Ateeb ahmed
Active member
- Messages
- 64
- Reaction score
- 20
hi everyone, i just wanted to know that does it look natural? this photo is being blurred in photoshop....
thanks.....
thanks.....
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
photoshop blur...
- Thread starter Ateeb ahmed
- Start date
Gerry Winterbourne
Forum Pro
No. First, natural blur increases with distance from the focus plane whereas yours id uniform at all distances. Second, you've missed a big area at bottom right.
With practice it is possible to generate realistically natural blur in PS but it doesn't look anything like this.
--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
Galleries by Gerry Winterbourne
www.pbase.com
richiebee
Senior Member
Looks okay but there are some careless bits around the end of the t-shirt arms (where there should be no blur) and around the neck (blurring looks a bit heavy handed). Try in re-touching... they'd probably have more constructive criticism.hi everyone, i just wanted to know that does it look natural? this photo is being blurred in photoshop....
thanks.....
Last edited:
Charles McRobert
Senior Member
Should Ateeb make the blur area at the bottom right match the blur area at the bottom left?
With a bit more effort, I'm sure you'll gain proficiency, Ateeb.With practice it is possible to generate realistically natural blur in PS but it doesn't look anything like this.
--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
[email protected]
Gerry Winterbourne
Forum Pro
Doing so would remove a glaring fault but wouldn't actually make the picture look right.
--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
Galleries by Gerry Winterbourne
www.pbase.com
Charles McRobert
Senior Member
Glaring fault? The shadow? The photograph isn't all that bad. If I were to question the work done in Photoshop, I would suggest a lighter touch on either side of the child in the area around the elbows. It appears to me that there is blurring that has been added which seems unnatural. But it is quite subtle and doesn't 'break' the picture.
I would advise Ateeb that to receive useful advice, it is always best to post the original image. When the original image is posted, it gives 'Photoshoppers' the option to offer an example of how to do a modification more effectively.
--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
[email protected]
R Neihi
Forum Enthusiast
It's close at small scale, but when viewed larger there are issues as others have noted.hi everyone, i just wanted to know that does it look natural? this photo is being blurred in photoshop....
thanks.....
As others have stated, OoF areas become increasingly more blurred. My recommendation is to layer it. In this case, 5 layers should do. One for the subject, two for the forground dirt, (blending one into the other) another for the bush to the right and finally one for the background greenery, water and beyond. Each layer, of course, having a little more blur to it. Blend the layers together so there is no harsh boarders between them.
I hope this help, others may weigh in or disagree.
--
Ryan N.
1. When in charge, ponder. 2. When in trouble, delegate. 3. When in doubt, mumble.
- James H. Borden (Author)
Gallery at http://www.rneihiphotography.com/
Gerry Winterbourne
Forum Pro
What has the shadow to do with it? Your question was about the blur, not the shadow, and all I did was answer your question.
And the OP asked about the quality of that blurring; it was, in fact, the sole topic of the thread. As soon as the subject of blur is mentioned the unevenness between left and right front jumps out.
--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
Galleries by Gerry Winterbourne
www.pbase.com
Mark S Abeln
Forum Pro
Superficially, the photo looks great. Nice shot.
Upon closer inspection, it does look fake, not least due to unevenness of blur. I think it can pass if posted at low resolution on social media, but not in a large print.
Upon closer inspection, it does look fake, not least due to unevenness of blur. I think it can pass if posted at low resolution on social media, but not in a large print.
L
Lord Brain
Guest
I wouldn't worry about creating fake blur. It's 2016. Nobody cares.
Just look at the tons of shots on Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr etc.
It's the content that matters more.
Plus, nothing invites pushback and ridicule more than a carelessly "shopped" image.
Just look at the tons of shots on Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr etc.
It's the content that matters more.
Plus, nothing invites pushback and ridicule more than a carelessly "shopped" image.
Last edited:
Moti
Veteran Member
To start with, a blured background, weather created by the lens or during PP never looks natural, smoky because this is not the way you see it with you eyes when you look at the scene, so the question is irrelevant.
Now, you could have asked weather it pleases the eye? And there is no answer because it is just a matter of personal taste.
Mot
MoreorLess
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,976
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 3,481
Yep that's my first thought, the more distant background looks fine and I'd guess was quite out of focus anyway but those sections under the sleeves of the shirt should be left alone.
If your wanting to get rid of a messy transitional zone then stick to a relatively small amount of blur I'd say.
Creating background blur in PS is hard, especially like this where you in reality are trying to replicate a faster lens. It is actually extremely hard to make it look good, and when you get it right it should be very subtile, not over done.
In this picture I think less blur is the key, as is smooth transitions and attention to detail while brushing in the blur. Very very carefully. If this where my photo I would have started again, less blur, and tried again. Otherwise a nice photo, not sure if it needs more background blur.
In this picture I think less blur is the key, as is smooth transitions and attention to detail while brushing in the blur. Very very carefully. If this where my photo I would have started again, less blur, and tried again. Otherwise a nice photo, not sure if it needs more background blur.
NearerNirvana
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,616
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 999
...I think it does look natural.
Forementioned glaring faults aside (see below), most people will not see this as 'photoshopped' at normal viewing distance (ie full-screen or A4 print). However, if you want to enlarge more then you need to be a lot tidier masking around the hair
Do take note that us lot don't count as 'most people'. With due respect to my fellow forum photo geeks, when you make it our mission statement we will find fault
Forementioned glaring faults aside (see below), most people will not see this as 'photoshopped' at normal viewing distance (ie full-screen or A4 print). However, if you want to enlarge more then you need to be a lot tidier masking around the hair
Do take note that us lot don't count as 'most people'. With due respect to my fellow forum photo geeks, when you make it our mission statement we will find fault
newmikey
Veteran Member
Use a depthmap together with a specialized focus blur plugin. The plugin will create much more natural-looking areas of highlights in the unsharp areas and the depthmap overlay will allow the effect to vary with distance.
It looks quite natural enough, because everyone will look at the child and ignore the blur. Only 37 people out of the world's population of 7 billion care about what blur looks like.
I think you could crop some of the background off on both sides. There is nothing interesting in the background. Make the picture roughly square.
I think you could crop some of the background off on both sides. There is nothing interesting in the background. Make the picture roughly square.
BertIverson
Senior Member
IMHO, try using PS LensBlur *with a gradient filter depth map*. Then the amount of blur will increase towards the background.Ateeb ahmed said:
just my 0.02
Here is one shot with a tiny sensor P&S camera. (maybe check the original)
Bert
Last edited:
Gato Amarillo
Forum Pro
What's natural? It does look somewhat different than lens depth of field, but our eyes don't see like that anyway. Either way is arguably an artificial look.
I don't see it as better or worse than background blur done in the camera, and for practical purposes very few people in the audience will pick up on the difference.
The OP might want to work for cleaner edges and perhaps a more subtle look, but there is no reason not to do blur in the computer.
Gato
I don't see it as better or worse than background blur done in the camera, and for practical purposes very few people in the audience will pick up on the difference.
The OP might want to work for cleaner edges and perhaps a more subtle look, but there is no reason not to do blur in the computer.
Gato
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum