Quick question... is this bokeh photoshopped?

0utpost31

This is a pic on the tamron website demontsrating their 200-500mm...



The bokeh looks a bit too smooth or something. Is there trickery afoot? Look around the horsies legs as well.

Mellor

Surely you need the original size.
If this is the biggest you have, then its most likely altered when the photo was re-sized for the web

melekalikimaka

probably not, doesn't look it and looks realistic....enough

decimal

Looks like it to me, if you follow the right most leg, you'll see blurring at the right side of the leg, but it disappears further right. It looks to me as if someone went too low with the brush.

Borderfox

Total trickery, photoshop for sure

0utpost31

Haha Tamron you're caught!

ThOnda

0utpost31 wrote: »

Haha Tamron you're caught!

:eek:

Thirdfox

Do you have a link to that photo?

Also, does it say that the photos are simulated anywhere on the page?

City-Exile

It's possible that it's genuine.
The background is quite a bit away from the subjects.

JanneG

Ah here... nowhere does it say that it has not been post processed?

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/michael_campbell/2008_diverse/michael_campbell_08.asp

Dunno why it got your knickers in a twist? :rolleyes:

0utpost31

My knickers were in a twist? Wha'evah. Quick question is all it was I didn't ring the gardai about it or anything.

Calina

I'd be in the camp suggesting that it was treated to be honest with you.

City-Exile

Having seen it in context, I reserve the right to change my original opinion.

Beef

Maybe they used bellows. :P

0utpost31

Calina wrote: »

I'd be in the camp suggesting that it was treated to be honest with you.

City-Exile wrote: »

Having seen it in context, I reserve the right to change my original opinion.

So is it a yes or a no? Jesus what's with the speaking in tongues.:pac:

Dragan

Lots of sample shots with that lens here.

Some of them show a fairly similar bokeh so.......?

Calina

I say yes....

5uspect

The shot is credited to Michael Cambell and I found this:
http://web.mac.com/michaelcampbellphoto/Site/Horses_and_Animals.html#4

Oil paintings, the horror!

democrates

decimal wrote: »

Looks like it to me, if you follow the right most leg, you'll see blurring at the right side of the leg, but it disappears further right. It looks to me as if someone went too low with the brush.

Spot on, the grass should go from sharp to bokeh at the same rate over distance from the lens but in that shot polo4.jpg it does not.

Extracted tag information using metacam:

Standard Fields

---

Image Creation Date: 2008:09:09 14:28:48
Software Version: Adobe Photoshop 7.0
X Resolution: 72 Pixels/Inch
Y Resolution: 72 Pixels/Inch
[Orientation]: 1,
EXIF Fields

---

Exif Image Width: 450 pixels
Exif Image Height: 358 pixels
ColorSpace: Uncalibrated

"Adobe Photoshop 7.0" isn't necessarily a smoking gun, for web publication there has to be some post-processing, possibly raw conversion, maybe cropping, but at least resampling.

For pig iron I took a screenshot with the Gimp and applied the emboss filter, that shows up the blur brush strokes quite clearly. I'm guessing he went around the horses legs to dramatise a shallow dof effect where the legs look sharp and the background blurred. And runner.jpg with the girl at the hurdle is pure entertainment.

On the one hand that's fine, you can achieve these final images with said lens and a bit or a lot of pp, but it leaves Tamron open to accusations ranging from being deliberately misleading to being lax - they may be unaware this photographer altered the image, perhaps he did not and it was the web publishing people who did it, or Tamron marketing.

Anyway, on the page for this particular lens the three sample shots are miniscule and make a big feature of artistic post processing. I wouldn't call them misleading exactly, if images of that size are all you need and you clearly see that pp is involved, that may be enough information for some buyers.

In the interview this "master photographer of the first rank" mentions how other photographers covering events with long canon primes only got facial expressions while he got all the action with his zoom. Ignoring the bait for an apples v oranges debate, the bottom line is that any manufacturers website is a marketing exercise, caveat emptor. I haven't seen fully tagged unprocessed raw images available for inspection on Canon's website either.

For reliable sample shots the manufacturers website may be practically useless or even misleading. The likes of fredmiranda.com can indicate how others got on with the lens, but dpreview only have one lens from that manufacturer. Flickr can also be handy, the camera finder is little help but a search of say "tamron 200-500" returns plenty of samples. Then there's google.

Anyone know of a good lens review site who match dpreview for rigour? Edit: Thanks Dragan, that site is the dogs.

5uspect

Fred Miranda is probably the best lens site out there. Photography on the net is also worth a look.

EDIT: also http://www.the-digital-picture.com/ is quite good.

Borderfox

Some plain nasty stuff on yer mans site, a few nice headshots but the rest is trash..