I want to create a blur effect that starts from one edge of a photo and gets stronger (more blurred) as it goes away from that point. This specific effect only needs to travel in one direction, so it doesn’t need to be circular.
I don’t want to use the method of creating a second copy of the photo on a separate layer, blurring it, and using a gradient on a layer mask, because this doesn’t achieve the effect I’m looking for, since you can still see some of the non-blurred image under the blurred one.
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
Create your gradient in a new channel, black to white (or gray to white if you want some blur at the origin), and then load it as a selection. Apply the blur of your choice.
since you can still see some of the non-blurred image under the blurred one
That makes no sense to me, it’s just a question of the contrast of the layer mask. If it doesn’t hide fully, it’s not black enough, or the layer has some transparency…
see, with the new proposed rating system, one answer would have gotten marked as "Answered" and ho given "points", and all the other methods would have gone un-remarked.
Any digitally created representation of a blur is fake. Lens Blur may suit some subjects better, and I certainly have no objections to using whatever works. Like many things, there are at least 4 or 5 ways to do this in Photoshop.
What I don’t understand is why the original poster said Ho’s method worked great, when the method gives the exact same result as the method he mentioned he didn’t want to use? Really, lens blur is probably what you’re after. It will blur every pixel by varying degrees, as opposed to by an alpha mask opacity method, which still shows the unblurred image underneath.
What I don’t understand is why the original poster said Ho’s method worked great, when the method gives the exact same result as the method he mentioned he didn’t want to use?
I’m not sure of the reason, but it didn’t produce the same results. Just to clarify, the image I was using had text in it. When I used the method I mentioned on my first post, I saw the blurred image, but right at the point when the opacity was around 50% I could still see the completely unblurred image underneath (completely clear and readable text), creating a sort-of glow look around the text.
When I used the method that Ho suggested, the text simply becomes increasingly blurred as you look across the image.
Ho, indeed, there are several methods, but as PeterK. said it too, yours, used like you describe, does not give "way better" results than the blurred copy with mask. Using lens blur on an blurred Alpha channel, or several applications of a low blur radius through a gradual mask that is stepped and increased as described in the PhotoshopTechniques thread does produce very different (more realistic) results. No confrontations from my part, you know me, just qualitative argumentation 😉
Just to make sure, I tested the selection method vs. the layer mask method, copy merged and pasted them on top of another. They’re completely identical – both show the unblurred text through. Obviously, it’s the same algorithm "under the hood".
Lens blur is distinctly different, however, in the depth map function. The method described by PEC in #6 is in fact the only one that gives the result the OP was looking for.