Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

Applying blur to a selection in Photo


Recommended Posts

Hi Paul!

You have selected the background. And if I try to blur it in your document, it works correctly. Don't know what you are doing wrong.

One additional hint: you should use the Live Filter "Gaußian Blur", because with it you can adjust the Blur later again, if you find that it is to strong or to weak (non-destructive filtering).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, iconoclast said:

Hi Paul!

You have selected the background. And if I try to blur it in your document, it works correctly. Don't know what you are doing wrong.

One additional hint: you should use the Live Filter "Gaußian Blur", because with it you can adjust the Blur later again, if you find that it is to strong or to weak (non-destructive filtering).

Thanks, Ike, but in my case the whole image blurs rather than just the selected part.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Work fine here with your uploaded file

Are you able to record a video showing what happens on your screen?

To save time I am currently using an automated AI to reply to some posts on this forum. If any of "my" posts are wrong or appear to be total b*ll*cks they are the ones generated by the AI. If correct they were probably mine. I apologise for any mistakes made by my AI - I'm sure it will improve with time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, carl123 said:

Work fine here with your uploaded file

Are you able to record a video showing what happens on your screen?

Thanks, Carl, but I don't think I can do that. I'm trying to achieve "background blur, foreground sharp" with other images but so far unsuccessfully. How do you approach this task (which must be very common)?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paul Martin said:

How do you approach this task (which must be very common)?

It is and it's very easy, that's why a video of what happens to you may be of help in seeing why you can't do it

If you have no "video capture software" then using your mobile to record the screen and uploading that may still be useful

To save time I am currently using an automated AI to reply to some posts on this forum. If any of "my" posts are wrong or appear to be total b*ll*cks they are the ones generated by the AI. If correct they were probably mine. I apologise for any mistakes made by my AI - I'm sure it will improve with time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you both - success! I had been trying to achieve this through the Layers studio panel rather than as shown in your video.

Sometimes Affinity just baffles me. I still don't understand why I have to use Rasterize and Trim - I've never used a photo application that required anything similar. But then I was never and Adobe user!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to use layer effects, make a duplicate of your selection first (Ctrl+J). In this new layer, which of course does not contain the rose blossom, the effect will work as desired.

The "Rasterize and Trim" also amazed me. I always thought pixels are pixels are pixels ... Maybe someone can explain, would be great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, iconoclast said:

About the difference between image and pixel layers: https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/tutorials/photo/desktop/video/365012457/

Ta very much, Ike. James Ritson as his usual classic, clear self. (Which you can't say for all tutorial presenters.)

I don't think I fully understand him, but I will look out for pixel v image layers another time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I understand, the basic point is that image layers are none-destructive - you can't manipulate them as image layers - and they cause much less file sizes. So if you need to insert a layer that must not  - or even shall not - be modyfied, you can better insert it as an image layer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, iconoclast said:

As far as I understand, the basic point is that image layers are none-destructive - you can't manipulate them as image layers - and they cause much less file sizes. So if you need to insert a layer that must not  - or even shall not - be modyfied, you can better insert it as an image layer.

Yes, another benefit is that image layers (internally) keep their original resolution. So, even if you resize them back and forth over and over again, they'll not lose quality.

»A designer's job is to improve the general quality of life. In fact, it's the only reason for our existence.«
Paul Rand (1914-1996)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Andy05 said:

Yes, another benefit is that image layers (internally) keep their original resolution. So, even if you resize them back and forth over and over again, they'll not lose quality.

I already heard about this, but it is not clear to me how this works. For example, if I have an image with a resolution of 2000x3000 pixels, If I resize it, for example by the factor 2; how can it keep it's quality? If it wont be resampled, the pixels must be stretched, what would result in a loss of quality (a pixelated image). If it would be resampled, it would loose its sharpness. So how does this work? Or is it an effect that saves the quality only in case of repeated scaling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, iconoclast said:

I already heard about this, but it is not clear to me how this works. For example, if I have an image with a resolution of 2000x3000 pixels, If I resize it, for example by the factor 2; how can it keep it's quality? If it wont be resampled, the pixels must be stretched, what would result in a loss of quality (a pixelated image). If it would be resampled, it would loose its sharpness. So how does this work? Or is it an effect that saves the quality only in case of repeated scaling?

Of course it will be resampled. Consider the case where the image is placed at a smaller size (200 x 300) pixels, the (Image) Layer still has the 2000 x 3000 information so it can be increased or decreased and when it comes time to export the conversion will be based on the original 2000 x 3000 pixels, not the placed 200 x 300.

Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 12.7.4 
Affinity Designer 2.4.0 | Affinity Photo 2.4.0 | Affinity Publisher 2.4.0 | Beta versions as they appear.

I have never mastered color management, period, so I cannot help with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paul Martin said:

Sadly, I haven't a clue.

I think, the point is that the image layer will only loose quality once, while a pixel layer will be resampled and loose a bit of its quality every time you transform it (scaling, rotating, perspective warp...). Even the image layer will be resampled relatively to the resolution of the document it is placed in. But, as I said, only once.

Just as Old Bruce confirmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Image layers can also be linked which keeps the overall size of the Affinity document smaller

Once rasterised they become part of the document and thus add to its native file size.  

To save time I am currently using an automated AI to reply to some posts on this forum. If any of "my" posts are wrong or appear to be total b*ll*cks they are the ones generated by the AI. If correct they were probably mine. I apologise for any mistakes made by my AI - I'm sure it will improve with time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, iconoclast said:

loose

Nur eine kleine Zwischenbemerkung bzw. ein kleiner Englisch-Nachhilfeunterricht:

"loose" = locker, lose

Was du eigentlich meinst:
lose = verlieren

Die Aussprache ist allerdings ähnlich.

MacBookAir 15": MacOS Ventura > Affinity v1, v2, v2 beta // MacBookPro 15" mid-2012: MacOS El Capitan > Affinity v1 / MacOS Catalina > Affinity v1, v2, v2 beta // iPad 8th: iPadOS 16 > Affinity v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, loukash said:

Nur eine kleine Zwischenbemerkung bzw. ein kleiner Englisch-Nachhilfeunterricht:

"loose" = locker, lose

Was du eigentlich meinst:
lose = verlieren

Die Aussprache ist allerdings ähnlich.

Danke! Einer meiner klassischen Englisch-Fehler, die ich so lange hartnäckig wiederholen werde, bis alle hier einknicken und nur noch auf Deutsch posten. 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.