blur effects

It's surprising how much difference a bit of blur can make to an image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jpqdebg9fg...itled.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6uk5mjaz0z...lured.jpg?dl=0

that's just a small crop from a larger image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mujlduqyhe...-pano.jpg?dl=0

that's Tromso btw.

--
sid

On 2014-10-28 19:15:00 +0000, sid said:

It's surprising how much difference a bit of blur can make to an image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jpqdebg9fg...itled.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6uk5mjaz0z...lured.jpg?dl=0

that's just a small crop from a larger image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mujlduqyhe...-pano.jpg?dl=0

that's Tromso btw.

Yup! Using blur can make a big difference in your final result, but if
that usage doesn't make sense photographically the image will look
wrong, just as it does in the example you presented. In that type of
shot blurred the way you did doesn't really work as it would if you got
the blur & bokeh from a fast lens wide open. You might have got a
similar effect from a tilt-angle lens. What your result looks like is a
model table shot with a tilt angle lens.
Subtle adjustment always works best.

Here is a shot side-by-side with the original, where I emphasized the
background blur using field blur.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_997.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/28/2014 3:51 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-28 19:15:00 +0000, sid said:

It's surprising how much difference a bit of blur can make to an image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jpqdebg9fg...itled.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6uk5mjaz0z...lured.jpg?dl=0

that's just a small crop from a larger image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mujlduqyhe...-pano.jpg?dl=0


that's Tromso btw.

Yup! Using blur can make a big difference in your final result, but if
that usage doesn't make sense photographically the image will look
wrong, just as it does in the example you presented. In that type of
shot blurred the way you did doesn't really work as it would if you got
the blur & bokeh from a fast lens wide open. You might have got a
similar effect from a tilt-angle lens. What your result looks like is a
model table shot with a tilt angle lens.
Subtle adjustment always works best.

Here is a shot side-by-side with the original, where I emphasized the
background blur using field blur.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_997.jpg


Just curriou. Why would you use field blur as opposed to a gaussian, or
lens blur?

I don't currently have access to demonstration materials, but where I
thought it appropriate I made an inverse selection of my subject, and
placed it on a new layer. I then played with different blur effects
until I got what I wanted. I get a blur that increase as distance from
the subject increase by feathering.
I have not tried using the circular graduated filter

Variable blur effects might be a fun project.

--
PeterN

Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-10-28 19:15:00 +0000, sid said:

It's surprising how much difference a bit of blur can make to an image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jpqdebg9fg...itled.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6uk5mjaz0z...lured.jpg?dl=0

that's just a small crop from a larger image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mujlduqyhe...-pano.jpg?dl=0

that's Tromso btw.

Yup! Using blur can make a big difference in your final result, but if
that usage doesn't make sense photographically the image will look
wrong, just as it does in the example you presented.

whether it looks wrong or nor depends on the intent of the image, which was
to demonstrate how adding a little blur can drastically alter the appearance
of an image.

In that type of
shot blurred the way you did doesn't really work as it would if you got
the blur & bokeh from a fast lens wide open.

that wasn't the intention, a wide shot like this would never normally be out
of focus very much.

You might have got a
similar effect from a tilt-angle lens. What your result looks like is a
model table shot with a tilt angle lens.

that was the intention, so I may have been partially successful, even though
I was just messing about I have no intention of applying that sort of
adjustment to the actual large image.

Subtle adjustment always works best.

Here is a shot side-by-side with the original, where I emphasized the
background blur using field blur.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_997.jpg

the crop looks wrong to me, put the rodent lower in the frame and blur the
log enough to not matter

--
sid

On 2014-10-29 15:24:06 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/28/2014 3:51 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-28 19:15:00 +0000, sid said:

It's surprising how much difference a bit of blur can make to an image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jpqdebg9fg...itled.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6uk5mjaz0z...lured.jpg?dl=0

that's just a small crop from a larger image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mujlduqyhe...-pano.jpg?dl=0


that's Tromso btw.

Yup! Using blur can make a big difference in your final result, but if
that usage doesn't make sense photographically the image will look
wrong, just as it does in the example you presented. In that type of
shot blurred the way you did doesn't really work as it would if you got
the blur & bokeh from a fast lens wide open. You might have got a
similar effect from a tilt-angle lens. What your result looks like is a
model table shot with a tilt angle lens.
Subtle adjustment always works best.

Here is a shot side-by-side with the original, where I emphasized the
background blur using field blur.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_997.jpg


Just curriou. Why would you use field blur as opposed to a gaussian, or
lens blur?

Just as an exercise for the Blur Gallery stuff, and Iris Blur,
Tilt-shift, and Path blur didn't seem to fit my need, and I didn't want
to use gaussian blur.

I don't currently have access to demonstration materials, but where I
thought it appropriate I made an inverse selection of my subject, and
placed it on a new layer. I then played with different blur effects
until I got what I wanted. I get a blur that increase as distance from
the subject increase by feathering.
I have not tried using the circular graduated filter

Variable blur effects might be a fun project.

Yup!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/28/2014 3:15 PM, sid wrote:
It's surprising how much difference a bit of blur can make to an image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jpqdebg9fg...itled.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6uk5mjaz0z...lured.jpg?dl=0

that's just a small crop from a larger image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mujlduqyhe...-pano.jpg?dl=0

NIcely exposed image. There was somthing bothering me, and I finally
figured it out. The blur is too uniform. To my eye the blur should be
gradual. No matter what fporm of blur is used, I would blur a selected
area with a large amount of feathering. The amount of feathering depends
on the image. To me your image requires a large feathering. If the oof
portion was used to highlight a near object, I might use no feathering.
That is just my opinion. YMMV.


that's Tromso btw.


Without the foreground at the bottom, the image reminds me of Acadia
from the top of Cadilac Mountain.

--
PeterN

PeterN wrote:

On 10/28/2014 3:15 PM, sid wrote:
It's surprising how much difference a bit of blur can make to an image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jpqdebg9fg...itled.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6uk5mjaz0z...lured.jpg?dl=0

that's just a small crop from a larger image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mujlduqyhe...-pano.jpg?dl=0

NIcely exposed image. There was somthing bothering me, and I finally
figured it out. The blur is too uniform.

You're quite right, all I did was make 2 quick selections and filled em with
blur, I brushed a little blur with slightly less opacity over the edge of
the upper selection.

To my eye the blur should be
gradual. No matter what fporm of blur is used, I would blur a selected
area with a large amount of feathering.

If I were to make a serious attempt at that type of image that is the
approach I would start with, certainly.

The amount of feathering depends
on the image. To me your image requires a large feathering. If the oof
portion was used to highlight a near object, I might use no feathering.
That is just my opinion. YMMV.


that's Tromso btw.


Without the foreground at the bottom, the image reminds me of Acadia
from the top of Cadilac Mountain.

I had to google that, there's definitely water in both views at the very
least

--
sid

On 2014-10-30 19:18:47 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/28/2014 3:15 PM, sid wrote:
It's surprising how much difference a bit of blur can make to an image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jpqdebg9fg...itled.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6uk5mjaz0z...lured.jpg?dl=0

that's just a small crop from a larger image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mujlduqyhe...-pano.jpg?dl=0

NIcely exposed image. There was somthing bothering me, and I finally
figured it out. The blur is too uniform. To my eye the blur should be
gradual. No matter what fporm of blur is used, I would blur a selected
area with a large amount of feathering. The amount of feathering
depends on the image. To me your image requires a large feathering. If
the oof portion was used to highlight a near object, I might use no
feathering. That is just my opinion. YMMV.


that's Tromso btw.


Without the foreground at the bottom, the image reminds me of Acadia
from the top of Cadilac Mountain.

I believe "sid" is using GIMP for his processing and I am not sure what
blur filters he had available, or what he actually used. I had
commented that the impression I got was that of an angle-tilt lens
being shot over a model table of the town.

Anyway I tried the image using the Angle-Tilt Filter in the PS Blur
Gallery, and I was able to achieve the smoother blur graduation you are
talking about. The result is smoother and truly does give the
impression that an Angle-Tilt lens was used. Try it and you will see
what I mean.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-10-31 01:09:34 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2014-10-30 19:18:47 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/28/2014 3:15 PM, sid wrote:
It's surprising how much difference a bit of blur can make to an image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jpqdebg9fg...itled.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6uk5mjaz0z...lured.jpg?dl=0

that's just a small crop from a larger image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mujlduqyhe...-pano.jpg?dl=0

NIcely exposed image. There was somthing bothering me, and I finally
figured it out. The blur is too uniform. To my eye the blur should be
gradual. No matter what fporm of blur is used, I would blur a selected
area with a large amount of feathering. The amount of feathering
depends on the image. To me your image requires a large feathering. If
the oof portion was used to highlight a near object, I might use no
feathering. That is just my opinion. YMMV.


that's Tromso btw.


Without the foreground at the bottom, the image reminds me of Acadia
from the top of Cadilac Mountain.

I believe "sid" is using GIMP for his processing and I am not sure what
blur filters he had available, or what he actually used. I had
commented that the impression I got was that of an angle-tilt lens
being shot over a model table of the town.

Anyway I tried the image using the Angle-Tilt Filter in the PS Blur
Gallery, and I was able to achieve the smoother blur graduation you are
talking about. The result is smoother and truly does give the
impression that an Angle-Tilt lens was used. Try it and you will see
what I mean.

I meant to type "Tilt-Shift" filter, not "Angle-Tilt".

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/31/2014 8:29 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-31 01:09:34 +0000, Savageduck
said:

On 2014-10-30 19:18:47 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/28/2014 3:15 PM, sid wrote:
It's surprising how much difference a bit of blur can make to an image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jpqdebg9fg...itled.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6uk5mjaz0z...lured.jpg?dl=0

that's just a small crop from a larger image

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mujlduqyhe...-pano.jpg?dl=0


NIcely exposed image. There was somthing bothering me, and I finally
figured it out. The blur is too uniform. To my eye the blur should be
gradual. No matter what fporm of blur is used, I would blur a
selected area with a large amount of feathering. The amount of
feathering depends on the image. To me your image requires a large
feathering. If the oof portion was used to highlight a near object, I
might use no feathering. That is just my opinion. YMMV.


that's Tromso btw.


Without the foreground at the bottom, the image reminds me of Acadia
from the top of Cadilac Mountain.

I believe "sid" is using GIMP for his processing and I am not sure
what blur filters he had available, or what he actually used. I had
commented that the impression I got was that of an angle-tilt lens
being shot over a model table of the town.

Anyway I tried the image using the Angle-Tilt Filter in the PS Blur
Gallery, and I was able to achieve the smoother blur graduation you
are talking about. The result is smoother and truly does give the
impression that an Angle-Tilt lens was used. Try it and you will see
what I mean.

I meant to type "Tilt-Shift" filter, not "Angle-Tilt".


That's OK. I suffer from finger dislexia.

I saw and was playing with a great tilt-shift lens.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/818362-REG/Schneider_06_1066460_PC_TS_Super_Angulon.html

They say "get it right in the camera," but at that price I'll use software.

--
PeterN