How can I create a gradient blur?

[Shaun_...@adobeforums.com]

I want to create a blur effect that starts from one edge of a photo and gets stronger (more blurred) as it goes away from that point. This specific effect only needs to travel in one direction, so it doesn't need to be circular.

I don't want to use the method of creating a second copy of the photo on a separate layer, blurring it, and using a gradient on a layer mask, because this doesn't achieve the effect I'm looking for, since you can still see some of the non-blurred image under the blurred one.

Can anyone help?

[Ho]

Create your gradient in a new channel, black to white (or gray to white if you want some blur at the origin), and then load it as a selection. Apply the blur of your choice.

[Free...@adobeforums.com]

since you can still see some of the non-blurred image under the blurred
one

That makes no sense to me, it's just a question of the contrast of the layer mask. If it doesn't hide fully, it's not black enough, or the layer has some transparency...

[J_Ma...@adobeforums.com]

Ho's way and OP's way produce identical results. Whether you apply a gradient mask to a blurred layer, or apply the blur through a selection.

You might look into lens blur which can be applied with a depth mask (your gradient as an alpha channel) and might get the effect you want.

[Shaun_...@adobeforums.com]

Ho, your method worked great. That's exactly the effect I was looking for.

Thanks.

[Ho]

:)

[PECour...@adobeforums.com]

The fastest and truest solution is to create a new channel, apply the gradient, then use lens blur, and select the alpha channel as a depth map.

While Ho's procedure might look ok, it is a fake gradual blur, giving the smeared lens look as it can be described in this discussion: <http://photoshoptechniques.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=169>
Some images disappeared, but the result can be seen in later posts...

[dave_...@adobeforums.com]

see, with the new proposed rating system, one answer would have gotten marked as "Answered" and ho given "points", and all the other methods would have gone un-remarked.

[Ho]

fake gradual blur

Any digitally created representation of a blur is fake. Lens Blur may suit some subjects better, and I certainly have no objections to using whatever works. Like many things, there are at least 4 or 5 ways to do this in Photoshop.

[David_E_...@adobeforums.com]

As always, I never received a copy of the memo on the new rating system.

[Don_Mc...@adobeforums.com]

David

Much had been written on the change to new forums coming up soon, including the rating system.

<http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b7c637/>

[PeterK.@adobeforums.com]

What I don't understand is why the original poster said Ho's method worked great, when the method gives the exact same result as the method he mentioned he didn't want to use? Really, lens blur is probably what you're after. It will blur every pixel by varying degrees, as opposed to by an alpha mask opacity method, which still shows the unblurred image underneath.

[Shaun_...@adobeforums.com]

What I don't understand is why the original poster said Ho's method worked
great, when the method gives the exact same result as the method he mentioned
he didn't want to use?

I'm not sure of the reason, but it didn't produce the same results. Just to clarify, the image I was using had text in it. When I used the method I mentioned on my first post, I saw the blurred image, but right at the point when the opacity was around 50% I could still see the completely unblurred image underneath (completely clear and readable text), creating a sort-of glow look around the text.

When I used the method that Ho suggested, the text simply becomes increasingly blurred as you look across the image.

[Shaun_...@adobeforums.com]

PeterK,

I tried the method you mentioned just to see what the results would look like and, you're right, that came closer to the look I was trying to get.

Ho's method did look better than the original one I mentioned that I had tried, but the lens blur is even better.

Thanks for your suggestion and thank all of you for the help.

[PECour...@adobeforums.com]

Ho, indeed, there are several methods, but as PeterK. said it too, yours, used like you describe, does not give "way better" results than the blurred copy with mask.
Using lens blur on an blurred Alpha channel, or several applications of a low blur radius through a gradual mask that is stepped and increased as described in the PhotoshopTechniques thread does produce very different (more realistic) results.
No confrontations from my part, you know me, just qualitative argumentation ;)

[David_E_...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks for the link Don. Interesting reading to say the least.

[Free...@adobeforums.com]

Just to make sure, I tested the selection method vs. the layer mask method, copy merged and pasted them on top of another. They're completely identical - both show the unblurred text through. Obviously, it's the same algorithm "under the hood".

Lens blur is distinctly different, however, in the depth map function. The method described by PEC in #6 is in fact the only one that gives the result the OP was looking for.

[Free...@adobeforums.com]

Ooops, that was J Maloney in #3. Sorry.

[Ho]

No arguments from me, Pierre, I just posted the first thing that popped into my head. Did you guys over at PST ever automate your blur technique?