Gaussian blur as a local adjustment?
I find myself frequently going to a external image editor just to be able to minimize background distractions with a blur. Is there the possibility that blur could be added as a new feature in the future?
Richard
Richard
0
-
I agree it would be useful, but have you tried using negative Clarity? 0 -
For more subtle things (like skin) I do use negative clarity and negative structure, but for more dramatic background blurring it isn't nearly strong enough. 0 -
[quote="Richard207" wrote:
For more subtle things (like skin) I do use negative clarity and negative structure, but for more dramatic background blurring it isn't nearly strong enough.
For skin (or more generally "areas of similar colours") there are some skin tone features in the colour editor. You may know of them but I thought I would mention it just in case you (or some future reader) has not come across them.
Not so much blurring and smoothing tones which for some things has a similar and perhaps nicer effect.
Grant0 -
but for more dramatic background blurring it isn't nearly strong enough
Have you tried stacking multiple layers? It's not nearly as clean and simple as a Blur tool with a slider, but you can stack them for greater effect.
Also, Neutral seems to be the best method to use by far for a blur.
Natural & Classic do bugger all, Punch is a bit weird as a blur, but Neutral is pretty smooth.0 -
There are several threads with this request
...0 -
[quote="WPNL" wrote:
There are several threads with this request
...
But are there as many Support Cases making the suggestion something that can be measured as a supported "official" request?
Grant0 -
I doubt it's a priority for most folk, Grant.
Because - y'know - PhotoShop...0 -
I made a case for this quite some time ago.
Photoshop? Yeah right, I'd try and "keep" users instead of telling them to to "the other side" 😉0 -
[quote="WPNL" wrote:
Photoshop? Yeah right, I'd try and "keep" users instead of telling them to to "the other side" 😉
Except that Phase One should concentrate (in my view) on their core purpose, to create a really good raw processor - i.e. something that is a competitor to Lightroom (much better than LR, I think, or at least I prefer it) rather than a competitor to PS. There will always be some things for which people may want to use PS or some equivalent such as Affinity Photo, and Capture One has got to stop somewhere if it is not to become over-bloated.
Ian0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
I doubt it's a priority for most folk, Grant.
Because - y'know - PhotoShop...
Indeed Keith.
However if there is a growing demand, perhaps from a rush of Aperture refugees in this case(?), it's not unreasonable for people to ask for a feature to be considered.
I can see the potential benefits of having a stronger one step blur effect than is currently readily available - but of course only within the context of a local adjustment.
IMO.
Grant0 -
Lightroom doesn't have gaussian blur either indeed so let's forget it then...
Oh wait, Adobe called it "negative sharpness"!
Dear Phase One, can we pleeeeeeeease have" negative sharpness too???
😉0 -
[quote="WPNL" wrote:
Lightroom doesn't have gaussian blur either indeed so let's forget it then...
Oh wait, Adobe called it "negative sharpness"!
Dear Phase One, can we pleeeeeeeease have" negative sharpness too???
😉
Negative sharpness is available in the Clarity tool.
It is possible, using more than one local adjustment layer, to add multiple clarity tools.
However there is likely a maximum negative value that can be applied to how far one can go with negative clarity in total is less than people might wish to experience.
HTH.
Grant0 -
That's not rendering the effect we're trying to achieve.
Negative sharpness is another name for blurring and pushing clarity below zero is not blurring, I hope you can see the difference 😊0 -
My gosh some of you people can be negative and narky. Is it really worth it? 0 -
"Except that Phase One should concentrate (in my view) on their core purpose"
To create the best possible quality and most efficient RAW workflow, where staying within that workflow for as long as possible generally adds to that efficiency and quality. 😊0 -
Aperture did have a Blur tool, and it worked well, unless you wanted to use it in a mask. Then it was pretty rubbish. Unfortunately, that's pretty much the only time you need a blur tool.
I think it's just hard to do masked blur well in a RAW workflow.0 -
[quote="Ian3" wrote:
[quote="WPNL" wrote:
Photoshop? Yeah right, I'd try and "keep" users instead of telling them to to "the other side" 😉
Except that Phase One should concentrate (in my view) on their core purpose, to create a really good raw processor - i.e. something that is a competitor to Lightroom (much better than LR, I think, or at least I prefer it) rather than a competitor to PS. There will always be some things for which people may want to use PS or some equivalent such as Affinity Photo, and Capture One has got to stop somewhere if it is not to become over-bloated.
Ian
This
"Jack of all trades and master of none" isn't a good thing.0 -
[quote="WPNL" wrote:
That's not rendering the effect we're trying to achieve.
Negative sharpness is another name for blurring and pushing clarity below zero is not blurring, I hope you can see the difference 😊
Pushing either or both clarity sliders to negative values introduces a blurring effect (or at least "de-focussing") in my system. However it does help if no sharpening has been applied to the area to be de-focussed.
But then if people are seeking significant blurring effects - to the point of really mashing things up - then you are correct.
Grant0 -
[quote="WPNL" wrote:
Photoshop? Yeah right, I'd try and "keep" users instead of telling them to to "the other side" 😉
What a bizarre comment!
I'm no more or less loyal to Adobe than I am to Phase One - and neither of them care one little bit about me, except to the extent that they get money out of me.
So why should me suggesting that people use a tool perfectly suited for the job under discussion, instead of proposing the shoe-horning into Capture One of functionality which it does not need (because - y'know - PhotoShop) is pimping for "the other side"?
They're all "the other side"; and they all bring something to the table: but this feature request is yet another example of trying to make Capture Oner into PhotoShop Lite simply to pander to someone's unwillingness to use the right tool for the job.
A pixel editor is the place for what we're discussing.0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
However if there is a growing demand, perhaps from a rush of Aperture refugees in this case(?), it's not unreasonable for people to ask for a feature to be considered.
Of course.
And it's just as reasonable for those of us who would rather see development resources expended differently, rather than "wasted" on developing functionality Capture One doesn't need (emphasis intentional), to push back.0 -
[quote="meanwhile" wrote:
My gosh some of you people can be negative and narky. Is it really worth it?
I'm not sure what you're reading. All I see here is a discussion.0 -
[quote="Jimmy D Uptain" wrote:
[quote="Ian3" wrote:
[quote="WPNL" wrote:
Photoshop? Yeah right, I'd try and "keep" users instead of telling them to to "the other side" 😉
Except that Phase One should concentrate (in my view) on their core purpose, to create a really good raw processor - i.e. something that is a competitor to Lightroom (much better than LR, I think, or at least I prefer it) rather than a competitor to PS. There will always be some things for which people may want to use PS or some equivalent such as Affinity Photo, and Capture One has got to stop somewhere if it is not to become over-bloated.
Ian
This
"Jack of all trades and master of none" isn't a good thing.
Yep. These.
It's pretty clear that what's being talked about here isn't considered a must-have for the majority. Yes, there have been odd posts asking for (or how to do) blurring, but in some, creative use of existing Capture One tools has done the job after all; and in the other posts, the same one or two folk with a "thing" for the idea have chimed in.
But overall? Very little interest in it.0 -
P1 gave us a Grain tool (was that by popular demand I wonder?).
Providing a Blur Tool would infuse a bit of consistency/coherency (it appears that that would be by popular demand).
Taking away the Grain Tool will of course do the same thing, in addition to saving P1 resources.
Personally I'd prefer the Blur Tool over the Grain Tool.0 -
[quote="mli20" wrote:
P1 gave us a Grain tool (was that by popular demand I wonder?)..
Grain can be considered an explicit part of the overall look of a Raw conversion/style, can't it?
Makes sense in a Raw converter, then.
Adding additional "cosmetic" selective blurring on an image-by-image basis is an utterly different thing, perfectly suited to pixel editing software.0 -
I haven't read all of the thread, but to the OP and others wanting to have some form of blurring in a layer, i've successfully used both negative clarity and the moire tool to achieve a sort of blurring. It's probably not the official Gaussion blur, but can be effective in some cases nonetheless. 0 -
Grain can be considered an explicit part of the overall look of a Raw conversion/style, can't it?
Kind of in the same way as other image aspects like, oh, I don't know, sharpness or blur?0 -
[quote="HCS" wrote:
I haven't read all of the thread, but to the OP and others wanting to have some form of blurring in a layer, i've successfully used both negative clarity and the moire tool to achieve a sort of blurring. It's probably not the official Gaussion blur, but can be effective in some cases nonetheless.
I want to add that pulling back the contrast has a "softening" affect as well.0 -
In my work several stacked minus clarity grain contrast layers do the trick.
I still Finnish in PS because their tools provide the control I need.
Such as Magic Wand for selection and then blur tools.0 -
Okay... So there are arguments to have C1 being a competitor to LR, but why is a proper gaussian blur tool, which LR has out of that equation? I can totally understand if one who doesn't use this doesn't miss it, for me it was the first thing I thought 'darn... that's too bad'.
I also understand that there should be a line drawn somewhere for which tools to add or not, I'm just trying to take part in a (users) discussion.
If you want to, I can show actual examples in which I can prove the use of this tool. The other way around is another story I guess.0 -
darn... that's too bad
Yeah, that's really what it is. It's not major, just would be nice.
I just don't get everyone going all Lana Kane about people asking for it.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
55 comments