How to blur backgrounds in AP (requesting instructions)

[toltec]

3 minutes ago, R C-R said:

That is because I used your "hellohalo" file as a starting point & you must have made that using the 1.6 beta -- the text layer you added makes it incompatible with 1.5.x versions.

 

Try opening it with the 1.6 beta.

 

I haven't got that yet. I created the whole job in 1.5.2.69. I always prefer to use current versions when trying something. There is no guarantee the released version will include that feature. (bugs and things)

 

The text must be a Windows only feature.

[toltec]

At least you poor Mac users have Separated View. If that's the right name.

[toltec]

23 hours ago, owenr said:

 

Easy to adjust, but never producing a remotely realistic depth of field effect. I fail to see the usefulness of that. 

 

OK, OK, I get it. The Depth of Field background is much better. I shall use that in future blurs.

 

Although to be fair I hardly ever use it. I do that sort of thing on the camera. That is even more realistic than using the Depth of Field blur  

[lepr]

.

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, toltec said:

I haven't got that yet. I created the whole job in 1.5.2.69. I always prefer to use current versions when trying something. There is no guarantee the released version will include that feature. (bugs and things)

 

The text must be a Windows only feature.

I am talking about the file you attached to this post. For some reason, when I opened it on my Mac (where I sometimes run both the beta & the retail version concurrently) it defaulted to opening in the beta. I do not know why -- my system is still set to open .afphoto files in the 1.5.2 version. The text incompatibility is not a windows only feature; it applies to all 1.6 versions regardless of platform because of some changes made in the native Affinity file format (for both Affinity Photo & Affinity Designer) to allow certain improvements in text handling. 

 

Anyway, attached is a second version of my modified version of your file, identical to my first version except that it is in the 1.5.x file format, so you should have no trouble opening it. Please note that I made the mask directly from your pixel layer of the model isolated from the background (the layer in your file just below the text layer), including whatever refine edges adjustment(s) you might have made to it (so I do not understand your comment that MEB's method denies you the opportunity to do that).

hello *no* halo v2.afphoto

[toltec]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

I am talking about the file you attached to this post. For some reason, when I opened it on my Mac (where I sometimes run both the beta & the retail version concurrently) it defaulted to opening in the beta. I do not know why -- my system is still set to open .afphoto files in the 1.5.2 version. The text incompatibility is not a windows only feature; it applies to all 1.6 versions regardless of platform because of some changes made in the native Affinity file format (for both Affinity Photo & Affinity Designer) to allow certain improvements in text handling. 

 

Anyway, attached is a second version of my modified version of your file, identical to my first version except that it is in the 1.5.x file format, so you should have no trouble opening it. Please note that I made the mask directly from your pixel layer of the model isolated from the background (the layer in your file just below the text layer), including whatever refine edges adjustment(s) you might have made to it (so I do not understand your comment that MEB's method denies you the opportunity to do that).

hello *no* halo v2.afphoto

 

OK I got that and can open it thank you.

 

Looks OK  apart from the hair on the very  top and stuff growing out of her legs but I think you said you didn't do a full edit ?

 

My comment about MEBs  approach is regarding (as far as I understand) that he is making the mask to mask the blur from a selection he saved before he refined the edges? I might be getting confused though, it wouldn't be the first time :(

 

If I am right, that's no good to me.  I often make quite rough selections then use refine edges to er, refine the edges. I brush with Matte, Foreground and Background selected to get the selection how I want. I found that faster and ultimately more accurate because, if you use refine edges, it processes and changes whatever selection you make anyway. 

 

If I made a mask from a selection before I refined it, It would not match my refined selection, at all.

 

If I got it wrong about MEBs technique, I apologize unreservedly. 

 

Question. Did you have to spend much time refining the mask. "Mask made from pixel layer above". Apart from her legs and very top of her head, it's pretty good.

 

[R C-R]

3 minutes ago, toltec said:

Looks OK  apart from the hair on the very  top and stuff growing out of her legs but I think you said you didn't do a full edit ?

Like I said, I just used the pixel layer you made of the model to make the mask. I did not edit anything in that layer, including not doing any additional refinement -- whatever refinement you did when you created it is all there is.

 

To make the mask, I used the Channels panel. I made a copy of your layer (so the original one was available for comparison purposes) & hid the original. For simplicity's sake I will call the copy I made "Model" in the following. I selected "Model" in the Layers panel, & in the Channels panel I right-clicked on "Model Alpha" & chose the Invert option, followed immediately by applying the "Create Mask Layer" option in the same way. This created a new mask layer, which I then dragged into the mask position (over the thumbnail) of the "Background Copy" layer made from your original background layer that included the lens blur. The lens blur layer in the original background layer & the "Model" layer were then deleted.

 

There are easier ways to do this but I did it this way to preserve everything you provided in your original attached file. You did almost all the work when you created the pixel selection around the model. The rest took just a minute or so to complete.

[toltec]

OK. Ta.

 

I will try that way again but will make a better selection first. 

 

I have selected and refined  that poor girl so many times she has taken out a Restraining Order" against me. 

[JimmyJack]

On July 29, 2017 at 7:32 AM, toltec said:

 

Absolutely not. I would very much like to see if you can solve it with a mask. Obviously without any sort of inpainting :)

 

Haven't we been doing this the past 5 pages?

 

On July 29, 2017 at 7:32 AM, toltec said:

 

No offence to MEB but his method requires you to make a mask from the original selection. That denies you the option to use Refine Edges.

 

No and no.

(take a look at MEB's mask in black and white)

 

On July 29, 2017 at 7:32 AM, toltec said:

I also wanted to avoid creating and editing a separate mask. 

 

Again, you are already doing every bit of work and editing in this regard. Your selection method and refinement is everything you need (well hopefully)... IOW, the quality of the result using a mask has everything to do with the quality of the initial selection/refinement process (notice I didn't say mask. Ultimately they are one and the same. (Although a mask is non destructive and super easy to tweak down the road if needed.))

 

The semitransparent thing in refinement is, imho, a non issue in this particular case. But, if you want a harder edge you can use the ramp to get rid of a lot of it. Personally I think a hard edge is going to look worse, but that may boil down to personal preference.

 

Cheers.

 

[toltec]

42 minutes ago, JimmyJack said:

Haven't we been doing this the past 5 pages?

 

 

Yes and No.

 

I was wondering if you had found a solution for the halo you introduced around the girls legs in the example you posted ? Or am I missing something?

 

All you did was avoid it by moving the blur. That would not be acceptable if the point of focus needed to be lower down (or closer), 

 

I haven't had a chance to try R C-Rs file yet (different computer) but I will try that and try improving my selecting. I wasn't happy with the results first time around or with what R C-R posted. But as I made the selection he used I can hardly blame him for that. ;)

 

 

 

[JimmyJack]

Completely resolved. I simply had the (second) blur filter in the wrong position in the layer stack. It was outside of the mask. 

[toltec]

24 minutes ago, JimmyJack said:

Completely resolved. I simply had the (second) blur filter in the wrong position in the layer stack. It was outside of the mask. 

 

Ah.

 

That's that problem resolved them. I had been wondering about that one.

 

Thank you 

[JimmyJack]

51 minutes ago, toltec said:

 

Ah.

 

That's that problem resolved them. I had been wondering about that one.

 

Thank you 

Ah good!!

 

I was just coming back to post the right stacking.

I took a little time  in the selection refinement process. Take a look at how tight the B & W view is (of the mask). Tight but not hard.

(Frankly it could even be a lot tighter!! )

 

 

hello *no* halo JJ.afphoto

 

 

 

[ProducerBoy]

 

On 7/29/2017 at 2:36 PM, R C-R said:

Like I said, I just used the pixel layer you made of the model to make the mask. I did not edit anything in that layer, including not doing any additional refinement -- whatever refinement you did when you created it is all there is.

 

To make the mask, I used the Channels panel. I made a copy of your layer (so the original one was available for comparison purposes) & hid the original... 

 

Is this correct as a step-by-step instruction?

 

Assume you have a single layer called IMAGE. 

1. Create an extra copy of IMAGE. Name it EXTRA. Hide it.
2. Select layer IMAGE
3. Select the foreground object using the selection brush, or channels + dodge/burn, etc.
4. Use *Refine Edges* to refine it, output to *Selection*
5. Press *Cmd+J* to create a floating foreground object
6. Re-select IMAGE
7. Press *Cmd+Sh+I* to invert the selection
8. Press the Mask Layer button to mask out the foreground object
9. *Add Live Filter > Box Blur* (or whatever else you want) and blur IMAGE, Preserving Alpha
10. You may now have a transparency halo where the foreground and IMAGE meet
11. Show EXTRA and drag it behind IMAGE. It will show through those transparency places

You should now have a nice, smooth separation between foreground and background. It will look like this:

 

* FOREGROUND OBJECT  
* IMAGE LAYER  
    * MASK CREATING FOREGROUND-SHAPED HOLE IN IMAGE  
    * BLUR EFFECT LAYER  
* UNALTERED COPY OF IMAGE

 

 

 

[ProducerBoy]

(Adding this reply so I get auto-notified of any more replies to this thread)

[T_B]

On 7/30/2017 at 8:07 PM, JimmyJack said:

Ah good!!

 

I was just coming back to post the right stacking.

I took a little time  in the selection refinement process. Take a look at how tight the B & W view is (of the mask). Tight but not hard.

(Frankly it could even be a lot tighter!! )

 

 

hello *no* halo JJ.afphoto

 

 

 

Hi JJ,

This is an old post, I know, but still...

In the file hello _no_ halo JJ, the stacking of layers is:

1. Gaussian blur

2. Lens blur

3. Mask

One of your earlier posts in this thread (with Cheryl photo) implied that the mask layer needs to be above the blur filters to get the no-halo effect... 

Which of the two approaches is more appropriate for the no-halo effect?

Also curious about the reasons for using the two blurs simultaneously in the file hello _no_ halo JJ....

Thanks!