Paul Martin Posted April 19, 2021 Share Posted April 19, 2021 I have been trying to apply gaussian blur to a selected area of a photograph, in this case the baclground to a picture of a rose. For reasons I don't underatand, the whole picture is blurred instead of just the selection. Rose and lizard first attempt.afphotoWhat am I doing wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconoclast Posted April 19, 2021 Share Posted April 19, 2021 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Martin Posted April 20, 2021 Author Share Posted April 20, 2021 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl123 Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 Work fine here with your uploaded file Are you able to record a video showing what happens on your screen? Quote 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 More sharing options...
Paul Martin Posted April 20, 2021 Author Share Posted April 20, 2021 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)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Failix Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 It really works quite simply with your file. Here is a screen recording: Regards, Felix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl123 Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 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 Quote 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 More sharing options...
iconoclast Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 Could you make a screenshot with the layers panel visible, the selection and the unwanted effect? Possibly this may help us somehow to understand the problem. Can't reproduce what you are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconoclast Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 An idea: did you use the Gaußian Blur of the Layer Effects? This is the only way for me to reproduce your problem. In fact, this effects on the whole layer. You should better use the Live Filter effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Martin Posted April 20, 2021 Author Share Posted April 20, 2021 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Failix Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconoclast Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 About the difference between image and pixel layers: https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/tutorials/photo/desktop/video/365012457/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Martin Posted April 20, 2021 Author Share Posted April 20, 2021 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconoclast Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Failix Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 I think I got it. Thank you, iconoclast! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy05 Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 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. Quote »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 More sharing options...
iconoclast Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Martin Posted April 20, 2021 Author Share Posted April 20, 2021 Sadly, I haven't a clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Failix Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 @iconoclastYou can only change an image within its original dimensions, but not enlarge it beyond that. Is similar to the smart objects in Photoshop, where the original image is not changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bruce Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 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. Quote Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 12.7.4 Affinity Designer 2.4.1 | Affinity Photo 2.4.1 | Affinity Publisher 2.4.1 | 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 More sharing options...
iconoclast Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl123 Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 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. Quote 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 More sharing options...
loukash Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 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. iconoclast 1 Quote 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 More sharing options...
iconoclast Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 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. 😄 loukash 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Failix Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 Und dann werden wir von den anderen "Looser" genannt ... 😁 Alfred, iconoclast and Joachim_L 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.