You're right about the use of DOF. I was using the acronym very loosely to save time in typing. What I was trying to express is what you suggest that I was experimenting with reducing the actual area of the photo that was in focus.
To do this, I simply used the "lens blur" on the whole photo, then changed back to the previous step in the History palette. I then set the source of the history brush to the lens blur step that was now undone. I then painted lightly over the areas that I felt would be further from the eyes (which were the focus point in the shot). So I painted over part of the fingers furthest from the glasses and on the arm and part of the hair in the bust area.
Unfortunately, I didn't have the best pose to work with since at the time I was concentrating more on the glasses. So keeping that in mind, this is mainly an experiment in how close one can simulate a reduction in DOF using the built in tools in Photoshop.
So did it work very well, is the question? For example, look at the little finger on the right. In the original shot this was as sharp as the finger touching the glasses. Does this look like normal blur due to DOF factors?
Thanks for the comments, and point well taken!
Cheers,
rfs
__________________
"The map is not the Territory"
|