[Just Fake It] New Photoshop CS6 Automates Shallow Depth Of Field

It seems with every new version of Photoshop, Adobe finds a way to add something both useful and unbelievable. First we had the new Content Aware. Then rumors of a tool that makes your blurry images sharp and focused. Now apparently Photoshop CS6 is going to let you add nearly authentic shallow depth of field to your otherwise infinitely sharp photos. Obviously most photographers will do this with a fast lens but it's still interesting for the graphic designer or travel photographer who is stuck with a sharper than desire image. What do you guys think, is this going to be a welcomed feature or is it going to become the latest Photoshop tool to get flamed?

Log in or register to post comments


Check out the left part of the image in the vid where it's obvious that it's fake. and that's an adobe guy using a pic that's order-made to fit that filter...

glorified gaussian with a mask and some gradient tool...

Fail! Was excited when I saw the title on Gizmodo yesterday but the results are less than impressive. My first thought was the same as bornacavrag's. Couldn't you accomplish the same thing with better results in Lightroom using a couple gradients with negative sharpness/clarity?  Plus this would never work properly when trying to separate a subject from the background.

Seems no better than the cheezy filters in smartphone apps. Nice interface but not the kind of professional results I was expecting from Photoshop,. Thought they were going to pull some real magic like content aware fill, etc.

It seems that PS is trying to cater more to the consumer then to the professional...

I can actually see how this would be beneficial IF it worked more realistically.  

For example if you're shooting outdoor portraits with off-camera flash your typically limited to a shutter speed of 1/250th thus forcing you to dial down your aperture to f/4+ (or whatever) meaning you loose your nice bokeh.  Something like this could fill that gap but again, it's not the magic I was hoping for.

well, obviously... but the reason why you're buying gazillion dollar lenses is the simple fact that no software can pick out distances from the camera from a 2D picture. how could software know if one object is in front or behind another and how far? until somebody figures that out, better get familiar with masks and paths...

Unless of course you use ND filters.  Which I commonly do to be able to shoot at f1.4 in open daylight.  :)  And yes, the focusing with a really dark ND filter gets tricky.  Especially shooting that shallow.

It looks like a fine tuned version of Instagram's feature. The people who should be concerned is Alien Skin and their Bokeh 2 plug-in, that's lost revenue.

Graham Marley's picture

I like the "expensive camera equipment" comment in a video about a 700 dollar program. Also, no, you don't need expensive camera equipment. The content-aware patch tool, sure, I'll use that. This? What a waste of time.

they're copying what many iPhone apps do, and if "photographers complain about iPhoneography I wonder what they think about the new photoshop cs6. maybe they will be saying "Now any loser photographer can use photoshop" 

it would never work with a person as the subject.  But I can see how clients would love it but other photographers would shoot it down in a heartbeat.

"expensive camera equipment" eg, a fast lens, which lasts a lifetime, and not a piece of software which is £550 and needs to be upgraded every 2 years. Here's something, i'm a pro, using CS2, shoot me!

FAIL!!!!!!!!! no photoshop can substitute a 50mm 1.8

 nor a 85 1.2 L...

50mm 1.8 munch cheaper than photoshop, and more FUN!!

Reev's picture

Picasa (FREE) has this feature. Though not as control-intensive, it gets the job done. Been there for more than 5 years now I think.

mother of god

- forget it i quit this game


i think i would have to agree with some of the first few post. this looks fake! unless adobe decides to improve its kinda useless. and being a fan of blur and bokeh through the lens...i can definitely tell its a fake blur. and i think i speak for most of us here that we can tell just by looking at the picture. Its not as smooth as it would be if it were blurred through a really fast lens.

Sean Shimmel's picture

Never, ever thought I'd say it but... some of Photoshop's turning into a goofy embarrassment.

For the first time, the coolness factor of endlessly new features is starting to backfire, while honest, clean simplicity and vision are beginning to triumph.

I agree that this result seems like a poor-man's fast lens; and I love the comment about a $700 program, but you are missing something significant.  This feature is trying compete with the vast amount of programs that allow us pro-sumers to easily create these effects.  Nik, OnOne and the like have had a niche of making these edits far more simple.  With more and more coming to market PS had to bend toward the ease of these applications.

Too fake for me. A good fast Canon lens will create a much better bokeh.

And well, working as a reporter, what will you do when you will have to show your original raw, uneddited files? Laughs will be herad for sure!