11

No. A soft focus image is in focus, but exhibits a high degree of spherical aberration. Edges in the image will be relatively sharp, but will be surrounded by a kind of diffuse softness. This is often particularly visible as an ethereal glow around highlights. That's very different from the indiscriminate blur of missed focus. This is a common property of ...


8

No, it is a combination of light that is in focus and light that is out of focus (or otherwise blurred). An image that is just out of focus doesn't get that dreamy look, it just lacks detail. I had a Canon 1000 camera that had a soft-focus function. It would take a double exposure, one in focus and then one out of focus. A soft focus filter (both optical ...


7

There were several old tricks to get this kind of shot with film: Stretch a section of nylon stockings/hose over the front of the lens. Spread a thin layer of vaseline or other type of petroleum jelly around the edges of the lens (or on a skylight or UV filter on the front of the lens). Stretch a piece of Saran wrap or other type of polyethylene food wrap ...


6

In the 70s that effect was called 'flu', and was made putting cellophane or similar in the front of the lens. Some photographers used a plain filter with vaseline or even a piece of pantyhose.


3

I implemented an attempt to simulate it in the way Matt suggested (method 3): blur with a certain window size, blend it with a alpha depending on the brightness (of the blurred layer, not the original) - though not linearly, but "gamma adjusted" by an "effect amount" setting, and applying it only when the result is brighter (Max(I1,I2)). In the current ...


3

Each layer of the stack shows the same effect, lessening as that area gets closer to focus. Had I done 2 or 3 more layers to get the entire thing in focus, as I normally do, it would have disappeared; so it's an effect of the out-of-focus itself. Then it is neither diffraction nor chromatic aberration. Both would manifest themselves even when the edge in ...


2

It's probably not diffraction. One of the problems I and others run into with focus stacking is that (depending on the lens) magnification can vary slightly depending on focus distance. This is especially true if the lens front element is designed to move as you change focus. One way around this is to put the camera or subject on a moveable platform so you ...


2

If you already own a different 135mm prime that is sharp I see virtually no reason to buy that lens. Canon doesn't make it anymore for a reason, it simply isn't necessary. Sure you can save a bit of time doing it during the shot instead of post, but you also have to weigh that with the cost of the additional lens to carry and buy. As for how you can create ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible