Should Some Blur Filters Be Allowed?

06/06/2002 01:21:11 PM · #1

Since sharpen filters are allowed, does it make sense to allow some blurs? As GeneralE said in another thread, â��Blur, Blur More, and Gaussian Blur would seem to be logical extensions of allowed tools -- sort of like setting "negative" values for the Unsharp Mask filter. However, directional blurs (radial, motion, etc.) violate the intent of the site restrictions and should still not be allowed.â��

What do you think?

irae

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8

06/06/2002 01:25:04 PM · #2

Count me in. (That ought to kill it)

FranziskaLang

Nikon D100

06/06/2002 02:27:57 PM · #3

LOL.

Fine by me as long as we don't get loooong weekly recurring forum discussions on how some voters just don't get your artistic use of the blur filter . . .

Originally posted by irae:
Count me in. (That ought to kill it)

hokie

Nikon D2X

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

06/06/2002 02:51:19 PM · #4

blur might help to get depth of field on a digital camera because depth of field is something digital cameras get a lot of..meaning they get lots of detail deeper in the photo than most film cameras.

So a bit of a blur control might help us get that film quality.

HOWEVER..big howver..the trick is we usually limit filters to ones that effect the WHOLE photo..not just parts.

I can't see a blur filter helping unless you are able to to do spot blurs or masking blurs..which I do not think the owners of the site want us to get into (spot editing).

We start getting into spot editing that is a pandoras box.

So..in the long run..I can't see how allowing complet photo blurs is a good thing :-)

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

06/06/2002 03:02:14 PM · #5

Originally posted by hokie:
HOWEVER..big howver..the trick is we usually limit filters to ones that effect the WHOLE photo..not just parts.

I can''t see a blur filter helping unless you are able to to do spot blurs or masking blurs..which I do not think the owners of the site want us to get into (spot editing).

I''m not at all in favor of spot editing. I often use Gaussian Blur on a layer and then blend that layer with another. I haven''t done anything with multiple layers yet with a photo here, but I''m interested in hearing if people think that violates the intent of the rules, because I might like to do that in the future.

I have an example photo in mind, but I''m at work, so I''ll have to upload it and post a link tonight.

* This message has been edited by the author on 6/6/2002 3:05:27 PM.

hokie

Nikon D2X

06/06/2002 03:23:19 PM · #6

Yes...using multiple layers is ..the way the site has been administered to this point..a violation TO MY UNDERSTANDING.

How anyone would check for this I do not know..my knowledge of photo editing does not include the ability how to check to see if someone used a multiply layer, overlay, or whatever to acheive something if they were skilled enough to do so without leaving a trail.

I feel comfortable that I could get away with it and therefore that others could. But I don't take winning serious enough to go that far.

In my opinion..(just my opinion) I get my a$$ beat enough by the likes of Tim and Gordon and others with straight photo skill that I think I need to work on that aspect more than my ability to push a pixel. :-)

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

06/06/2002 03:47:26 PM · #7

Hrrm... since I use the gimp and not photoshop, and the gimp doesn't seem to have the channel mixing capabilities that people were talking about in the discussions about converting photos to black and white, I used the decompose function to create 3 separate grey scale images from the red, green and blue channels, then layered them and used the opacity slider on each layer (with a white background layer) to get what I thought was the same functionality. Would this have been a violation? (Sorry if this seems confusing, it's very late and I can't sleep :|).

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/06/2002 03:51:12 PM · #8

Originally posted by lisae:
Hrrm... since I use the gimp and not photoshop, and the gimp doesn't seem to have the channel mixing capabilities that people were talking about in the discussions about converting photos to black and white, I used the decompose function to create 3 separate grey scale images from the red, green and blue channels, then layered them and used the opacity slider on each layer (with a white background layer) to get what I thought was the same functionality. Would this have been a violation? (Sorry if this seems confusing, it's very late and I can't sleep :|).

That sounds OK to me, but then I think layers are OK as long as you don't spot edit.

As for the sleep thing - I have a nice, boring manual you can read. ;-)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/06/2002 03:58:59 PM · #9

Originally posted by hokie:
Yes...using multiple layers is ..the way the site has been administered to this point..a violation TO MY UNDERSTANDING.

Although, I've used an Adjustment Layer (PS 5.0) to retain the ability to modify the tone range later.

As long as there is no SELECTION (alpha channel), any effect applied to a layer would apply to the "whole" image. The most recent example is the excellent tutorial on using the channel mixer to convert color to grayscale -- or applying tone adjustments separately to each of the color channels.

To duplicate a layer, apply a blur filter, and then merge it back with the original is almost exactly a description of how an UnSharp Mask was applied in the analog world...

If we won't be able to detect the use of layers, I suggest we simply state it that the use of selections/selction tools is prohibited, as is the moving or modification of any pixel, except via the use of the specifically-approved filters.

If I had an SLR I could twist the lens way around and turn an ordinary photo into shapes of color/gray -- which my be what my "artistic vision" calls for. I see nothing wrong with sending an image through Gaussian Blur if it will help. I don't think people here are so interested in created composited/SFX shots (for this site) that we'd have too many DQ requests to investigate.

I'm going to try and find an example of an image I'd want to blur, to post later -- there is one by someone else in the current (B+W) challenge I commented I would have tried blurring.

hokie

Nikon D2X

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

06/06/2002 08:24:32 PM · #10

Me personally, I would only prohibit the use of spot editing and altering/removing elements like cloning..masks, airbrush and stuff like that that change the composition fo the photo. Even then learning to use masks for photos that have multiple planes of interest is a pretty important skill to have as a photographer as well.

One of the things all photographers who own $300 plus cameras (really all cameras) who are planning on contributing photos to a website should have is good photo editing software. I think Photoshop elements is $89 bucks and very powerful for the money.

Using layers is a very easy (and essential ) skill to learn in photo editing and the Overlays, Multiply, Screen. Burn and Dodge (etc) effects are unique and necessary to get great photo results when sometimes a great photo is waiting under some less than ideal circumstances...which I think we all understand.

These filters still do not get into the heavy alterations that are used by professionals but are tools that help raise the experience of novice photographers up enough to really help them produce better photos.

Anyway, I have sent in several photos to the contest that I liked but needed altering beyond DP challenge rules for my personal use to bring out the best in the photo. It doesn't bug me I missed a point here or there for the needed edits.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

06/07/2002 01:25:13 AM · #11

As promised, here is an example of what I would like to be able to do. There is no spot editing in this photo. Warning for those of you who don't like cuteness - the example is a flower. ;-)

Ricky Cleave

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

06/07/2002 03:04:25 AM · #12

I don't know if anybody cares but a very cheap way to create a blur is to apply vaseline to your lense, I've never tried this but its sounds like you could get some pretty interesting effects

magnetic9999

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

06/07/2002 09:12:41 AM · #13

anarchos, lol. i think that was a figure of speech/joke used to describe the soft focus of the pictures in those certain kinds of magazines that make you "reach for the vaseline".

in reality, those people use a $30 diffusion filter. works really well and doesn't ruin your gear. : )

Originally posted by anarchos_punk:
I don't know if anybody cares but a very cheap way to create a blur is to apply vaseline to your lense, I've never tried this but its sounds like you could get some pretty interesting effects

magnetic9999

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

06/07/2002 09:15:21 AM · #14

amphian, fwiw, i like flower photos just fine. but i dont think that the blur really adds to your picture. in fact i prefer the detail in the non blurred version.

however, i do see the merit in the "mood" that you''re going for. i guess it''s subjective.

i use spot blur to add depth of field effects when the digital camera gives me too much DOF.

btw, if anyone hasn''t checked it out, there''s a little tutorial on DOF here : )

Depth of Field for Digital Cameras, A Brief Primer

Originally posted by Amphian:
As promised, here is an example of what I would like to be able to do. There is no spot editing in this photo. Warning for those of you who don''t like cuteness - the example is a flower. ;-)

* This message has been edited by the author on 6/7/2002 9:19:12 AM.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

06/07/2002 09:45:28 AM · #15

I wonder how many DQ requests I would get if I posted a photo here where I used a spot filter... I may have to play around with that sometime if the opportunity to do so comes up in a challenge...

I am not really buying into the ideas of using blur filters from software in these challenges. I suppose that if you wanted to use a blur filter globally across your image that It would be ok though, even the current rules don't allow it... Just be sure that *you* are completely happy with your end result. As I read through comments on past photos in these challenges, any use or artistic blur or soft focus has been criticized quite harshly. Was it Hokie that said something about 'easter eggs' in a previous thread here? This would create a big gold easter egg.

*I* understand good blur when I see it and I usually comment on it in the challenges. I have also seen good blur that gets bad comments...

Maybe we could introduce this concept at some point with a challenge on the issue... Gordon has done a nice job of demonstrating this in his tutorial on the site....

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

06/07/2002 09:47:13 AM · #16

Magnetic, I would like to discuss your tutorial with you sometime. I am working on another tutorial for the site that contains some depth of field stuff as well... I would like to link my tutorial to yours and I would like to make my tutorial available for you to see before it goes online here... do you have any chat software so we could chat about it sometime?

Originally posted by magnetic9999:
amphian, fwiw, i like flower photos just fine. but i dont think that the blur really adds to your picture. in fact i prefer the detail in the non blurred version.

however, i do see the merit in the "mood" that you''re going for. i guess it''s subjective.

i use spot blur to add depth of field effects when the digital camera gives me too much DOF.

btw, if anyone hasn''t checked it out, there''s a little tutorial on DOF here : )

Depth of Field for Digital Cameras, A Brief Primer

Originally posted by Amphian:
[i]As promised, here is an example of what I would like to be able to do. There is no spot editing in this photo. Warning for those of you who don''t like cuteness - the example is a flower. ;-)

[/i]

magnetic9999

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

06/07/2002 10:12:23 AM · #17

sho nuff ..

check your email : )