didn't take it that you were talking down to me. I just thought I was misunderstood. I think I did tha same thing. Thanks for the forum address. I'll try to check it out. Personally I think you and Alph has way more knowledge and experience than I do. Bsteph

well D1 camera G1 camera...gee poor me with my dc4800 .. You are over powering us by a 1000yard...in quality...but i do get what i see in my lcd...I do concede that manifacturer where to much in hurry to put digital cam on production that they started to do like Bill Gate..selling unpolished gear...hope that honda ford chrysler all will still sale car with an engine on board or with a set of tire...But going back to the post the effect is relly good..i never thought to use photoshop or paint shop to blur background! really good idea thanks for the sharing of your trick.

Hey Don't know if it can help you guys to understand 'cause i didn't read all of the posts but the depth of field mostly depends on the size of aperture of the diaphragm. The less it's opened, the more the surrounding will be blured. I must admit i don't know anything to digital cameras. I own a Minolta X700 reflex camera with a 50-250 Tokina lens. I'm still french

Thanks Meta--that we know, but the thing we're discussing has to do with 'perceived' DOF in digital is different that 'actual' as compared to SLR cameras. Also--you don't ever get that really blurry background unless you use very macro lens with widest open aperature. Mine, on my digital Canon is 2.0. Alpha's is probably more since he has the 'fauncy' Nikon D1 LOL.