I don’t use Evee and I always use the “rendered” mode in the viewport. I have experimented with different falloff values like 8 and 10 and even 5.
This is the result with the Curve.
Here with the node:
I am not sure which is the correct one for a non-glazed/non-polished wood.
@sundialsvc4 Thanks! But shouldn’t the background be in focus as I am using depth of field in both cases?
If that’s not polished the roughness should never reach 0, maybe something around 0.2.
In the last example, you inverted the numbers there. The roughness is always higher than the softness
Try the roughness on 0.5 and the softness on 0.2. Put the falloff between 1.6 and 2 and tell me how it looks. Actually, that effect will depend on your sensibility. There’s no “right” value here.
Sometimes, it also helps to visualize the node result on the viewport. If you have node wrangler addon activated you can make CTRL + SHIFT + selection click on the node and then your object will show the gradient corresponding to the greyscale of the node. Remember that darker areas = less roughness.
Yes, I am aware of this.
If that’s not polished the roughness should never reach 0, maybe something around 0.2.
In the last example, you inverted the numbers there. The roughness is always higher than the softness
Try the roughness on 0.5 and the softness on 0.2. Put the falloff between 1.6 and 2 and tell me how it looks. Actually, that effect will depend on your sensibility. There’s no “right” value here.
This is what I am getting with the numbers suggested
This is with the curve. (a value of .2)
It’s something close to the original render I think? Sorry but I am not very good materials and composition.
There’s something wrong with your node group. It should not be working like that. The strange is, that doesn’t even look like the one I have. Did you download it from blendswap?
I downloaded it from blendswap. And then I recreated it.
Could you copy only the table with the shader to a new blend file and send it here? I would like to investigate what’s happening there.
Okay. I have updated the node group from the thread you posted. Anyway, it didn’t make any difference.
WineTest.blend (3.6 MB)
Why did you recreate instead of apending it from the other file?
I wanted to see what each math node was doing.
Let me see the file and I say something soon
The biggest problem here is that your camera is positioned too low in relation to the table and the focus length is too high. This way you will have problems to see the effect, cause the angle difference near and far from the camera is too small. Also you did not inset the top faces as I told you before, giving you this result:
There is a way to correct that problem integrated directly into Blender: the weighted normals modifier. It corrects that very problem without having to add geometry.
can you give me the file? damn I forgot the harden normals in the Bevel modifier. Thanks a lot for your persistent help. I really appreciate it.
Harden normals did the trick too. Is it different from weighted normals?
On the bevel modifier? It does something very similar, but weighted normals affects the entire model, not just the bevels (this can be useful on more random and jagged models, like rocks) and it can be used on models that don’t have a bevel modifier.
I am just adding another camera as a suggestion and I also needed to move the objects a bit. The result is still a bit strong, but now you can set it as you wish.
I always forget the modifiers. 
And, yes, @usernew , herden surfaces does the trick. I’ve never used that or explored that part of the modifier.
In all of these settings, I am of the opinion that the background should be sharp. In ordinary photography, things can be out-of-focus ahead of the focus plane, but will then be sharp for an infinite distance beyond it. And that is what I would do here. Absent this, the backdrop feels artificial … that it really is “a backdrop.”
All of your “foreground modeling work” is absolutely stunning.
