16 Replies Latest reply on Apr 8, 2010 4:01 AM by shunithD

    Depth of field

    jay fresno Level 1

      I want to create a photographic look to my illustration by keeping the foreground crisp (at the bottom of the page) and by gradually blurring the illustration as it receeds (the middle and upper part of the illustration). This would look somewhat like an opacity mask with a gradient that fades the illustration as it receeds from the viewer -- but instead of fading, the illustration would gradually get more and more blurry.

       

      I hope I'm explaining this clearly. Is it possible to do this in Illlustrator?

        • 1. Re: Depth of field
          Scott Falkner Level 5

          Possible, but incredibly difficult an complex. You would need to cut your illustration into horizontal slices and apply different Gaussian Blur effects to each slice to achieve the desired effect. The more slices, the smoother the transition. This will make editing the artwork a nightmare, slow the program to a glacial crawl, and make you file size unbelievably enormous.


          Practically, the answer is no.


          Instead, place the Illustrator file as a smart object in Photoshop and use its far more appropriate raster strengths to your advantage.

          1 person found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Depth of field
            PrepressPro1 Adobe Community Professional

            You could copy the objects to a new layer and blur then mask this layer. The top layer mask would be gradated creating a blur transition.Picture 1.png

            1 person found this helpful
            • 3. Re: Depth of field
              Scott Falkner Level 5

              Won’t work. What you’ll get is the appearance of the sharp illustration increasingly seen through the blurred foreground. You won’t get a transition from very blurry through slightly blurry to sharp, which is what was asked for.

              • 4. Re: Depth of field
                Jacob Bugge MVP & Adobe Community Professional

                Jay,

                 

                There are a few answers here: http://forums.adobe.com/message/2166781#2166781

                 

                I believe post #8 by James is  especially relevant in this case.

                • 5. Re: Depth of field
                  Wade_Zimmerman Level 6

                  Oh I dont think it is a great deal of trouble if you think about it just give the objects in front and behind varying amounts of feather and or blur. you can even use blends to calculate the transition.

                   

                  Screen shot 2010-04-07 at 4.49.11 PM.png

                  if you are referring to raster images that might be a little different.

                  • 6. Re: Depth of field
                    Scott Falkner Level 5

                    Oh, easy if the shapes are simple rectangles and primitives or if you want each object to look flat, on its own layer nearer or farther than other objects. But it sounds like the OP wants something more complex.

                    • 7. Re: Depth of field
                      Wade_Zimmerman Level 6

                      They are referring to illustrations, yes you can make it more complex than it need be. Go ahead and see if you accomplish what you think you will.

                       

                      Obtaining the effect is probably all one needs to be convincing.

                       

                      Even with a photograph it is probably good enough.

                       

                      Screen shot 2010-04-07 at 5.01.30 PM.png

                      • 8. Re: Depth of field
                        Scott Falkner Level 5


                        And I still say it doesn’t work. I can see a halo of the women, blurred, in the background.


                        But that does not seem to address Jay’s initial request:

                        jay fresno wrote:

                         

                        … by gradually blurring the illustration as it receeds (the middle and upper part of the illustration). This would look somewhat like an opacity mask with a gradient that fades the illustration as it receeds from the viewer -- but instead of fading, the illustration would gradually get more and more blurry.

                        Here is the only practical way I can see doing that (using a photo instead of vector art, but the principal is the same):

                        Screen shot 2010-04-07 at 3.18.16 PM.PNG

                        It’s just not convincing. Instead of seeing the image get sharper as you move up from the bottom, you instead see a perfectly sharp image get more opaque as the blurred image fades to nothing.

                         

                        And here’s the same image after a lens blur in Photoshop. Much more convincing.

                        legs.jpg

                        • 9. Re: Depth of field
                          Wade_Zimmerman Level 6

                          Now you don't really think I have the time to silhouette the figures do you?

                           

                          And it is not something I think that has to be techynically perfect to give the artist control and nothing wrong with artistic license as well.

                           

                          I disagree with you

                          • 10. Re: Depth of field
                            Scott Falkner Level 5

                            My point was not that your effect is unconvincing, but that it does not address the problem: a gradual change in blurriness to suggest a lens blur.

                             

                            Do you disagree with that?

                            • 11. Re: Depth of field
                              Wade_Zimmerman Level 6

                              Well now you're backing into a corner and everything is going blurry.

                              • 12. Re: Depth of field
                                jay fresno Level 1

                                Thanks so much to everyone for your helpful suggestions. It's great having the community of these forums to exchange ideas and solve problems.

                                 

                                Scott's idea of placing the Illustrator file into Photoshop as a Smart Object is the most practical. However, for a totally Illustrator workflow, the thread that Jacob brought to my attention actually is a good workable solution, and is the one I'm going to use. It is similar to PrepressPro1's suggestion, but carried one step further to include a mask for both the blurred version and the crisp version of the illustration.

                                • 13. Re: Depth of field
                                  Jacob Bugge MVP & Adobe Community Professional

                                  For my part you are welcome, Jay.

                                   

                                  Edit: they had it in for me earlier. Now they have turned upon Scott.

                                  • 14. Re: Depth of field
                                    shunithD Level 3

                                    Jacob Bugge wrote:

                                     

                                    Edit: they had it in for me earlier. Now they have turned upon Scott.

                                    ???????

                                    • 15. Re: Depth of field
                                      Jacob Bugge MVP & Adobe Community Professional

                                      Shunith,

                                       

                                      Last time I looked, Scott (once again) had a funny name: Scott Falkner-HRWCce; ealier I had a similar name.

                                       

                                      Now it seems that James is the only (lasting) victim, JETalmage-HJ6L6A.

                                      • 16. Re: Depth of field
                                        shunithD Level 3

                                        Jacob Bugge wrote:

                                         

                                        Last time I looked, Scott (once again) had a funny name: Scott Falkner-HRWCce; ealier I had a similar name.

                                         

                                        Now it seems that James is the only (lasting) victim, JETalmage-HJ6L6A.

                                        Ah!!! The Jive A$$ forums at it again!!!