bluring a messy background?
Brian
I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.
Regards Brian
J�rgen Exner
>I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
Suggestion for next time: use a lens with a large apperture wide open,
thus creating a very shallow DOF.
jue
Don Stauffer
It depends on how well you do the selection to separate your subject
from the background. Sometimes it helps to make two background
selections and apply two levels of blur.
Also try darkening or lightening the background and lowering the contrast.
John Navas
<02ss25dgspkvpsffe...@4ax.com>:
Photoshop - blur background
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnJAQgjLk50>
Better place to get Photoshop Elements help:
<http://forums.adobe.com/community/photoshop_elements>
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
John Navas
wrote in <1bts25ddmc317i07r...@4ax.com>:
Gee, that's really helpful.
George Kerby
On 6/9/09 9:57 AM, in article 13us259r5akve7rrn...@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
Navas, showing his ASS again as usual.
I thought you had fallen off that boat and was trapped on Alcatraz. Crap!
John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<r9ts25tnj7ufa3rl5...@4ax.com>:
Also:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=shallow+depth+of+field+%2B(photoshop-elements)>
Floyd L. Davidson
I don't use PhotoShop, but the method is rather generic.
First, do a selection that includes basically the part you
want to stand out. It does *not* have to be precise. Then
invert the selection so that it is everything you want to
be less obvious that is selected.
Then you want to "feather" the selection. But how much depends
on the resolution of your image and just how large the object
is. Set the value to enough pixels that a smooth gradient will
be produced, not a sharp transition that is obvious. This is the
first of a series, and each time the feathering will be greater.
This first one should be fairly thin.
Note that when you add feathering it will go on both sides of
the line where it is selected. Hence some of the feathered
selection will be outside of the area you want to blur, and
inside what you want to be sharp. Because of that, you'll want
to begin with very very mild adjustments. Blur the selection
with a setting that you can barely see, if at all. And then set
the contrast ever so slightly lower and perhaps brightness too.
After the first adjustments, decrease the size of the selected
area by about the same number of pixels as the amount of
feathering. Reset the feathering too, and use a slightly larger
number of pixels. Then do the same blur/contrast/brightness
adjustments, but with slightly greater values.
Repeat the above series. This should probably be done in at
least half a dozen increments. Eventually you get to a position
where the selection is half way from the edges of the image to
the area to be preserved, and it is then possible to set
feathering to the minimum width of the selected area and hit it
with the maximum blur that you want to show up at the edges.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
John Navas
wrote in <87fxe9w...@apaflo.com>:
>Note that when you add feathering it will go on both sides of
>the line where it is selected. ...
Not necessarily -- some software (e.g., Corel PHOTO-PAINT) is also
capable of feathering inside or outside a selection, and Photoshop
Elements can do it with layers.
John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<j2vs25hrm3rra5lc1...@4ax.com>:
Last but not least: FocalPoint plugin:
<http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=35>
Dave Cohen
Dave Cohen
daveFaktor
For now... There is a Photoshop plugin for creating a Depth of Field map
which you can then use to blur the picture from the focus point back (or
forward). It's not free but it works exceptionally well if you are
willing to spend the time to learn how to use it properly.
tony cooper
wrote:
Why in world would you buy a program to blur a background?
All you have to do is duplicate the background copy twice (Control J
twice), make the top layer active, turn off the "eye" in the bottom
two layers, create a selection of the whatever is in the foreground
that you want to remain in focus, inverse, and hit "delete". Then go
to the second layer, turn the eye on, and apply a Gaussian blur to
that level to the point where the background is sufficiently blurred,
turn the eye back on in the top layer, flatten, and save as a .jpg.
Some feathering may be appropriate in making the selection.
I have an extra couple of layers, but I do that because I want to be
able to dump a layer if I don't like what I've done.
The selection can be made with a layer mask, the Quick Mask, the Pen
Tool, or one of the lassos if working in full Photoshop. (Lasso or
Magic Selection Brush in Elements). The Eraser could be used, but
it's non-correctable.
The Blur Tool is not designed to blur a background. It's for blurring
small bits, and it's not very good at that. You could take the Blur
Tool and the Smudge Tool out of Photoshop and no experienced user
would miss it.
There must be 100 or more tutorials on line on how to make selections
and delete a background. The only difference here is that you are not
deleting the background completely. You are keeping it on a layer and
letting it show through around the sharp foreground part.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
John Navas
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<8grt25lrm2p6b84sr...@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:11 +1000, daveFaktor <davef...@this.group>
>wrote:
>>For now... There is a Photoshop plugin for creating a Depth of Field map
>>which you can then use to blur the picture from the focus point back (or
>>forward). It's not free but it works exceptionally well if you are
>>willing to spend the time to learn how to use it properly.
>
>Why in world would you buy a program to blur a background?
>[SNIP]
Because the program does a more realistic job than a simple Gaussian
blur, and is less work than multiple Gaussian blurs.
Savageduck
You can try Tiffin Dfx plugin for CS4 & Elements for 15 days. That has
some selective blurring tools which should work.
http://www.tiffen.com/dfx_v2_home.html
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Educating The Rudimentary Photoshop Snapshooter Hicks
wrote:
>J�rgen Exner wrote:
That feature is built into Photoline's more advanced editor. www.pl32.net
Part of the program. It's the "Variable Blur" filter. It adjusts the amount
of Gaussian Blur by the intensity of the mask value. Editing the mask layer
with black = 0% blur, white = 100% blur. Those 12 or so meticulous,
multi-stage, feathered-mask steps previously described for Photoshop are
done in just one step in Photoline.
Though I have to admit, my favorite is still "Depth of Field Generator Pro"
plugin by Richard Rosenman. Works great with Photoline's more advanced
editing and mask creation tools. Same scenario as in Photoline, create a
DOF Map mask in varying shades of grays. It also compensates better for
that nasty halo effect that happens from pulling in the foreground image
tones into the blurred data for the background.
Now if you really want to have some "you'll never be able to tell the
difference from the real thing" fun, you might want to try the "Lenscare"
plugin. It allows you to design your own lens aperture masks to emulate
catadioptric lens systems, or any number of aperture leaves in your more
simple lens designs. Emulating the exact Bokeh that you want from any lens
design ever made. It also allows you to use depth-maps.
Catch up ... if any of you Photoshop Simpletons ever can. LOL!!
tony cooper
You have a poster who thinks the Blur Tool is a tool used to blur the
background. You think he can tell what a "better" job is?
Without seeing the image, I couldn't possibly decide what "better"
consists of. He says he has a photo of someone in a workshop and the
background is a distraction so he wants to blur it. Unless the image
is going on the cover of "Popular Woodworking", a simple Gaussian blur
will probably satisfy the OP.
I don't know why where Floyd came up with that suggestion for multiple
applications of a Gaussian blur. He specifically says he doesn't use
Photoshop. The multiple blur technique is used to reduce image noise
while blurring detail.
The OP would have to know what "image noise" is before he should worry
about this. When you know you have a PS novice, you give him the
simple steps.
Floyd L. Davidson
Keep the term *generic* in mind. This is not, was it was
explicitly stated, a PhotoShop method, nor specific to any
particular editor.
>> Note that when you add feathering it will go on both
>> sides of
>> the line where it is selected.
...
>PhotoPlus feathers outwards. Not sure about others.
A better choice of words would have been to say that it may do
that. The point was, and is correct, that the reader, when
implementing this generic method using a specific editor, needs
to be precisely aware of how feathering affects the selection
borders.
I'm pleased that the only criticism has been over something
of no significance.
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:40:17 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:11 +1000, daveFaktor <davef...@this.group>
>>wrote:
>
>>>For now... There is a Photoshop plugin for creating a Depth of Field map
>>>which you can then use to blur the picture from the focus point back (or
>>>forward). It's not free but it works exceptionally well if you are
>>>willing to spend the time to learn how to use it properly.
>>
>>Why in world would you buy a program to blur a background?
>>[SNIP]
>
>Because the program does a more realistic job than a simple Gaussian
>blur, and is less work than multiple Gaussian blurs.
That is true. The youtube.com video that you posted is
essentially the same as this description. Neither are
sophisticated enough to provide high quality results.
The multiple blurs method that I posted is sophisticated enough,
but if done manually it is exceedingly tedious for even one
image much less multiple images. (Of course I don't do it
manually, and long ago written a script that allows setting
various parameters and then merely waiting for it to finish.)
Brian
Very helpful.
Regards Brian
Brian
do.
Regards Brian
Brian
background duller or does it look like a room full of light smoke?
Regards Brian
Marty Fremen <Ma...@fremen.invalid> wrote:
>Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>
>Someone else mentioned lowering contrast which should work quite well. In
>addition you could fog the background slightly to mute it: select the
>background and then on a separate layer floodfill it with the dominant
>background tone (which you could grab with the eyedropper) or possibly
>just with a mid grey. Now adjust the opacity of the layer until it looks
>natural (probably 10-20% opacity). You can improve the natural look by
>partially erasing the tone where it is over things that are in a similar
>plane to the subject.
>
>
tony cooper
>It's an interesting idea Marty. Does fogging the background make the
>background duller or does it look like a room full of light smoke?
>
Keep in mind that if you "fog" the background that you will also "fog"
the foreground unless you first make a selection of the foreground and
then "fog" only the layer under the selection. Any way you do it, you
have to make a selection to isolate that from whatever other steps you
take.
>
>Marty Fremen <Ma...@fremen.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>
>>Someone else mentioned lowering contrast which should work quite well. In
>>addition you could fog the background slightly to mute it: select the
>>background and then on a separate layer floodfill it with the dominant
>>background tone (which you could grab with the eyedropper) or possibly
>>just with a mid grey. Now adjust the opacity of the layer until it looks
>>natural (probably 10-20% opacity). You can improve the natural look by
>>partially erasing the tone where it is over things that are in a similar
>>plane to the subject.
>>
>>
--
daveFaktor
What you describe is done with a slider after you determine the focus
point and the out of focus point. The value of the plugin is that it
transitionally blurs the image, just like a real one is.
tony cooper
wrote:
Link to it, then.
John Navas
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<b5du255r03t44uims...@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:57:44 +1000, daveFaktor <davef...@this.group>
>wrote:
>>What you describe is done with a slider after you determine the focus
>>point and the out of focus point. The value of the plugin is that it
>>transitionally blurs the image, just like a real one is.
>
>Link to it, then.
I did just that.
daveFaktor
What am I? Your butler?
Look for it yourself Tony.
It's not like it hidden or something.
John Navas
wrote in <87zlcgv...@apaflo.com>:
>Dave Cohen <us...@example.net> wrote:
>>> I don't use PhotoShop, but the method is rather
>>> generic.
>
>Keep the term *generic* in mind. This is not, was it was
>explicitly stated, a PhotoShop method, nor specific to any
>particular editor.
The OP asked for a method in Photoshop Elements.
daveFaktor
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:22:46 -0400, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> <b5du255r03t44uims...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:57:44 +1000, daveFaktor <davef...@this.group>
>> wrote:
>
>>> What you describe is done with a slider after you determine the focus
>>> point and the out of focus point. The value of the plugin is that it
>>> transitionally blurs the image, just like a real one is.
>> Link to it, then.
>
> I did just that.
>
Ohh... You had to tell him didn't you?
Anyway... He probably wouldn't want to spend $200 on a simple and very
graceful solution. Why would he? His description (according the the OP)
looks so easy. ROTFL.
John Navas
wrote in <798rdlF...@mid.individual.net>:
Actually $160.
Bob Larter
> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>
Better to use a wide open lens in the first place.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:46:06 -0700, J�rgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in <1bts25ddmc317i07r...@4ax.com>:
>
>> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>> thus creating a very shallow DOF.
>
It'll give dramatically better results than trying to do it in PS.
Bob Larter
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:11 +1000, daveFaktor <davef...@this.group>
> wrote:
>
>> J�rgen Exner wrote:
>>> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>> Suggestion for next time: use a lens with a large apperture wide open,
>>> thus creating a very shallow DOF.
>>>
>>> jue
>> For now... There is a Photoshop plugin for creating a Depth of Field map
>> which you can then use to blur the picture from the focus point back (or
>> forward). It's not free but it works exceptionally well if you are
>> willing to spend the time to learn how to use it properly.
>
Still waiting to see a few of your professional P&S shots, kook.
John Navas
wrote in <4a2f3d7e$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:46:06 -0700, J�rgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in <1bts25ddmc317i07r...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>> Suggestion for next time: use a lens with a large apperture wide open,
>>> thus creating a very shallow DOF.
>>
>> Gee, that's really helpful.
>
>It'll give dramatically better results than trying to do it in PS.
Not after the image has been taken.
John Navas
wrote in <4a2f3d58$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>Brian wrote:
>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>
>> I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.
>
>Better to use a wide open lens in the first place.
Not terribly helpful after the fact.
tony cooper
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:22:46 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
><b5du255r03t44uims...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:57:44 +1000, daveFaktor <davef...@this.group>
>>wrote:
>
>>>What you describe is done with a slider after you determine the focus
>>>point and the out of focus point. The value of the plugin is that it
>>>transitionally blurs the image, just like a real one is.
>>
>>Link to it, then.
>
>I did just that.
I freely admit that I can't keep track of the pseudonyms that posters
use here. I *think* "davefaktor" is Doug what's-his-name from Oz. I
*don't* think that John Navas is the same guy. I have no idea if John
Navas is linking to the same program that "davefaktor" is talking
about. It's possible, very possible, that there is more than one PS
plug-in that alters depth-of-field.
You are the guy who whines about your camera being called a "P&S", and
Doug is the guy who whines about everything. Two different people,
right?
Between the two of you, though, you couldn't pool your common sense
and figure out how to get out of the rain. The OP has a $99 program
in Elements 7.0, and you two are recommending a US$ 160/AUD$ 198
program so he can modify a snapshot.
tony cooper
Actually AUD $198 and change for Doug.
Savageduck
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:57:56 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
> wrote in <4a2f3d58$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>
>> Brian wrote:
>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>>
>>> I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.
>>
>> Better to use a wide open lens in the first place.
>
> Not terribly helpful after the fact.
Just a snap shot with a quick fix, but this might be the sort of thing
the OP has in mind;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Jeni_0290a2fw.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
The OP can use the 15 day trial for the Tiffin Dfx plugin for CS4 &
Elements. That has some selective blurring tools which should work.
tony cooper
Sure. The $160 program has a free trial, too.
My approach, though, is to tell him what to learn how to do with what
he has so he can use that skill in the future. If he can learn how to
make a selection and drop out a background with the software that he
owns, he'll find other uses for that technique in the future.
Savageduck
Yes that will work, and I agree, he needs to master the software he is using.
Elements should be more than capable of giving him the tools he needs.
To learn the leason, it is a matter of dealing with layers, blending
modes, selection, masking & feathering selection edges. Then applying
the appropriate blur filter to taste.
He might also want to check on some of the tutorials available as Podcasts.
However he seemed to want a quick fix for a problem image he wants to
save. In that case using one of the trials SW packages would probably
serfice for now.
He should also hone his photographic skills to have a better starting
point for his new images.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:09:28 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>wrote in <87zlcgv...@apaflo.com>:
>
>>Dave Cohen <us...@example.net> wrote:
>>>> I don't use PhotoShop, but the method is rather
>>>> generic.
>>
>>Keep the term *generic* in mind. This is not, was it was
>>explicitly stated, a PhotoShop method, nor specific to any
>>particular editor.
>
>The OP asked for a method in Photoshop Elements.
This will blow you mind John, but the OP is not the only person
who will read what was in that article. Likewise the OP may not
always be using that same software.
Floyd L. Davidson
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:46:06 -0700, J�rgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in <1bts25ddmc317i07r...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>> Suggestion for next time: use a lens with a large apperture wide open,
>>> thus creating a very shallow DOF.
>> Gee, that's really helpful.
>
>It'll give dramatically better results than trying to do it in PS.
Actually it will be dramatically better if well done using post
processing. Not that creative use of the hardware isn't a good
idea, because it is. And given most of what has been described
as the way to do it, you are right.
Educating The Rudimentary Photoshop Snapshooter Hicks
wrote:
>Educating The Rudimentary Photoshop Snapshooter Hicks wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:11 +1000, daveFaktor <davef...@this.group>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> J�rgen Exner wrote:
>>>> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>>> Suggestion for next time: use a lens with a large apperture wide open,
>>>> thus creating a very shallow DOF.
>>>>
>>>> jue
>>> For now... There is a Photoshop plugin for creating a Depth of Field map
>>> which you can then use to blur the picture from the focus point back (or
>>> forward). It's not free but it works exceptionally well if you are
>>> willing to spend the time to learn how to use it properly.
>>
>> That feature is built into Photol[*SLAP!*]
>
>Still waiting to see a few of your professional P&S shots, kook.
Tell me again why I'm supposed to help moron pretend-photographer TROLLS
like you for free, more than I already do? I'd love to hear this one!
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just looking at 30x30 thumbnails from only one page of just one of my
galleries would give you a massive education in composition that you'd
never forget. Then moron snapshooter trolls like you would attempt to mimic
everything that you learned, applying it to everything that any of you
would ever do in life. You'd have to pay more than you have ever been worth
just for that simple lesson alone. Do you honestly think that I would ever
want to help any of you ignorant and disingenuous jackoffs with anything
that's really important about the art of photography? You moronic and
useless cretin of a back-alley bitch. LOL!!!!!!
Keep begging, fuck-face! LOL!!!!!!! Assume position! Want me to remind you
again where you left your knee-pads?
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John Navas
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<hqhu251jds2vomvbb...@4ax.com>:
Point taken.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
John Navas
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<7bgu2514j8gaouktc...@4ax.com>:
>I freely admit that I can't keep track of the pseudonyms that posters
>use here. I *think* "davefaktor" is Doug what's-his-name from Oz. I
>*don't* think that John Navas is the same guy. I have no idea if John
>Navas is linking to the same program that "davefaktor" is talking
>about. It's possible, very possible, that there is more than one PS
>plug-in that alters depth-of-field.
There is more than one.
>... couldn't pool your common sense
>and figure out how to get out of the rain.
Ad hominem only hurts you.
>The OP has a $99 program
>in Elements 7.0, and you two are recommending a US$ 160/AUD$ 198
>program so he can modify a snapshot.
As one of several options.
There are good reasons to use Elements other than cost (e.g., ease).
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
John Navas
<2009060922452637709-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom>:
>... The OP has a $99 program
>> in Elements 7.0, and you two are recommending a US$ 160/AUD$ 198
>> program so he can modify a snapshot.
>
>The OP can use the 15 day trial for the Tiffin Dfx plugin for CS4 &
>Elements. That has some selective blurring tools which should work.
>http://www.tiffen.com/dfx_v2_home.html
FocalPoint has a 30-day free trial:
<http://www.ononesoftware.com/downloads/>
John Navas
wrote in <8763f4v...@apaflo.com>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:09:28 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>>wrote in <87zlcgv...@apaflo.com>:
>>
>>>Dave Cohen <us...@example.net> wrote:
>>>>> I don't use PhotoShop, but the method is rather
>>>>> generic.
>>>
>>>Keep the term *generic* in mind. This is not, was it was
>>>explicitly stated, a PhotoShop method, nor specific to any
>>>particular editor.
>>
>>The OP asked for a method in Photoshop Elements.
>
>This will blow you mind John, but the OP is not the only person
>who will read what was in that article. Likewise the OP may not
>always be using that same software.
Not to worry -- my mind still seems to be pretty much the same (for
better or for worse). I personally think it's not terribly helpful to
suggest a solution that's not responsive to the original question, but
then I'm guessing you weren't paying all that much attention to the
original question ... hmmm? ;)
"Stay on target, Luke, stay on target!"
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail."
-Abraham Maslow
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:01:18 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>wrote in <8763f4v...@apaflo.com>:
>
>>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:09:28 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>>>wrote in <87zlcgv...@apaflo.com>:
>>>
>>>>Dave Cohen <us...@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I don't use PhotoShop, but the method is rather
>>>>>> generic.
>>>>
>>>>Keep the term *generic* in mind. This is not, was it was
>>>>explicitly stated, a PhotoShop method, nor specific to any
>>>>particular editor.
>>>
>>>The OP asked for a method in Photoshop Elements.
>>
>>This will blow you mind John, but the OP is not the only person
>>who will read what was in that article. Likewise the OP may not
>>always be using that same software.
>
>Not to worry -- my mind still seems to be pretty much the same (for
>better or for worse). I personally think it's not terribly helpful to
>suggest a solution that's not responsive to the original question, but
>then I'm guessing you weren't paying all that much attention to the
>original question ... hmmm? ;)
>
>"Stay on target, Luke, stay on target!"
Did you by any chance notice that my article actually was
useful, and the video you recommended was not?
John Navas
wrote in <87d49ct...@apaflo.com>:
Once again we'll have to agree to disagree. [gasp!]
What I actually posted was a number of different responsive solutions.
C J Campbell
> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>
> I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.
>
> Regards Brian
>
Create a new layer and use Gaussian blur to blur the entire picture to
what you want. Then use the History brush to paint back the portions
you want sharp.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Matt Clara
news:871vpsv...@apaflo.com...
Depending on several factors, it can be quite difficult to create an
effective mask around an individual, particularly if the subject has wispy
hair. Once that is mastered, however, I recommend Alien Skin's Bokeh filter
for creating the OOF effects. Other than that, PS's Lens Blur filter is all
right, too.
John McWilliams
It may be helpful, John, to know that Floyd has never been wrong in the
photo NGs....
--
john mcwilliams
John Navas
wrote in <h0ojft$5r6$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
Thanks for the tip. ;)
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
Savageduck
<christophercam...@hotmail.com> said:
Actually CJ, that seems to be a pretty simple & elegant solution which
should work for the OP and his copy of Elements.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
John Navas
>On 2009-06-10 08:13:08 -0700, C J Campbell
><christophercam...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>> On 2009-06-09 07:26:08 -0700, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> said:
>>
>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>>
>>> I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.
>> Create a new layer and use Gaussian blur to blur the entire picture to
>> what you want. Then use the History brush to paint back the portions
>> you want sharp.
>
>Actually CJ, that seems to be a pretty simple & elegant solution which
>should work for the OP and his copy of Elements.
There is no History Brush in Elements, only in full Photoshop.
Work-around:
<http://www.adobetutorialz.com/articles/336/1/How-can-I-simulate-Photoshop%92s-History-brush-when-using-Elements%3F>
Savageduck
<christophercam...@hotmail.com> said:
I just tried that technique, and as a quick fix it does a pretty good
job and is very easy. Certainly other work might need to be done on the
final product, but the effect is simple to implement.
Here is your technique used on the snapshot I had done a quick fix on
earlier. It could do with some other work, but it demonstrates the
effect.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Jeni_0290a3w.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
Oops!
>
I haven't used Elements for years.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Brian
>Brian wrote:
>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>
>> I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.
>
>Better to use a wide open lens in the first place.
This does not always work if the background is close to the subject.
Photographing someone in a shop standing in front of items for sale
can be a problem and on some camera's there is a limit on how wide
open the lens can be. That's why I depend on photo editing programs.
Regards Brian
Brian
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:46:06 -0700, J�rgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in <1bts25ddmc317i07r...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>> Suggestion for next time: use a lens with a large apperture wide open,
>>> thus creating a very shallow DOF.
>>
>> Gee, that's really helpful.
>
>It'll give dramatically better results than trying to do it in PS.
But only if it's possible. If the person is standing in front of an
object there is very little dept of field between the two objects.
Regards Brian
Brian
Thanks Campbell tht seems like a simple solution.
Regards Brian
Brian
The effect in the photo looks good. My background is closer to th
person so I'm hoping that burring the background will still look
natural. It seems to work for closeup's of flowers.
J�rgen Exner
>Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:46:06 -0700, J�rgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote in <1bts25ddmc317i07r...@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>>> Suggestion for next time: use a lens with a large apperture wide open,
>>>> thus creating a very shallow DOF.
>>
>
>But only if it's possible. If the person is standing in front of an
>object there is very little dept of field between the two objects.
Well, yes and no. With an f/1.4 or similar you have such a shallow DOF
that you need to be careful to have both, nose and ears in focus.
But of course you are right, that's not always possible, in particular
it requires you have such a lens on hand when you need it. :-)
jue
daveFaktor
Oh yeah... I'd just love a 24 - 70 F1.4 lens!
Bob Larter
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:01:32 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Educating The Rudimentary Photoshop Snapshooter Hicks wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:11 +1000, daveFaktor <davef...@this.group>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J�rgen Exner wrote:
>>>>> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>>>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>>>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>>>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>>>> Suggestion for next time: use a lens with a large apperture wide open,
>>>>> thus creating a very shallow DOF.
>>>>>
>>>>> jue
>>>> For now... There is a Photoshop plugin for creating a Depth of Field map
>>>> which you can then use to blur the picture from the focus point back (or
>>>> forward). It's not free but it works exceptionally well if you are
>>>> willing to spend the time to learn how to use it properly.
>>> That feature is built into Photol[*SLAP!*]
>> Still waiting to see a few of your professional P&S shots, kook.
>
> Tell me again why I'm supposed to help moron pretend-photographer TROLLS
> like you for free, more than I already do? I'd love to hear this one!
Gee, you can't produce any shots - what a surprise.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> On 2009-06-09 22:07:40 -0700, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> said:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:57:56 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in <4a2f3d58$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>
>>> Brian wrote:
>>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Just a snap shot with a quick fix, but this might be the sort of thing
> the OP has in mind;
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Jeni_0290a2fw.jpg
Ouch.
Bob Larter
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:57:56 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
> wrote in <4a2f3d58$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>
>> Brian wrote:
>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>>
>>> I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.
>> Better to use a wide open lens in the first place.
>
> Not terribly helpful after the fact.
True, but the OP will know better for next time.
Bob Larter
> Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Brian wrote:
>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>>
>>> I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.
>> Better to use a wide open lens in the first place.
>
> This does not always work if the background is close to the subject.
Sure it does. Try filling the frame with your subject at F1.8 or F1.4 -
your DoF will be only inches deep.
> Photographing someone in a shop standing in front of items for sale
> can be a problem and on some camera's there is a limit on how wide
> open the lens can be. That's why I depend on photo editing programs.
Each to their own, but IMHO that's an ugly compromise.
Bob Larter
Much better than your previous example.
Savageduck
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-06-09 22:07:40 -0700, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> said:
>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:57:56 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote in <4a2f3d58$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>
>>>> Brian wrote:
>>>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.
>>>>
>>>> Better to use a wide open lens in the first place.
>>>
>>> Not terribly helpful after the fact.
>>
>> Just a snap shot with a quick fix, but this might be the sort of thing
>> the OP has in mind;
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Jeni_0290a2fw.jpg
>
> Ouch.
I said it was a quick fix!!
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-06-10 08:13:08 -0700, C J Campbell
>> <christophercam...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>> On 2009-06-09 07:26:08 -0700, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> said:
>>>
>>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>>>
>>>> I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.
>>>>
>>>> Regards Brian
>>>>
>>>
>>> Create a new layer and use Gaussian blur to blur the entire picture to
>>> what you want. Then use the History brush to paint back the portions
>>> you want sharp.
>>
>> I just tried that technique, and as a quick fix it does a pretty good
>> job and is very easy. Certainly other work might need to be done on the
>> final product, but the effect is simple to implement.
>>
>> Here is your technique used on the snapshot I had done a quick fix on
>> earlier. It could do with some other work, but it demonstrates the
>> effect.
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Jeni_0290a3w.jpg
>
> Much better than your previous example.
Well it needed some work, but it was only to illustrate a point, not to
provide the World DMac studio perfection.
...was that the appropriate level of sarcasm?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Educating The Rudimentary Photoshop Snapshooter Hicks
wrote:
LOL! Try your kindergarten-level manipulations on something that might have
you one day. LOL!!!!!! As a full-time resident troll you're not doing a
very good job.
Awww.. but whatsa matter Boo-bie? C'mon, you can tell us. Your own life
isn't interesting enough and you are that desperate to see some decent
photography from reality for once in your sad and pathetic imaginary-life?
That's what comes from living in your mommy's basement 24/7 while
pretending to be a photographer in newsgroups.
All that aside ... HOLY FUCK! How many set of knee-pads do you plan on
wearing out with your whiney-assed begging? What you really need is someone
to shove something in your throat while you're down there, just to shut you
the fuck-up if nothing else. Anyone want to make that sacrifice for the
benefit of humanity?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
daveFaktor
Well you missed by a long shot there. That's just about the best example
of everything not to do with the blur tool anyone could come up with.
Dave C
wrote:
What do you expect from someone that can only pretend to be a photographer
on the internet. They don't know how to use any image editors properly. All
they can ever do is verbally ape what they've read elsewhere and then badly
try to mimic that info when put to the task.
Give the useless troll a break, it's the best it'll ever do or be. It's all
it's got.
Savageduck
Hi Doug,
I was waiting for that.
Why am I not surprised?
You might have noted this was not meant to be that Dougie perfect
studio shot, even when it was shot.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
Well, as I said it was never meant to be perfect, unlike the fantasy
images you lack the courage to post.
...OH! I forgot you don't even own a camera you just play a P&S owner
troll on the Usenet.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Floyd L. Davidson
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>
>>> Well you missed by a long shot there. That's just
>>> about the best example
>>> of everything not to do with the blur tool anyone could come up with.
>Well, as I said it was never meant to be perfect, ...
Skipping all the useless insults, it was in fact a great example
of exactly why that particular technique is recommended by those
with little experience. It is the *obvious* way to do it... but
it is also exceedingly unlikely to produce quality results
either!
And in fact both of the examples you posted show exactly the
results one can expect, absent an extreme amount of tedious
work. It just isn't worth doing it that way.
If you are willing to post an unaltered image, I'll be happy to
show two or three different attempts at custom editing on that
particular picture, with your permission. Even then, it will
not necessarily be something that everyone will grade the same
way. Some might not like any of the edits, and other will grade
them in different orders. It would only be an added example of
what can be done, not a definition of what is "right".
And, assuming you are willing to donate that image... maybe
others would contribute their examples of what can be done.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Savageduck
Thanks for the offer Floyd, but at this stage I will decline otherwise
this thread will get beyond the OP into a whole new area.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Floyd L. Davidson
Horrors.
John Navas
wrote in <4a3089ba$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>Brian wrote:
>> Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Brian wrote:
>>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>>>
>>>> I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.
>>> Better to use a wide open lens in the first place.
>>
>> This does not always work if the background is close to the subject.
>
>Sure it does. Try filling the frame with your subject at F1.8 or F1.4 -
>your DoF will be only inches deep.
Depends on the focal distance, and the lens may well not be that fast.
<http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm>
It may well be impractical or impossible to achieve the desired effect
with lens alone.
Bob Larter
<grin>
Bob Larter
Still no photos from you - I'm shocked.
Bob Larter
If you don't have any fast lenses, that's a reasonable point. OTOH, I'd
argue that everyone should own at least a 50mm/F1.8 prime. It's not like
that's an expensive lens for any camera.
Bob Larter
<grin> The fact that you filled the frame was enough to make it superior
to the shots our favourite wedding photographer gets.
John Navas
wrote in <4a31d47b$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:36:10 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in <4a3089ba$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>
>>> Brian wrote:
>>>> This does not always work if the background is close to the subject.
>>> Sure it does. Try filling the frame with your subject at F1.8 or F1.4 -
>>> your DoF will be only inches deep.
>>
>> Depends on the focal distance, and the lens may well not be that fast.
>> <http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm>
>>
>> It may well be impractical or impossible to achieve the desired effect
>> with lens alone.
>
>If you don't have any fast lenses, that's a reasonable point. OTOH, I'd
>argue that everyone should own at least a 50mm/F1.8 prime. It's not like
>that's an expensive lens for any camera.
True, but it may not be with you and it's not flexible. Even if you
have the 50 mm with you, it may not be the right focal length for the
task at hand. I personally prefer 100 mm for portrait work and shallow
depth of field. Many people prefer a single slower zoom lens to lugging
around a full kit.
Alfred Molon
says...
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> >I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
> >I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
> >not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
> >person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>
> thus creating a very shallow DOF.
How do you know he is using a DSLR?
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Bob Larter
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:07:23 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
> wrote in <4a31d47b$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:36:10 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote in <4a3089ba$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>
>>>> Brian wrote:
>
>>>>> This does not always work if the background is close to the subject.
>
>>>> Sure it does. Try filling the frame with your subject at F1.8 or F1.4 -
>>>> your DoF will be only inches deep.
>>> Depends on the focal distance, and the lens may well not be that fast.
>>> <http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm>
>>>
>>> It may well be impractical or impossible to achieve the desired effect
>>> with lens alone.
>> If you don't have any fast lenses, that's a reasonable point. OTOH, I'd
>> argue that everyone should own at least a 50mm/F1.8 prime. It's not like
>> that's an expensive lens for any camera.
>
> True, but it may not be with you and it's not flexible. Even if you
> have the 50 mm with you, it may not be the right focal length for the
> task at hand. I personally prefer 100 mm for portrait work and shallow
> depth of field.
On a full-frame camera, I'd go with a 85mm or 100mm myself. On a 1.6x
crop body, 50mm is a great length.
> Many people prefer a single slower zoom lens to lugging
> around a full kit.
Each to their own. I'd rather a fast prime than a zoom, myself.
John Navas
wrote in <4a322eb0$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> True, but it may not be with you and it's not flexible. Even if you
>> have the 50 mm with you, it may not be the right focal length for the
>> task at hand. I personally prefer 100 mm for portrait work and shallow
>> depth of field.
>
>On a full-frame camera, I'd go with a 85mm or 100mm myself. On a 1.6x
>crop body, 50mm is a great length.
100 mm (90-105 mm) is actually my preference for a 1.5x-1.6x crop
factor. When shooting full frame, my favorite length is 135 mm (e.g.,
Nikkor AF 2.0 135 mm DC) or even 160 mm, although a fast 100 mm is less
expensive and workable.
John Navas
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
<2009061109123981735-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom>:
Sounds like a good idea to me, in a new thread if you wish -- I think it
would be instructive to see the results of the various methods of
artificially creating shallow depth of field, perhaps even to the OP.
Savageduck
I'll think about that, however I have some non-photo, non-NG stuff to
do this weekend.
In retirement I have the social life of a stump, so when things come up
it takes more effort than I find comfortable expending.
Then on Monday I am heading off to the Sierras for a week away from my
usual stomping grounds on the Central Coast. If I manage to get any
shots remotely beyond the cliche Adams attempts I will post them.
--
Regards,
Savageduck