Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
1.6k

This is not a edit one. Just captured by taking the advantage of distance

86 comments
79% Upvoted
What are your thoughts? Log in or Sign uplog insign up

You mean perspective?

Tastes like ratatouille.

11 points · 2 months ago

no, advantage of distance. and also poorly photoshopped a edit one

10 points · 2 months ago

Perspective is just an angle.

Forced perspective is using angles and distance to create optical illusions.

This is neither. Clearly composited.

Ahhh, and wait...does that mean OP is lying?!

Probably a liar, but also seems confused.

0 points · 2 months ago

You are correct...look at the treeeeeeees!

-6 points · 2 months ago(1 child)
  1. Yeah, it’s called “forced perspective”, not just “perspective” and...

  2. Depth Of field is the relative depth of the focal plane, I.e. what’s in focus vs what’s out of focus.

Things have names for a reason. People just need to use the correct ones.

He means compression.

He means "a edit one".

Actually it's called figure ground reversal of you want to be that technical.

You mean forced perspective?

Dof distances on grass seem much longer then razor sharp heel to totally blurry dress.

but not a photoshop one.

how is this the number one comment? he said distance and was accurate in stating so. perspective is manipulated by many things including distance and angles.

My photography expert says its actually "forced perspective" and that this picture is actually not even that. And even your own comment proves that its not just distance! AHH HA!

he didn't say "only" distance and I'm not arguing it's "just distance" either if you read my comment.

I'm arguing there's no need to dispute his statement that the photo was accomplishrd by using distance. op made a true statement. distance can falll within the forced perspective definition.

that's like op posting a picture of a quarter pounder with cheese and saying "I love this meat" and you responding "I think you meant cheeseburger"

Except my expert in photography says this was actually not captured that way.

...and, in all seriousness, I would indeed think they liked the meat more than the cheeseburger as a sum of its component part...which is just silly.

if your expert has some free time I think we'd all benefit from learning from them how 2 equidistant objects (when there are only 2) can be forced into perspective in such a way removing distance from the equation

What? It's called editing? My "Expert" is a guy that replied to my OP and there's not too many other than you so you can go talk to him.

Use a very small aperture setting in bright sunlight. Keeps everything in focus.

You expert probably is not from the film days where shots like this were done all the time. Actually very easy to do.

well the title is incorrect no matter what, it's photoshopped and poorly so

This could very easily not be photoshopped.

This is an actual fetish

Yes... yes it is...

And it looks like you have that fetish

:D

103 points · 2 months ago

This is edited. Everything in front is out of focus, as it should be, except her foot, even when there should be other things on the same distance like parts of her dress should also be in focus. Also it's physically almost impossible for a lens to have so much in focus so close to the camerasensor.

Or maybe focus stacking? Still edited I guess.

And there’s a shitty little halo around the cutout.

Came here to ask how everything was in focus. Got my answer. Thanks!

-1 points · 2 months ago · edited 2 months ago

It could be one of these lightfield camera. We can still consider it an edit though I guess.

-12 points · 2 months ago(5 children)
11 points · 2 months ago

bullshit.

her dress which is very close to her foot is extremely blurred as from a shallow depth of field focused on the foot.

and the gravelly ground (which is between her foot and the men) is extremely blurred as from a shallow depth of field focused on the men.

it's very obviously a composite of two shots and it's poorly cropped around the dress also.

You are 100% correct.

Look butcher... you are right in theory. Shots like this are possible. Yes, it requires a very deep depth of field to get foreground and background all in focus. That does require a relatively small aperture, which requires lots of light. OR a wide angle lens that naturally has a deep depth of field because of physics.

So, yes, you are technically right. But this photo, the one we’re all looking at, is a composite of separate images. It has Photoshop brush marks all over it, as well as other tell-tale signs of digital manipulation.

Stop defending it, stop downvoting people who say it wasn’t shot in camera because they are right.

have not downvoted anyone. I stand by my statement. I have done similar photos myself although not in the digital age. . It is not tough

Yet it still doesn’t make the photo In this post done in camera.

The guy on the right looks like he secretly wants to be crushed.

he's just trying not to look up the bride's dress

Kinky groomsman, must be a ginger.

Brings back bad memories of being a groomsman, and a groom. I don't like photoshoots.

Personally I don't mind wedding photoshoots since they're basically the only times I get decent photos taken while all dressed up... maybe I should get out more.

I'm photography dumb. How do you get both subjects in focus?

31 points · 2 months ago · edited 2 months ago

In this case, Photoshop :)

If you zoom in onto the boundary between the foot/shoe and trees, you will notice that the trees are out of focus around the shoe, then magically get in focus. So two photos where taken, one with the foot in focus and background blurry, then one with the background in focus and the foreground and dress blurry. OP then put the former on top of the latter and cut out the blurry background, whose edges you notice around the shoe.

If this had been solely due to depth of field, there is no way the foot could be in focus together with the background, while also having the dress out of focus. The distance between the dress and foot is much much smaller than that between the foot and background.

So this is edited. Shame on you OP. It’s fine to edit stuff.

So no, you aren’t dumb to ask the question - it is visible that something is not quite right.

Edit - the grass also starts off blurry, and the grass is certainly further away from the camera than the foot. Could a lens focus on something close (foot), and something far (the poor groomsmen - save for that one) while simultaneously keeping something mid-distant (first part of lawn) out of focus? Nah...

Edit 2 - A split diopter can split focus - though still isn’t the case here, but TIL

You're right it's Photoshop but it's definitely not impossible to do this in-camera. This is a perfect case for a split diopter.

I was wondering if there was something that could split focus. Thanks!

That is exactly what threw me off. Thank you!

Use a big depth of field

Comment deleted2 months ago(1 child)
0 points · 2 months ago

A typical phone camera can capture this image just fine.

Depth of field (the range of distance which is in focus) is affected by two factors. Wide angle lenses naturally have a longer depth of film. Also, using a smaller aperture (the hole that allows light in) extends the depth of field too. Certain combinations of lenses/apertures have an almost infinite depth of field.

The old 35mm one time use cameras were just a wide angle lens with a middle of the road aperture, so almost everything beyond 2-3 feet was in focus without having to adjust anything.

I wonder how much these wedding photos cost, because if this is a reflection of all the photos, then any amount of money was a rip off

7 points · 2 months ago

did a robot write the title?

Account is 14 days old, posts karma whoring garbage, has terrible spelling, is likely a foreign karma farmer.

I swear, reddit is starting to feel like digg of old more and more every day.

2 points · 2 months ago

what actual gain can you have from that? what's the point? i have lots of karma which means nothing to me and would sell it for five bucks if I could.

Google "reddit accounts for sale" and see.

6 points · 2 months ago

it's CLEARLY edited and poorly so. why do you have to lie

12 points · 2 months ago

The bride is crushing the groomsmen?This is a terrible image for a wedding. I’m embarrassed looking at it.

I agree. This photo is tacky as hell. If you feel like marriage is a prison or death sentence, then you know, don't do it.

It is in bad taste.

Why?

Reverse it. Imagine the groom stepping on the bridesmaids. There would be an uproar, Twitter would go into meltdown, and The View would be talking about it for weeks.

Is a edit two!

This is pretty crafty. I like it.

*an edited one

Just sayin

2 points · 2 months ago

The only way you took it is by copying and pasting it from Google. Artist is Mica Bowerbank Photography.

Bridezilla strikes again.

Season 23

The guy in the back looks like he's enjoying this way too much

They are all looking up her dress and are scared of what they see

Bridezilla!

R/indianpeoplefacebook

did you mean to type r/indianpeoplefacebook ?, I'm a bot beep boop and this action was performed automatically

Gaaaaay

“Forced Perspective” photo...

Forced perspective like Frodo and Gandalf.

Bridezillas are real, man,

Yo wife so fat...

#CasualMisandry

This is not a comment. I just took advantage the ability to write.

-3 points · 2 months ago · edited 2 months ago

To create a shot like this is easy. No, you do not need to edit it. You need a camera with fstops. It is called depth of field. You shoot with a very small aperture setting so that the entire photo is in focus. Something people did all the time before digital made it all point and shoot and shoot and shoot.
Set you aperture to f22. Need bright sunlight. Set everyone up and focus somewhere between the two. Change your fstops going higher and higher (Smaller and smaller aperture) until it all comes into focus.

Oh shut up Mr know it all. You know nothing. Look at the halo around the foot where its been pasted in, and the fact the dress is completely blurred even though in the same focus plane ad the shoe.

Community Details

19.0m

Photographers

49.0k

Online

A place to share photographs and pictures.

Create Post
Welcome

Feel free to post your own pictures, but please read the rules first (see below), and note that we are not a catch-all for general images (of screenshots, comics, etc.)

r/pics Rules
1.
R1: no screenshots/added text/comics

No screenshots, No pictures with added/superimposed digital elements. This includes image macros, comics, infographics, maps, MS Paint type scribbles, and most diagrams. Text (e.g. a URL) serving to credit the original author is exempt. Blurring or boxing out of personal information (e.g. faces, license plates, phone numbers) is also exempt. Screenshots includes both actual screencaptures, any image that contains GUI elements, as well as photos of screens.

2.
R2: no porn or gore

No porn or gore

3.
R3: no personal information / missing persons

No personal information / No missing-persons requests. Do not witch hunt.

4.
R4: Violates title guidelines

Titles must follow all title guidelines

5.
R5: spam / bad image host

Submissions must link directly to a specific image file or to a website with minimal ads. We do not allow blog hosting of images ("blogspam"), but links to albums on image hosting websites are okay. Ads in album titles or descriptions are not allowed.

6.
R6: no animated image posts

No animated images, no youtube links. This applies to all file types. Animated images in comments are fine.

7.
R7: Civility

We enforce a standard of common decency and civility here. Please be respectful to others. Personal attacks, bigotry, fighting words, otherwise inappropriate behavior or content, comments that insult or demean a specific user or group of users will be removed. Regular or egregious violations will result in a ban.

Related Communities
r/Art

13,143,695 subscribers

r/Images

52,150 subscribers

r/aww

17,543,832 subscribers

r/gifs

16,396,116 subscribers

r/pic

77,592 subscribers

r/EarthPorn

15,625,312 subscribers

r/dogs

593,936 subscribers

r/spaceporn

563,206 subscribers

r/wholesomememes

1,696,873 subscribers

r/memes

1,410,621 subscribers

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.