Photoshop CS2: New Blur Filters – For What ?

After spending sometime with Photoshop CS2 I can only say that these and other filters including the noise reduction and sharpen filters are pretty much a waste of time. The noise reduction filter doesn’t work worth a damn and the new sharpen filter isn’t all that great either. As for the blur filters well, they aren’t that swift.

I think it is interesting how most of the big features in Photoshop CS2 were add as plug-ins. HDR is an Automate plug-in, the new perspective tools are a plug-in, most of the stuff added was a plug-in, only small minor things were done at the core program level. It looks to me like Adobe is just slapping a new coat of paint on an old run down shack with each version of instead of doing things right. A crap shack is a crap shack no matter how nicely it is painted.

"Henrik Meier" wrote in message

Hi. Photoshop CS2 has new Blur Filters like Surface Blur, Box Blur and Shape Blur. I do believe that Surface Blur wants to stop noise and grain, but what about the other filters: Do they do any serious job, or are they merely for "creative experimenting"? The manual, as usual, doesn’t give any idea on how to use them.

Thanks for any hints what one could do!

Got Whiz? Cheese that is… wrote:

… It looks to me like Adobe is just slapping a
new coat of paint on an old run down shack with each version

Yeah – but they got your money, didn’t they. It’s a business model…

–T

Got Whiz? Cheese that is… wrote:

[…]

I’d like to see how you would do photographic blur without the plug-in. It attempts to fashion various kinds of bokeh. Seriously. Do you have a procedure to do the same?

sharpen has never been good, use unsharp mask
"Got Whiz? Cheese that is…"
wrote in message

After spending sometime with Photoshop CS2 I can only say that these and other filters including the noise reduction and sharpen filters are pretty much a waste of time. The noise reduction filter doesn’t work worth a damn and the new sharpen filter isn’t all that great either. As for the blur filters well, they aren’t that swift.

I think it is interesting how most of the big features in Photoshop CS2 were add as plug-ins. HDR is an Automate plug-in, the new perspective tools are a plug-in, most of the stuff added was a plug-in, only small minor things were done at the core program level. It looks to me like Adobe is just slapping a new coat of paint on an old run down shack with each version of instead of doing things right. A crap shack is a crap shack no matter how nicely it is painted.

"Henrik Meier" wrote in message

Hi. Photoshop CS2 has new Blur Filters like Surface Blur, Box Blur and Shape Blur. I do believe that Surface Blur wants to stop noise and grain, but what about the other filters: Do they do any serious job, or are they merely for "creative experimenting"? The manual, as usual, doesn’t give any idea on how to use them.

Thanks for any hints what one could do!

The new one is called Smart Sharpen. It’s based on Unsharp Mask but I like it better.

"KatWoman" wrote in message

sharpen has never been good, use unsharp mask

There’s around 20 Quicktime movies here

http://www.photoshopuser.com/photoshopcs2.html

that explain the new CS2 features (including Blur filter) quite well

Thanks

wrote in message

There’s around 20 Quicktime movies here

http://www.photoshopuser.com/photoshopcs2.html

that explain the new CS2 features (including Blur filter) quite well

I wasn’t really talking about the blur filters for that part of my post. As I said the new blur filters are nearly worthless.

I was talking about how Adobe doesn’t seem to add new features to Photoshop at the core level of the program. Nearly everything is done as a plug-in now.

"Lorem Ipsum" wrote in message

Got Whiz? Cheese that is… wrote:

[…]

I’d like to see how you would do photographic blur without the plug-in. It attempts to fashion various kinds of bokeh. Seriously. Do you have a procedure to do the same?

"Got Whiz? Cheese that is…"
wrote in message

I wasn’t really talking about the blur filters for that part of my post. As I said the new blur filters are nearly worthless.

The photographic blur filters are new and I repeat – how would you do the same manually?

I was talking about how Adobe doesn’t seem to add new features to Photoshop at the core level of the program. Nearly everything is done as a plug-in now.

If you are implying that major changes to the core were not made, then you are way off base, and what’s wrong with so-called plug-ins? You think they are easy to cut?

"Got Whiz? Cheese that is…"
wrote in
news:Iurfe.1061$:

I wasn’t really talking about the blur filters for that part of my post. As I said the new blur filters are nearly worthless.
I was talking about how Adobe doesn’t seem to add new features to Photoshop at the core level of the program. Nearly everything is done as a plug-in now.

Large memory support was done as a plugin?

Cool. I would have thought it impossible.

In article <hM5fe.939$>, Got Whiz? Cheese that
is… wrote:

After spending sometime with Photoshop CS2 I can only say that these and other filters including the noise reduction and sharpen filters are pretty much a waste of time. The noise reduction filter doesn’t work worth a damn and the new sharpen filter isn’t all that great either. As for the blur filters well, they aren’t that swift.

I think it is interesting how most of the big features in Photoshop CS2 were add as plug-ins. HDR is an Automate plug-in,

Only MergeToHDR is a plugin.
The bulk of the HDR features are all built into the application.

most of the stuff added was a plug-in, only small minor things were done at the core program level.

Oh, like Smart Objects?
Only a FEW things were added as plugins.
98% of the changes are in the core application.

It looks to me like Adobe is just slapping a
new coat of paint on an old run down shack with each version of instead of doing things right.

Take another look – you missed the new wings added to the house (and the deck, the pool, the second story, the new roof, the 4 car gargage, etc.).

Chris

In article <Iurfe.1061$>, Got Whiz? Cheese
that is… wrote:

I wasn’t really talking about the blur filters for that part of my post. As I said the new blur filters are nearly worthless.

Keep trying.
BoxBlur is for special effects (and it’s fast).
Shape Blur is for special effects.
Surface Blur is for noise removal and image simplification. It’s an edge preserving blur (similar to SmartBlur, but much faster and a whole lot better).

I was talking about how Adobe doesn’t seem to add new features to Photoshop at the core level of the program. Nearly everything is done as a plug-in now.

It’s amazing just how wrong that is…
You really should take a closer look at CS2.

Chris

What do you need them for? Tell me about a practical use for them.

"JJS" wrote in message

"Got Whiz? Cheese that is…"
wrote in message

I wasn’t really talking about the blur filters for that part of my post. As I said the new blur filters are nearly worthless.

The photographic blur filters are new and I repeat – how would you do the same manually?

I was talking about how Adobe doesn’t seem to add new features to Photoshop at the core level of the program. Nearly everything is done as a plug-in now.

If you are implying that major changes to the core were not made, then you are way off base, and what’s wrong with so-called plug-ins? You think they are easy to cut?

I said big features and since it is almost hack like in how it works and what one has to do to get it work (if it doesn’t work by default it is an almost hack).

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Got Whiz? Cheese that is…"
wrote in
news:Iurfe.1061$:

I wasn’t really talking about the blur filters for that part of my post. As I said the new blur filters are nearly worthless.
I was talking about how Adobe doesn’t seem to add new features to Photoshop at the core level of the program. Nearly everything is done as a plug-in now.

Large memory support was done as a plugin?

Cool. I would have thought it impossible.

Ok, the why no levels, curves, etc. It would seem to me that if it was built-in that we should be able to use them commands. Which by the way would be a hell of lot better than the crappy exposure feature.

"Chris Cox" wrote in message

In article <hM5fe.939$>, Got Whiz? Cheese that
is… wrote:

After spending sometime with Photoshop CS2 I can only say that these and other filters including the noise reduction and sharpen filters are pretty
much a waste of time. The noise reduction filter doesn’t work worth a damn
and the new sharpen filter isn’t all that great either. As for the blur filters well, they aren’t that swift.

I think it is interesting how most of the big features in Photoshop CS2 were
add as plug-ins. HDR is an Automate plug-in,

Only MergeToHDR is a plugin.
The bulk of the HDR features are all built into the application.

most of the stuff added was a plug-in, only small minor things were done at the core program level.

Oh, like Smart Objects?
Only a FEW things were added as plugins.
98% of the changes are in the core application.

It looks to me like Adobe is just slapping a
new coat of paint on an old run down shack with each version of instead of
doing things right.

Take another look – you missed the new wings added to the house (and the deck, the pool, the second story, the new roof, the 4 car gargage, etc.).

Chris

In article <rUzfe.1107$>, Got Whiz? Cheese
that is… wrote:

Ok, the why no levels, curves, etc. It would seem to me that if it was built-in that we should be able to use them commands.

Because they don’t make any sense for HDR data (what is the white point of something that ranges from zero to infinity?).

For new color modes and bit depths, every single command has to be written for that new mode or depth — and that takes time (which is why 16 bit didn’t have all commands available for a long time). But for HDR images, many existing commands don’t make sense in a mathematical or practical sense because of the data range or the data representation (floating point). So we have to come up with new adjustments and new algorithms to deal with HDR images. And that also takes time.
HDR is an area of active research. But we got the basics in this release so we can build on it in future releases (and help the research move along a bit faster).

Which by the way would
be a hell of lot better than the crappy exposure feature.

If you don’t understand the HDR features, just ignore them. To the many people who do understand HDR and work with HDR images, the new features are useful.

Chris

"Got Whiz? Cheese that is…"
wrote in message

What do you need them for? Tell me about a practical use for them.

(Top-posting cheese-head is asking about photographic effect blur effects)

Just one use might where someone wants a certain bokeh and it’s not in the original image.

"Got Whiz? Cheese that is…"
wrote in message

I said big features and since it is almost hack like in how it works and what one has to do to get it work (if it doesn’t work by default it is an almost hack).

Take your whining to Microsoft on that one. Adobe is responsible for their own OS problems. The fact that Adobe even made the effort is remarkable.

"Chris Cox" wrote in message

In article <rUzfe.1107$>, Got Whiz? Cheese
that is… wrote:

Ok, the why no levels, curves, etc. It would seem to me that if it was built-in that we should be able to use them commands.

Because they don’t make any sense for HDR data (what is the white point of something that ranges from zero to infinity?).
[… snip good stuff …]

I appreciate the information, Chris, but talking to the top-posting cheese-head is like talking to, ah, a cheese-head. He won’t get it.

"Lorem Ipsum" wrote in message

"Got Whiz? Cheese that is…"
wrote in message

I said big features and since it is almost hack like in how it works and what one has to do to get it work (if it doesn’t work by default it is an almost hack).

Take your whining to Microsoft on that one. Adobe is responsible for their own OS problems. The fact that Adobe even made the effort is remarkable.

Make that "Microsoft is responsible for the OS problems." Monday, Monday…

No Chris I understand HDR and fine it quite interesting. I don’t like however, the very limited options available for adjust the exposure of the image in 32-bit mode. The current exposure option sucks. With luck this will be improved or fixed in CS3.

"Chris Cox" wrote in message

In article <rUzfe.1107$>, Got Whiz? Cheese
that is… wrote:

Ok, the why no levels, curves, etc. It would seem to me that if it was built-in that we should be able to use them commands.

Because they don’t make any sense for HDR data (what is the white point of something that ranges from zero to infinity?).

For new color modes and bit depths, every single command has to be written for that new mode or depth — and that takes time (which is why 16 bit didn’t have all commands available for a long time). But for HDR images, many existing commands don’t make sense in a mathematical or practical sense because of the data range or the data representation (floating point). So we have to come up with new adjustments and new algorithms to deal with HDR images. And that also takes time.
HDR is an area of active research. But we got the basics in this release so we can build on it in future releases (and help the research move along a bit faster).

Which by the way would
be a hell of lot better than the crappy exposure feature.

If you don’t understand the HDR features, just ignore them. To the many people who do understand HDR and work with HDR images, the new features are useful.

Chris

"Got Whiz? Cheese that is…"
wrote in message

No Chris I understand HDR and fine it quite interesting. I don’t like however, the very limited options available for adjust the exposure of the image in 32-bit mode. The current exposure option sucks. With luck this will be improved or fixed in CS3.

What _cannot_ you do by making a properly exposed series of images to begin with? What, exactly, are you trying to make up for in HDR? Criminy, I’d think you would be happy as hell they avoided the patterned noise problem.

Generally I have found HDR images come out dark and drab. Lots of detail sure, but still in need of some levels work and I would rather do that at the 32-bit level than 16-bit or 8-bit.

"Lorem Ipsum" wrote in message

"Got Whiz? Cheese that is…"
wrote in message

No Chris I understand HDR and fine it quite interesting. I don’t like however, the very limited options available for adjust the exposure of the image in 32-bit mode. The current exposure option sucks. With luck this will be improved or fixed in CS3.

What _cannot_ you do by making a properly exposed series of images to begin with? What, exactly, are you trying to make up for in HDR? Criminy, I’d think you would be happy as hell they avoided the patterned noise problem.

"Got Whiz? Cheese that is…"
wrote in message

Generally I have found HDR images come out dark and drab. Lots of detail sure, but still in need of some levels work and I would rather do that at the 32-bit level than 16-bit or 8-bit.

So adjust them before you bring them into HDR.

Thanks the funny thing. They look fine before I bring them in to HDR. They only get… well for lack of a better term blah after they go through HDR.

"JJS" wrote in message

"Got Whiz? Cheese that is…"
wrote in message

Generally I have found HDR images come out dark and drab. Lots of detail sure, but still in need of some levels work and I would rather do that at the 32-bit level than 16-bit or 8-bit.

So adjust them before you bring them into HDR.

"Got Whiz? Cheese that is…"
wrote in message

Thanks the funny thing. They look fine before I bring them in to HDR. They only get… well for lack of a better term blah after they go through HDR.

The correct terminology for what you want, is "tonemapping". There are many methods being studied, some of them look promising (but computationally expensive).
Examples are: <http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~danix/hdr/pages/belgium.html> , or <http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/research/theses/matkovic/> , or < http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/%7Ejaf/projects/tone_rep/ton e_rep.htm> , or <http://www.cs.wright.edu/people/faculty/agoshtas/hdr.html>, just to name a few.

Bart

That’s because the HDR process expands the total available dynamic range which in turn reduces contrast. You can simulate this effect by taking an image and compressing its range by using Levels to set the *output* to say, 50-200. If you then examine the histogram you’ll see it has "shrunk" and moved to the middle.

That’s what HDR does for each exposure moving this shrunk histogram to its appropriate place within the "total dynamic range" histogram space, so to speak. The result is an image which (in theory) contains the dynamic ranges of all of the composite images but each one only occupies a portion of the available range which, as shown above, has the appearance of reducing overall contrast.

Actually, the real problem is the display. If we had displays with the same dynamic range as an HDR image the image would look vibrant. Just look outside your window. That real world doesn’t have this problem because we can perceive its full dynamic range.

To overcome this a number of methods have been devised when converting this "mega" dynamic range to what our displays can handle. Generically they are known as "local contrast enhancements" or "tone mapping". Like everything "auto" this sometimes works. Mostly not. The common artifacts are "hallos", false-color (looks like "out of gamut" tool), etc. So – for me anyway – it’s best done manually.

Which then begs the question "why bother" with HDR? And the answer – for me at least – is *noise*! An HDR image clears up the noise so I can boost those dark impenetrable Kodachrome scans shadows without worrying about ugly noise artifacts.

BTW, I don’t use PS, and I’d really like to try it out but a ~350 MB trial is a bit much for me to download right now.

Don.

On Tue, 10 May 2005 15:57:51 GMT, "Got Whiz? Cheese that is…" wrote:

Thanks the funny thing. They look fine before I bring them in to HDR. They only get… well for lack of a better term blah after they go through HDR.

"JJS" wrote in message

"Got Whiz? Cheese that is…"
wrote in message

Generally I have found HDR images come out dark and drab. Lots of detail sure, but still in need of some levels work and I would rather do that at the 32-bit level than 16-bit or 8-bit.

So adjust them before you bring them into HDR.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 15:04:51 +0200, Don
wrote:

BTW, I don’t use PS, and I’d really like to try it out but a ~350 MB trial is a bit much for me to download right now.

I meant, of course, I don’t use PS in the context of HDR (only version 6 here).

Don.