If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
blur effects
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
( blur effects)
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
blur effects
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
( blur effects)
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
blur effects
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
blur effects
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
blur effects
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
blur effects
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
blur effects
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shrinking a picture --- and it becomes blur !! | KatWoman[_2_] | Digital Photography | 0 | April 29th 08 10:37 PM |
camera shake/blur | dohc46 | Digital Photography | 10 | August 2nd 06 01:59 PM |
Motion Blur in DVD | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 3 | May 15th 06 08:50 AM |
Adobe After Effects 7.0 PRO, Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0 for Windows XP, and tutorials, Adobe After Effects Plugins Collection (WINMAC), updated 19/Jan/2006 | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | February 2nd 06 06:52 AM |
IXUS 500 blur, need help | Xavier Bourguignon | Digital Photography | 1 | July 12th 04 02:26 PM |