overcoming gaussian blur habits - opinions please

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

03/05/2005 08:50:46 PM · #1

When I first learnt about the various blur and blending mode techniques about 2 years ago, I began applying them to almost every photo I took. Their effect is really stunning when used properly, but I'm wonderding if I've lost sight of a natural look somewhat.

This morning, I took this shot of my baby.

f1.8 50mm 1/20 spot metered: sharpened and resized only

What I've been doing almost automatically to this kind of shot is to:
1. duplicate the layer
2. apply gaussion blur (different amounts depending on the photo)
3. change the blending mode to soft/overlay/ or whatever is appropriate
(soft in this case)
4. brighten the bottom layer with a tone curve
5. sharpen and save

This is the (a typical) result:

f1.8 50mm 1/20 spot metered

I'm beginning to like the first one better, or is it that I'm going mad? I realised that there's a place for everything in the grand scheme of things, but what do you think?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

03/05/2005 08:54:36 PM · #2

Applkyting gaussian blur over an image that's already soft focus seems to be overkill. I use a lot of gaussian in my flower and leaf shots, but I apply it to feathered selections, not to the whole image...

Robt.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

03/05/2005 08:57:31 PM · #3

The gaussian blur isn't really used to soften an image so much as to richen the colour range and deepen the contrasts, even in shallow dof areas.

I don't feel that there's much effect on the shallow areas in terms of adding softening. At the same time, the colours are richer overall. Yes, selective blurring is a valuable technique, but its purpose is different.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

03/05/2005 08:58:48 PM · #4

I too went through a period of rather intense experimentation with this technique. I still find that for close-in portraits, it can be an enhancement, but I am applying it less these days.
In this case, I don't think it is necessary. The shallow DoF does all you need. I find myself wishing the focus point were further back, on her nearer eye. It looks like the focus just missed and the eye lies just OOF (close to the far boundary of focus).

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

03/05/2005 09:02:35 PM · #5

Originally posted by kirbic:

I too went through a period of rather intense experimentation with this technique. I still find that for close-in portraits, it can be an enhancement, but I am applying it less these days.

Thanks. I'm glad to hear that my learning curve isn't unique.

Originally posted by kirbic:

In this case, I don't think it is necessary. The shallow DoF does all you need. I find myself wishing the focus point were further back, on her nearer eye. It looks like the focus just missed and the eye lies just OOF (close to the far boundary of focus).

In this case, camera shake was the culprit. At 100% zoom, I could see that there was mild shake (it was handheld at 1/20) overall. You're right, the focus, if perfectly on the eye, would have been better that way.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

03/05/2005 09:10:49 PM · #6

It's still an absolutely precious shot of your beautiful little girl!

MAK

Leica CL

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

03/05/2005 09:53:24 PM · #7

Way too cute Jim . doesn't matter what you do to this image she will still look so adorable, I prefer the second shot simply cos of the rich colour. I have a similar habbit when sharpening an image seems I have it sorted out but Im getting tierd of the same ol' same ol', I want to learn that lovely softening technique that these NEAT IMAGE bods tend to get. that will be my next goal.. good luck in the Ansel Adams trial its been killing me, what a tough one.