Can you spot the fake bokeh? ANSWER REVEALED

Ok here's a clue. Only 2 of them are fake. Now by the thoughts of group intelligence if I take the top 2 most picked from everyone you should get it, so we'll let it run some more and get some more results
 
1 & 5 look fake to me.
 
Must be 1 and 3 then ?



maybe :shrug:
 
AndWhyNot said:
4 and 6 fake, although 1 doesn't look that real either
Click to expand...

And we have a winner after over 50 guesses,

although I have to dock you a point for thinking 1 isn't real as it is very real! Interestingly I think out of all the guesses, number 6 was the least picked.

Well this proves to me that this bokeh filter does in fact work very well

cheers
 
1 and 4 look fake to me

good test though :)

edit

got here late...interesting post though :)


the last two look very similar which shows the strength of the filter.
would be interested to see the unfiltered #6 to see the comparative change
 
joescrivens said:
And we have a winner after over 50 guesses,

although I have to dock you a point for thinking 1 isn't real as it is very real! Interestingly I think out of all the guesses, number 6 was the least picked.

Well this proves to me that this bokeh filter does in fact work very well

cheers
Click to expand...

It wasn't easy:

4 was instinct and a process of deduction, there's nothing technically about the image that's obviously fake.

6 was only possible when compared to 5. The subject at the front in 6 was sharper front to rear despite this also looking a bigger distance. The picture frame at the back is what gives it away though, comparatively.

I think with 1 it's a combination of vantage point and focal length that makes it look unreal; you'd expect there to be a gradual fall off of sharpness in the grass but instead it just goes blurry beyond the bird. However, I guess there was some sort of dip in the land so the grass that looks immediately behind the bird is actually a bit further away?
 
So the votes were as follows:

1- 30 votes
2- 11 votes
3- 24 votes
4- 26 votes
5- 15 votes
6- 9 votes

Funny most people thought 1 and the least thought 6. But 2nd place was 4 which was fake. Here is the unbokered number 6:

4256360171_bb477a6dfe.jpg
 
AndWhyNot said:
It wasn't easy:

4 was instinct and a process of deduction, there's nothing technically about the image that's obviously fake.

6 was only possible when compared to 5. The subject at the front in 6 was sharper front to rear despite this also looking a bigger distance. The picture frame at the back is what gives it away though, comparatively.

I think with 1 it's a combination of vantage point and focal length that makes it look unreal; you'd expect there to be a gradual fall off of sharpness in the grass but instead it just goes blurry beyond the bird. However, I guess there was some sort of dip in the land so the grass that looks immediately behind the bird is actually a bit further away?
Click to expand...

you could be right about the ridge in 6, I cant really remember
 
I wouldn't have picked 1 or 2. The give away in 1 is actually the nice round bokeh directly to the left of the bird. Most filters will just blur as opposed to add a natural bokeh.

The same applies to 2. There's 1 piece in top left that would make me think it's real bokeh.

3 does look natural, but I could have been fooled into getting confused on this one.

4,5,6 all look like PS blur as opposed to natural bokeh, and 5 looking more fake than 6. I'm quite surprised that it was 6 that was fake over 5 to be honest!
 
karmagarda said:
I wouldn't have picked 1 or 2. The give away in 1 is actually the nice round bokeh directly to the left of the bird. Most filters will just blur as opposed to add a natural bokeh.

The same applies to 2. There's 1 piece in top left that would make me think it's real bokeh.

3 does look natural, but I could have been fooled into getting confused on this one.

4,5,6 all look like PS blur as opposed to natural bokeh, and 5 looking more fake than 6. I'm quite surprised that it was 6 that was fake over 5 to be honest!
Click to expand...

Nice theory, but I wasn't using a photoshop blur. The filter actually creates round bokeh, doesn't just blur, here's an over the top example, I have done a really poor selection to show the effect. the lights on the tree are all circular bokeh added by the filter

4256442227_45447df1a5.jpg
 
joescrivens said:
Nice theory, but I wasn't using a photoshop blur. The filter actually creates round bokeh, doesn't just blur, here's an over the top example, I have done a really poor selection to show the effect. the lights on the tree are all circular bokeh added by the filter

4256442227_45447df1a5.jpg
Click to expand...

That's a really good filter. If you had posted that particular photo (with careful selection) I would never have picked it out as a fake :lol:
 
yeah it really is, you can even choose the lens you want it to simulate and it will do the bokeh typical of that lens, or you can pick the shape (hearts, diamonds, the number of blades. Then pick the creaminess

alien skin bokeh is the name of it
 
I got no.4 right but was otherwise clueless. Nice work!

What gave it away on 4 was that the near gravestone looks equally as bokehfied as the background as opposed to a steady increase in bokehficosity with distance away from the focal plane. Would it be possible to apply the filter with different intensities in different areas? I reckon it would look better if you applied more bokehification to the far background than to the near graves.
 
yes you can do the bofication on a planar gradient or a radial one, I just didn't spend that much time on it so well spotted
 
It's not going to help you when you need a fast lens though is it - so whilst the look might get there, the purpose is missing.
 
1 and 4 fake
 
They all look weird in one way or another...:thinking:

I've only just figured out that it isn't an actual filter, just some photoshop plug-in...:lol:

I think the point is that it doesn't really matter whether you can tell if the bokeh is fake or not, unless its actually attractive..
 
Radiohead said:
It's not going to help you when you need a fast lens though is it - so whilst the look might get there, the purpose is missing.
Click to expand...

You don't need a fast lens in the daylight, but you still want bokeh so yes it does help..
 
joescrivens said:
You don't need a fast lens in the daylight, but you still want bokeh so yes it does help..
Click to expand...

I'll still use fast lenses in daylight - for shallow depth of field. Critical to the way I shoot and the idea of using a plugin to get something that a lens does for you is odd to me. More work after the event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top