Will new "blur" LR Classic feature make fast f/4 wildlife lenses obsolete?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

M

mainebrien

Member
Member's gallery
Since we can now considerable blur backgrounds with the new "blur" feature in LR Classic and Adobe Camera Raw, will this feature become so refined that expensive f/4 telephoto lenses will become obsolete? I doubt it, but what are your thoughts?
 
Member's gallery
No. Most serious photographers try to "get it right" in the field. I think people who are willing/able to buy them will continue to do so. Now another subject is that those who shoot with budget glass may have the opportunity to step up their game via the computer. That said, there's a long way to go before it works well for wildlife photography. In the little bit of testing that I've done the masking needs a lot of refinement and often gets confused with animals. I tried it on a few people photos and it worked great.
 
Member's gallery
Depends on whether you now see photography as a mix of images and art.
Remember what the camera captures is not what you see with your eye, so some editing is needed to ”create” the image.
At some point your effort is part art and part image.

That all said, version 1 of this feature is decent, and even better if you separate the subject to its own layer.

I think many that are comfortable with ACR will do a combination of both.
 
Member's gallery
I spent a bit of time with it. I pick the focus point then narrow the DOF. This leaves the subject OOF. I then use refine to paint in the subject.
WR011599.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
mainebrien said:
Since we can now considerable blur backgrounds with the new "blur" feature in LR Classic and Adobe Camera Raw, will this feature become so refined that expensive f/4 telephoto lenses will become obsolete? I doubt it, but what are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Likely to be similar to sky replacements. If you dont consider or understand the light then a sky replacement can look obvious, awful and immediately fake. For people who dont understand how DoF actually works and appears then adding blur or guiding the tool will probably lead to poor/obvious results. As with most things, getting it optically right in-camera (with the right lens and settings), will probably give a better result, faster for some time IMHO.
 
Member's gallery
I haven't played with this much for wildlife, but I've tried it for people and the masking is just not accurate enough at this point - and even investing a lot of time trying to refine the edges just leaves noticeable artifacts. It can work nicely for cases when a background is already uniformly separate from the subject, but in most cases where I will want to try it on a photo I've found that this is because the background is sufficiently busy that the masking just isn't capable of producing a worthwhile result yet.
 
Member's gallery
Smoother backgrounds are just one reason out of a few that some people may consider when choosing f/4 super telephoto lenses. Software can’t enhance the ability of a slower lens to work better with extenders or improve autofocus performance, for example. I say this as someone who opts to shoot with a Sony 200-600 more often than my Sony 400/2.8 or 600/4. So while software may narrow the gap in final output as it relates to one specific attribute, IMO, no, it won’t make faster lenses obsolete.

In my opinion, certain photos can benefit from judicious use of a blur tool to “calm” a backgrounds and make the subject stand out a bit, regardless of the lens used. But, like vignetting, sky replacements, saturation, etc., overusing blur might run the risk of detracting from an image. There’s no replacement for proper camera/subject/background spacing, and quality and direction of light.
 
Member's gallery
As one of those people that won’t be acquiring an f/4 anytime soon, these tools interest me but from what I’ve played with it on animals super busy foregrounds and backgrounds the results are not the greatest yet. I still get better results with masking and reducing clarity and texture. Plus being aware of how far away the subject is from the background. Maybe one day these tools will be effective but that’s not today. There will always be photographers that will refuse to use it if they already have fast glass. I would likely be in that boat if I did, and in my opinion getting it right in the field always looks better then changing it in post.
 
Member's gallery
mainebrien said:
Thanks for your comments. Yep, I was thinking about us "budget glass" folks.
Click to expand...
Would also add that in order to get it done properly (the lens blur) in Lightroom, you may be required to spend a considerable amount of time in front of your PC. After all, digital blur is the result of subject isolation from the background. I am not a big fan of endless post processing, I prefer spending my time shooting.
 
I think it's like any tool in lightroom, if you go too far it looks terrible, but a little nudge done well can guide the viewers eye. Same as vibrance or sharpening or denoise, for example, a little goes a long way.
 
Member's gallery
I doubt the tech will make the "big glass" obsolete. For those who can afford a $16,000 lens (or even a $9,000 used one) there is always the "pride of ownership" factor. I will never be able to afford one of those and even if I could, a big heavy lens wouldn't fit too well in my style of shooting while I'm hiking and moving around. Another factor is they currently produce better backgrounds than most of the lenses poor-boy mortals like me can afford. However, with the noise reduction tools, and "AI" background blur those qualities may become less obvious in coming years. Also, the "budget" (I really dislike that term as it seems pejorative) lenses are getting better with every generation while the big glass seems to be about the same now as it was under the DSLR era (lighter in weight but overall image quality of the exotic glass seems to be about the same).

I also doubt there will be equity or equilibrium across the price ranges of glass but the gap is narrowing which is good for us poor-boys (and gals) who enjoy capturing the best quality images we can.
 
Member's gallery
mainebrien said:
Thanks for your comments. Yep, I was thinking about us "budget glass" folks.
Click to expand...
You can never beat a prime with a nice f stop with a direct comparison. I own and have own several in both categories over the years.
However - there are many tricks for budget gear and you work with your limitations. Prime snobs have their own set of limitations - so they also have to work around them.
Get to know your gear - and exactly how your lens will perform in any given situation. And work it for it's full potential. if you know how to get the best out of your lens - you are already in a very good position. Then add your editing skills - yes it can be a very powerful tool to add.
 
Member's gallery
The technology isn't there yet - but I have no doubt it will be at some point. The biggest issue I see with it is that it's not great at transitions from sharp to blurry like a real lens - it's applied in too general a way without enough subtle granularity in the transitions.

Still, let's play a game using some bokeh examples from one of my recent videos. In this case, we're going to compare the 600 6.3 to the 600 F/4. Also keep in mind this is an INCREDIBLY easy and unrealistic scene - real wildlife shots would be much tougher.

First, just what the two lenses look like side by side, the backgrounds unmolested by technology :)

no-blur.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Now, how it looks with 100% blur applied to the F/6.3 lens.


600pf-blur.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


At first glance, the 600PF looks really good here, but look closer. Notice how the blur "spreads out" in the 600 F/4 shot, as opposed to the 600 6.3 where it simply takes the background and applies uniform blur to it. You can especially see this in the greens in the lower left and also the yellows right next to the clamp (note the size the the dark areas). Also, note the transitions between the blurry areas - they are still contrasty and hard compared to the 600 F/4. However, the tool does soften the textures in the background which is a plus. Will a casual facbook user notice things like this? Probably not. However, they may notice that the effect looks somehow "fake" without being able to put a finger on it.

Here's a quick side by side with just the 600 6.3 so you can see the difference the filter made.

600pf-comp.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Also, keep in mind that you can also apply this to the F/4 shots too. In this case, both at 100% blur.


600f4-blurred.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Personally, I think the best use for this tool isn't using it at 100% :)

I think the best way to use it is for just knocking off the hard edges in the background and not trying to completely simulate a faster lens - I think when you push it that far, it tends to look a little unrealistic (although, this can also depend on the shot - texture of the background, that sort of thing).
 
I think its a good thing, but in Photoshop if you export an image that you used ai on, the metadata is stamped with a content credential stating that fact. Even if it was something basic like filling in a rotated crop where you would normally use content aware fill, if you use generative fill the file gets permanently labeled.

Does Lightroom label denoise or blur that way?
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
Does Lightroom label denoise or blur that way?
Click to expand...
dunno, but i think we will see strong, cryptographically enforced metadata history become defacto standard.

there’s that CAI initiative to provide strong photo integrity that nikon and leica committed to.

i think we’ll see in the near future, especially with ai integration with adobe tools that it will have a history, all the way from the photo origin, to what alterations have been made

petapixel.com

Leica and Nikon Adding Content Authenticity Tech into Their Cameras

Provenance embedded at the moment of capture.
petapixel.com petapixel.com
 
Member's gallery
ISTM that the aging of the photography population is signing the death warrant of the fast long lenses -- folks just can't lug them around anymore. Software allows the older photographer to get the look he wants with equipment he can carry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seh
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top