Applying blur to a selection in Photo

[iconoclast]

Just now, Failix said:

Und dann werden wir von den anderen "Looser" genannt ... 😁

Und wir werden es locker nehmen. 😂

[Alfred]

3 minutes ago, iconoclast said:

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

Many native English speakers make the same mistake! It doesn’t help that “lose” rhymes with “choose” (both of which have a “z” sound at the end) but “loose” doesn’t. And although “chose” ends with the same “z” sound as “lose”, the vowels are different. German pronunciation is much better behaved!

[Alfred]

7 minutes ago, iconoclast said:

Und wir werden es locker nehmen. 😂

Lecker! 😆

[iconoclast]

5 minutes ago, Alfred said:

...German pronunciation is much better behaved!

But don't ask Mark Twain, who wrote among others an essay called "The Awful German Language". In some points I really understand what he meant.

[loukash]

If jů vont tu häv pryty mač konzistent pronáunciäjšn änd spelink, jů šud ädopt dz Ček spelink enhánct vit ä fjů Džérmän umlaut charaktrs.

[Andy05]

4 hours ago, iconoclast said:

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...).

Exactly.

[Andy05]

3 hours ago, Alfred said:

German pronunciation is much better behaved!

Uhm. Really? "Saite "(the string on an instrument) and "Seite" (page of a book or the side of something) sound exactly the same or "sähen" (to sow) sounds similar to "sehen" (to see). In general "ai" in words sounds like "ei", "eu" sounds like "äu" and suchlike. And there are quite some more weird examples where some of the rules of "if it's written in this way, you have to pronounce it that way" (and vice versa) won't work.

[Alfred]

1 hour ago, Andy05 said:

Uhm. Really? "Saite "(the string on an instrument) and "Seite" (page of a book or the side of something) sound exactly the same or "sähen" (to sow) sounds similar to "sehen" (to see). In general "ai" in words sounds like "ei", "eu" sounds like "äu" and suchlike. And there are quite some more weird examples where some of the rules of "if it's written in this way, you have to pronounce it that way" (and vice versa) won't work.

I didn’t mean that different words never sound the same, I meant that (as per your “ai/ei” example) pronunciation is consistent, so you don’t get funny things like “s” being pronounced differently in the words “choose” and “loose”, or “o” being pronounced one way in the words “chose” and “rose” but another way in the word “lose”, and you don’t get anything like the huge range of different ways to pronounce “ough” at the end of a word.

[Andy05]

21 minutes ago, Alfred said:

I didn’t mean that different words never sound the same, I meant that (as per your “ai/ei” example) pronunciation is consistent, so you don’t get funny things like “s” being pronounced differently in the words “choose” and “loose”, or “o” being pronounced one way in the words “chose” and “rose” but another way in the word “lose”, and you don’t get anything like the huge range of different ways to pronounce “ough” at the end of a word.

We have such things, too. "Vampir" (vampire) has a long vowel "i" at the end whereas the "i" in "Pirsch" (hunt) is short.

[loukash]

Oh dear, what have I let loose?!
So, let's lose it right here right now, and get back on the actual topic:

Quote

Applying blur to a selection in Photo

 

[Alfred]

8 minutes ago, loukash said:

Oh dear, what have I let loose?!
So, let's lose it right here right now, and get back on the actual topic:

I think the OP got his answer quite a while ago, hence the discussion drifting off topic just a little bit.

8 hours ago, Paul Martin said:

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

 

[Failix]

13 hours ago, iconoclast said:

I think, the point is that the image layer will only loose quality once

Guten Morgen und noch einmal zum Thema. 🙂

The image layer does not lose its quality, which is the advantage. If you place a large image inside a much smaller one, you can later decide to enlarge the canvas of that image and scale the placed image to the new size as well, without losing any quality.

But, as I said, of course always within the limits of the original size of the placed image.

[iconoclast]

2 hours ago, Failix said:

Guten Morgen und noch einmal zum Thema. 🙂

The image layer does not lose its quality, which is the advantage. If you place a large image inside a much smaller one, you can later decide to enlarge the canvas of that image and scale the placed image to the new size as well, without losing any quality.

But, as I said, of course always within the limits of the original size of the placed image.

The important point is that even image layers consist of pixels (zoom into an image layer and you will see). And if you enlarge pixel images they will always become more pixelated (without interpolation) or less sharp (with interpolation). The advantage of image layers, as far as I understand it, is that the image layers will only be resampled once - at the moment you export the document.

[Failix]

If you position an image as an image layer, reduce it and then enlarge it back to its original size, nothing has happened at all, so to speak.  Nothing is lost, nothing is blurred.  As I already wrote, partly comparable to the smart objects in Photoshop.

[iconoclast]

On 4/21/2021 at 11:03 AM, Failix said:

If you position an image as an image layer, reduce it and then enlarge it back to its original size, nothing has happened at all, so to speak.  Nothing is lost, nothing is blurred.  As I already wrote, partly comparable to the smart objects in Photoshop.

Yes, I understand that, but if there are pixels in this "Smart Object", and you enlarge it, the pixels will be resampled at last, and that means that even the image layer will lose some quality - one time(!), while a normal pixel layer would lose quality every time you transform it, before you export the final document. The loss of quality for enlarged image layers happens only at the moment of the export and will be much smaller in most cases because of this. If it wouldn't lose quality at all, it must be witchcraft.

I suppose that technically, the keywords in this case are "linked" and "embedded". An image layer is only linked into your document, while a pixel layer is embedded. Because of this, an image layer can't really be manipulated in Photo, because it is not really opened in it.

Edit: To prove my hypothesis, just drag an image from your file manager into an opened image in Photo and then move the image file in your file manager to another place. You will get a message in Photo, that tells you, that the source of the image layer has changed.

[Failix]

I think we agree about enlarging - what has pixels cannot be enlarged beyond its original dimensions without loss of quality.

If you reduce a smart object in Photoshop and then enlarge it back to its original dimensions, there is no loss of quality at all - and that's exactly how I understand the image layer in APhoto. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I could also compare it to a linked image in APublisher or InDesign: You can shrink it in the layout and enlarge it again (within its original dimensions) without any loss of quality.

[iconoclast]

38 minutes ago, Failix said:

I think we agree about enlarging - what has pixels cannot be enlarged beyond its original dimensions without loss of quality.

If you reduce a smart object in Photoshop and then enlarge it back to its original dimensions, there is no loss of quality at all - and that's exactly how I understand the image layer in APhoto. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I could also compare it to a linked image in APublisher or InDesign: You can shrink it in the layout and enlarge it again (within its original dimensions) without any loss of quality.

The important point is the resampling (changing the quantity of the pixels of an image or a layer). You can load an image as an image file in Photo and enlarge it as you want, and it will not harm its quality, because the source file of the image layer hasn't really changed - as long as it is only linked in Photo. But at the moment you export the document with the image layer in it, even the image layer will be resampled. This is similar in Publisher and even InDesign and Photoshop and other programs. It is a fine thing, because the pixels will only resampled once, but there will be an (even smaller) loss of quality too, at the end. This is a verry important point, everyone who works with image editing should know, I think.