On 4/13/2022 2:48 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
<<<That's how I get around it; use Gaussian Blur virtually always. I did work out how to
do Lens Blur, but don't recall it at the moment. I think/hope I have an annotated example. A
statue at <<<the Legion of Honor in SF?
I think that was Marnie's Vigeland statue shot in Oslo.
https://www.olyendomike.com/Norway-2018/i-RX5jJRd/A
It was much much more complicated to fix if wanted to use Lens blur. You did
work it out. Sometimes PS is inscrutable.
Nope, just looked at my work. I only used Gaussian blur on that one.
I'm not sure about your interest in lens blur. I know it Sounds better, but am
not convinced.
This is the photo I was thinking about.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Blur/LionBlur.htm>
My aim was to have blur increase with distance.
GBlur 3.5 and LBlur 11 are very similar. Without the direct comparison, equal.
LBlur 24 starts to get rather busy, a little like bad Gaussian design 50 mm lenses. I much prefer GBlur 17. To me, the
point is to look natural-ish, while not pulling attention away from the lion and El Cid.
The final uses GBlur 3.5 on the right, flowing into a gradient GBlur 17, right
to left, with GBlur 2 on the Hero.
With my new-ish computer and GPU card, Lens Blur isn't slow, but I still think
it's not for most uses.
Fuzzy Head Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|