randymoe

I don't really get it. As photographers we spend a lot of money and time trying to create 'sharp' pictures. However the Zeitgeist of this moment or cultural drift is ever into degradation of images.

I just read up on the latest Photoshop 'improvement' which will give us blurry, out of focus images.

I know it is an 'Artistic effect' and can make for an interesting image in some cases, BUT, not all the time.

Check out this latest feature.

http://www.photographyuncapped.com/adobe-photoshopsneak-peek-6-blur-gallery-new-feature-expected-in-cs6/adobe-cs6/

ward5311 Loc: Georgia

Agreed.... an OOF is just a bad shot

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

We do go in for wide apertures to blur out distracting backgrounds, when we want the viewing eye to concentrate on what is near. That is putting blur to work where there is stuff that can't be cropped out. When a shooter messes up and makes the background too sharp, then we start thinking PP. I guess this is what the guys are trying to get done with a special feature. Somehow I doubt, it will have adequate controls for putting in the fix on such shots.

Otherwise it seems to me just another tool that has small application, and often enough one with questionable value.

Guy Johnstone Loc: Ocean Shores WA

There's nothing new about looking for good ways to soften images. 60 years ago Leica made a 90 mm lens with a big black dot in the middle of the filter. Zeiss softare are brilliant for dulling. Spendy the too. When I printed portraits in the darkroom I used a diffusion filter for part of the exposure. It spread some of the highlights into the shadowed areas and created a wonderful dreamy effect. One of the things that I thought Photoshop never did very well was to soften images. If you have ever seen a close-up of Tommy Lee Jones in Hi DEF Blu-ray you've got to appreciate good diffusion. Did you ever wonder why as we grow older our eyesight deteriorates? God is merciful. Now There are a whole bunch of other trendy effects I just don't get. Like wedding photos washed out by the solar flare. There is a trend for over sharpened images turns everything sort of gray...way ugly. Most the time high definition blending looks blotchy and crappy to me.

randymoe

Guys I do understand soft focus and bokeh. I just know we are going to see this effect everywhere.

And I won't like it.

That Hipstamatic stuff on Facebook is of the same vein.

I should never take a nap, I always wake up a little off kilter.

My bad.

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

its retro lomography! low cost holga and diana cameras film light leaks and soft focus. kinda cool. if you are a photography as art kinda guy like me, you kinda get a kick out of it. if you are a photography as a science, wanted sharpness down to the subatomic level and realistic portrayl of the subject, you'll hate it. as soon as i get employed again and can afford film + development, i am gonna go to photojojo.com and order mwe a holga. its an interesting look, as well as an anti technology statement. groovy man!

egnblack Loc: San Jose, Ca.

I have been shooting out of focus for years. Now it's in vogue.:)

randymoe

I am so blind at -8 diopters I am lucky to see anything. Maybe that is why I prefer sharp images.

And I am always saying, 'what?'

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

I don't know how much "high-end" photographers will use this. However, I'd guess that there are a lot of P&S photographers who can't control DOF with their cameras. I would guess the feature works like a gradient, with the blurred effect getting more pronounced the further away from the "in-focus" point. You could probably do this now with a duplicate layer, a Gaussian blur, and a layer mask with a gradient applied.

But you guys are right, it will certainly get overdone. Imagine this effect combined with overblown HDR! <shudder>

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

I just got upgraded from -8 diopters to about -3.5 with the yellow filters removed too.

Regarding deliberate softening, remember the Vaseline smear for the lens. Then the portrait lens softening filters? What this thing is promising is a graduated softening to emulate stuff being clear up near and hazy in the distance.

It seems to me that it will be of limited use, and for a while likely have a fad like following before folks settle down. If the designers can accommodate exceptions to a uniform increase in blur from bottom to top - interpret as equal to near to distant, then they will have at least solved part of the problem. If it requires using a selection, then it is about as much work as already goes into blurring a background.

randymoe

Don't forget the silk stocking filter either.

docrob Loc: Durango, Colorado

I did. Impression is that this is a tool that will certainly be quickly over-used and used up as people jump on board the wagon and then it will fade.

It is also a tool I can see having certain unique and subtle ways to be selectively applied to enhance / diminish a line of view or a compositional component.

thanks for posting

professorwheeze Loc: Maine, USA

The black stockings weren't good enuff for IR either.

Debi Loc: Scotland

I prefer sharp images over the "new" Blurry ones. Some of these tools in photo shop are just not needed at all... just me!

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

[

[quote=Debi]I prefer sharp images over the "new" Blurry ones. Some of these tools in photo shop are just not needed at all... just me![/quote]

Ah, there good lassie, don't cast off so casually that wonderful instrument of civilization, the blur. Most fundamentally were it not for the blurring no human relationship would last for very long, especially after the honey moon and the first morning after. Were it not for the supreme distraction, there would be no chance. Beyond that, blurring memory is an aid beyond price. Then, the other relationships benefit similarly.

When we follow the transgressions of our children, were we not to blur our sight, some at least, the poor creatures would suffer an abominable amount of correction, and given the waste in that already, I would fear for all of us, as we would have no time to sow, or reap; much less to consume.

So it follows with friends, associates, co-workers, and acquaintances.

Don't you at sometime look around and seeing our fellow sufferers, wonder at how some ever came to manage over revulsion to marry such a sorry lot for the eyes? Surely they must be like a portrait, that selectively blurs what is unessential and cleave to some greater consideration?

We err to too easily dismiss all imperfections, as they can and often do perform rescue service keeping us safe from an excess of perfection. I can see that is true in my case. Don't you agree, at least to that small concession in a small excape from the passion for sharpness?

Look at that picture of me by the tree; and I have been married for over forty years. Does that not support well applied blurring?