• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Gaussian Blur (1 Viewer)

Hobbes2

Hobbes2

Well-known member
I'm trying to learn how to improve my photos but can't work out how to apply a gaussian blur to only parts of an image. I wondered if someone might be able to point me in the right direction please? I'd like to learn how to, say, blur out the background and foreground, leaving the object of interest in sharp focus - essentially, reducing the depth of field. Is this possible, please? I use adobe photoshop elements 3.
Thanks
Hobbes
 
Hobbes2 said:
I'm trying to learn how to improve my photos but can't work out how to apply a gaussian blur to only parts of an image. I wondered if someone might be able to point me in the right direction please? I'd like to learn how to, say, blur out the background and foreground, leaving the object of interest in sharp focus - essentially, reducing the depth of field. Is this possible, please? I use adobe photoshop elements 3.
Thanks
Hobbes
Click to expand...

Hobbes,

i'm not sure about elements but in CS3 you have to create a mask for the subject and then blur the background independently that way. Plenty of info on the web, google photoshop masks or masking. Hope that helps.
 
As Ian has indicated, you need to duplicate the layer and create a layer mask - then you can just paint the area you want the blur to apply to. I do not know if Elements 3 supports layer masks.
 
Photoshop Elements doesn't have layer masks. You could still use the duplicate layer technique then apply the blur, but you would have to use the eraser tool to remove the blur from the parts of the image that you want to be sharp.

Malcolm

I see that while I was writing this, Keith has posted the same advice.:t:
 
Last edited:
MalR said:
Photoshop Elements doesn't have layer masks. You could still use the duplicate layer technique then apply the blur, but you would have to use the eraser tool to remove the blur from the parts of the image that you want to be sharp.

Malcolm
Click to expand...
More or less the same thing as a layer mask and handy if your software does not support layer masks - I suppose if you made a mistake you would just go back one step? (whereas with a mask you just reverse the brush colour).
 
MalR said:
Photoshop Elements doesn't have layer masks. You could still use the duplicate layer technique then apply the blur, but you would have to use the eraser tool to remove the blur from the parts of the image that you want to be sharp.

Malcolm

I see that while I was writing this, Keith has posted the same advice.:t:
Click to expand...

Hi Keith and Malcolm
Thank you very much for both pointing me in the direction of the 'layer + eraser tool' technique. I've had a go and it's very effective with the added bonus of not being too difficult/time consuming. Many thanks for your help
Hobbes
 
Would be interested in seeing some examples where this has worked well for wildlife... it always looks artificial.

Tried and failed once or twice.

This is one of my better attempts but was easy really as the grass was already a bit OOF
 
Roy C said:
More or less the same thing as a layer mask and handy if your software does not support layer masks - I suppose if you made a mistake you would just go back one step? (whereas with a mask you just reverse the brush colour).
Click to expand...

That's right, Roy. The main drawback is that if you erase a large area in one go, without releasing the mouse, then find you've made a mistake, by going back one step you undo all your work and have to start again. So, it's always best to do it bit by bit, one small area at a time. From that point of view, layer masks are a bit more subtle and user friendly.

Malcolm
 
Marcus Conway - ebirder said:
Would be interested in seeing some examples where this has worked well for wildlife...
Click to expand...
Do you specifically mean gaussian blur, or just selective processing with layers and eraser brush, Marcus?

If the latter, these are all 1600 ISO with the 7D and 100-400mm.
 

Attachments

  • goldcrest_st_marys_7b.jpg
    goldcrest_st_marys_7b.jpg
    269.3 KB · Views: 132
  • goldcrest_st_marys_12.jpg
    goldcrest_st_marys_12.jpg
    277.7 KB · Views: 129
  • goldcrest_st_marys_8.jpg
    goldcrest_st_marys_8.jpg
    218.3 KB · Views: 97
  • goldcrest_st_marys_2.jpg
    goldcrest_st_marys_2.jpg
    302.2 KB · Views: 105
  • goldcrest_st_marys_1.jpg
    goldcrest_st_marys_1.jpg
    346.4 KB · Views: 135
Keith, do you ever use Gaussian blur to throw the background out of focus?

Although I posted on here about the technique in answer to Hobbes's original question, I tend to agree with Marcus that it often looks unnatural, and I don't use it myself. I tend to prefer a few passes of noise reduction to "soften" the background if I want something more than I've captured in camera.

I'd be interested to know how you approach this as your images always seem to have a lovely smooth clarity that lets the subject stand out well.

Malcolm
 
I have found that running a very heavy pass of noise reduction (topaz denoise) on the BG seems to give a more natural look than Gaussian blur. Having said that Gaussian blur can look OK but you have to be careful not to over do it in my experience.
 
Hobbes, The beauty of using gaussian blur through the layer system (in my case in elements) is the ability that having applied it there is a % slider that allows you to vary the amount of blur down to where you want it and that is anywhere from 0 to 100%.
 
Can't speak for Elements but full Photoshop has may other blurs than Gaussian. Lens Blur can be trickier to set up but mimics the depth of field reduction of wide open apertures.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

C
SWAROVSKI AX VISIO: MY LEARNINGS IN A NUTSHELL
Replies
18
Views
2K
Canip
C
G
New Swarovski Smart Binoculars
Replies
5
Views
2K
Dyrlege
D
A
Roof prisms (Svbony SV202 10x42) Chromatic aberration, cushioning, blurring at edge - comparison, example pictures?
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
Binastro
B
W
Considering a Partial Camera Upgrade - D500 w/ 200-500mm lens
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
BriLee
B
J
My First Experience Purchasing Birding Binoculars
Replies
11
Views
2K
tenex
tenex

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top