soft_focus alias depth_of_field

BUR #5845 has been rejected.

create alias soft_focus -> depth_of_field

It's an effect utilizing depth_of_field to direct the viewer's gaze to one part of the image.
Alternatively, it could also be aliased to depth_of_field instead, but it seems to be commonly used by artists (although undertagged).

Edit: I changed it from an implication to an alias since after doing a bit more research and looking at more examples within and outside of Danbooru, it's practically depth_of_field. The statue example for soft_focus in its Wikipedia article is just blurry_background, and I found this tag by accident while looking for another tag, so it makes sense to go with the alias.

Yes on the previous implication, not so sure about the alias. Vote changed.

NNescio said:

Yes on the previous implication, not so sure about the alias. Vote changed.

I hardly know anything about photography techniques, so maybe I jumped the gun on this one. Either way, it's a tag that creates blurry portions of the image.
To me, I can't really tell the difference; maybe soft_focus has a lot of mistags and needs some gardening to better define it as separate from depth_of_field (or maybe I didn't look at enough examples to recognize the difference), but I will wait to see if I can get some more input on this and change it back to an implication.

yyflandre said:

I hardly know anything about photography techniques, so maybe I jumped the gun on this one. Either way, it's a tag that creates blurry portions of the image.
To me, I can't really tell the difference; maybe soft_focus has a lot of mistags and needs some gardening to better define it as separate from depth_of_field (or maybe I didn't look at enough examples to recognize the difference), but I will wait to see if I can get some more input on this and change it back to an implication.

There is some difference in nuance, though I'm not a photography person myself. Perhaps both tags are effectively used the same way on Danbooru, in which case an alias would be more appropriate than just an implication. But I am not sure if this is the case (i.e. not a photography person), so I'm less certain on voting yes for this.

Would be great if someone who's familiar with photography could shed some insight.

They're distinct concepts, but looking through the tags the majority of them are either depth of field or just neither. There's only a handful of images tagged soft focus that actually qualify for the tag. Dunno if it's worth keeping around since 90% of the posts in it are mistags.

Yes on the implication, no on the alias.

The bulk update request #5845 (forum #188366) has been rejected by @evazion.

BUR #6476 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication soft_focus -> depth_of_field

Well I sort of completely forgot about this thread, but I will try again with an implication instead of alias if it had some support. With slightly more understanding of the concept by now, I think it would better imply blurry instead of depth_of_field?

The bulk update request #6476 (forum #192734) has been approved by @evazion.