Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Douglas, Nov 30, 2007.

  1. Douglas

    Douglas Guest

    This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
    Microsoft!!!

    No doubt about it... Purists will fall in love with a F/1.0 lens that costs
    as much as a small car. They often cite background blur (Bokur) and
    sharpness as the reason. I might state up front that I own such a lens and
    love it!!

    My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
    out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much... *IF*
    you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!

    I put together a quick and dirty description of how to achieve this " Bokur
    effect" in Photoshop (CS3) from a P&S camera which has a very deep depth of
    field for the same field of view as a FF sensor camera.
    http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Blur.htm

    Disclaimer:
    I'm an owner of DSLRs and far too many expensive lenses.
    I use them professionally but I also use an FZ50 Panasonic P&S and an
    Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit
    these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water!

    I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
    with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S owners.
    Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
    civil responses... And pigs do fly!

    Enjoy,
    Douglas
    Douglas, Nov 30, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Douglas

    John Navas Guest

    On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 09:21:50 +1000, "Douglas" <> wrote in
    <fiq5s0$45q$>:

    >I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
    >with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S owners.
    >Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
    >civil responses... And pigs do fly!


    Amen. Except that last bit. ;)

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
    John Navas, Nov 30, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Douglas

    Avery Guest

    On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 09:21:50 +1000, "Douglas" <> wrote:

    >This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
    >Microsoft!!!
    >
    >No doubt about it... Purists will fall in love with a F/1.0 lens that costs
    >as much as a small car. They often cite background blur (Bokur) and
    >sharpness as the reason. I might state up front that I own such a lens and
    >love it!!
    >
    >My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
    >out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much... *IF*
    >you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!
    >
    >I put together a quick and dirty description of how to achieve this " Bokur
    >effect" in Photoshop (CS3) from a P&S camera which has a very deep depth of
    >field for the same field of view as a FF sensor camera.
    >http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Blur.htm
    >
    >Disclaimer:
    >I'm an owner of DSLRs and far too many expensive lenses.
    >I use them professionally but I also use an FZ50 Panasonic P&S and an
    >Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit
    >these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water!
    >
    >I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
    >with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S owners.
    >Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
    >civil responses... And pigs do fly!
    >
    >Enjoy,
    >Douglas
    >



    That's bokeh , from the Japanese word boke, but then , accuracy has
    never been a strongpoint.
    Avery, Dec 1, 2007
    #3
  4. Douglas

    Scott W Guest

    On Nov 30, 1:21 pm, "Douglas" <> wrote:
    > This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
    > Microsoft!!!
    >
    > No doubt about it... Purists will fall in love with a F/1.0 lens that costs
    > as much as a small car. They often cite background blur (Bokur) and
    > sharpness as the reason. I might state up front that I own such a lens and
    > love it!!
    >
    > My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
    > out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much... *IF*
    > you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!
    >
    > I put together a quick and dirty description of how to achieve this " Bokur
    > effect" in Photoshop (CS3) from a P&S camera which has a very deep depth of
    > field for the same field of view as a FF sensor camera.http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Blur.htm
    >
    > Disclaimer:
    > I'm an owner of DSLRs and far too many expensive lenses.
    > I use them professionally but I also use an FZ50 Panasonic P&S and an
    > Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit
    > these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water!
    >
    > I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
    > with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S owners.
    > Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
    > civil responses... And pigs do fly!
    >
    > Enjoy,
    > Douglas


    Nice job on the background blur.

    But then would you really need an f/1.0 lens, I believe my 50mm f/1.8
    would have worked rather well, and saved a lot of time in Photoshop,
    and the 50mm f/1.8 cost less then $70.

    If you happen to have that camera in hand and grabbed the shot while
    the grabbing was good then I can fully understand. If you picked up
    the P&S when the DSLR was sitting right there next to it, well I don't
    believe even you would do that.

    Scott
    Scott W, Dec 1, 2007
    #4
  5. Douglas

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Nov 30, 6:21 pm, "Douglas" <> wrote:
    >
    > My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
    > out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much... *IF*
    > you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!


    That may be your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, but of
    course it is wrong.
    Maybe someday you'll show us tests from a fair comparison instead of
    one where the photos are taken at different exposure settings with
    different post-processing.
    But I ain't holding my breath.
    Annika1980, Dec 1, 2007
    #5
  6. Douglas

    Douglas Guest

    "Scott W" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Nov 30, 1:21 pm, "Douglas" <> wrote:
    >> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
    >> Microsoft!!!
    >>
    >> No doubt about it... Purists will fall in love with a F/1.0 lens that
    >> costs
    >> as much as a small car. They often cite background blur (Bokur) and
    >> sharpness as the reason. I might state up front that I own such a lens
    >> and
    >> love it!!
    >>
    >> My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
    >> out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much...
    >> *IF*
    >> you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!
    >>
    >> I put together a quick and dirty description of how to achieve this "
    >> Bokur
    >> effect" in Photoshop (CS3) from a P&S camera which has a very deep depth
    >> of
    >> field for the same field of view as a FF sensor
    >> camera.http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Blur.htm
    >>
    >> Disclaimer:
    >> I'm an owner of DSLRs and far too many expensive lenses.
    >> I use them professionally but I also use an FZ50 Panasonic P&S and an
    >> Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit
    >> these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water!
    >>
    >> I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
    >> with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S
    >> owners.
    >> Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
    >> civil responses... And pigs do fly!
    >>
    >> Enjoy,
    >> Douglas

    >
    > Nice job on the background blur.
    >
    > But then would you really need an f/1.0 lens, I believe my 50mm f/1.8
    > would have worked rather well, and saved a lot of time in Photoshop,
    > and the 50mm f/1.8 cost less then $70.
    >
    > If you happen to have that camera in hand and grabbed the shot while
    > the grabbing was good then I can fully understand. If you picked up
    > the P&S when the DSLR was sitting right there next to it, well I don't
    > believe even you would do that.
    >
    > Scott


    I did it to prove a point Scott. Someone asked in rec.photo.digital about
    using Photoshop blur for backgrounds from P&S cameras. I did that shot to
    demonstrate a quick and dirty proceedure to do this as well as provide a
    camera blured version for comparrison. All shots were at between 200 and
    300mm FL (35mm equivlant).

    Douglas
    Douglas, Dec 1, 2007
    #6
  7. Douglas

    Douglas Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Nov 30, 6:21 pm, "Douglas" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
    >> out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much...
    >> *IF*
    >> you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!

    >
    > That may be your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, but of
    > course it is wrong.
    > Maybe someday you'll show us tests from a fair comparison instead of
    > one where the photos are taken at different exposure settings with
    > different post-processing.
    > But I ain't holding my breath.
    >
    >


    I wish you would. I'd take a lot longer to produce one.

    It seems to me there is an imbalance somewhere in your perverted thought
    process.

    You do over all your "pics" in Photoshop before posting them. You do mine
    over too but that's another story, isn't it?

    I never used to bother with "dressing up" my stuff for Internet display and
    you rubbished me for putting up your idea of lousy images. So now I do them
    over in Photoshop so they "look" as bad as yours ...and you want to see a
    "fairer" comparison?

    Fair is when you take a photo in conditions beneficial to what? The P&S or
    the DSLR?
    Fair is when you use exposures a camera is designed for or when they benefit
    one of the cameras more than the other?

    True fairness is when the final photo is produced. Only then does it matter
    and when they both look identical, the comparison is correct. When I showed
    a Panel of photographic judges (as I have done recently) a bunch of
    Panasonic prints intermixed with 20D prints, they couldn't pick which was
    which. Why is it you need to see a lopsided comparison to fortify your
    investment in gear you can't find a use for?

    Why can you not just accept that your camera is useless underwater but an
    Olympus E330 is fantastic and your camera is impossible to hand hold with
    shutter speeds of 1/15th but a Panasonic FZ50 is in it's element doing that?
    Please do hold your breath while I take the scenic route to pick up the
    camera and get you some "fair" comparisons.

    Douglas
    Douglas, Dec 1, 2007
    #7
  8. Douglas

    timeOday Guest

    Colin_D wrote:

    > I hate to say this Doug, but the grass under the boy's feet should be in
    > focus, or at least nowhere near as unsharp as you have it. It looks
    > very unnatural, and nothing like a wide-aperture shot from a good lens
    > would look like.
    >
    > I keep out of trouble these days, so I am not inviting a slanging match
    > here, just a technical observation about that image.
    >
    > Colin D.
    >


    That could also be taken as an advantage of the Photoshop approach over
    the wide-aperture approach - more control over the defocus, instead of
    simply focusing on a certain plane.

    I've noticed the same thing with laminate flooring - people are so
    concerned that it look realistic, meaning like wood. Yet carpet doesn't
    have to look like fur, and tile doesn't have to look like stone.

    All that said, I suppose often the subject is roughly planar, so
    focusing on just that plane is a nice convenience.
    timeOday, Dec 1, 2007
    #8
  9. Douglas

    Colin_D Guest

    Douglas wrote:
    > This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
    > Microsoft!!!
    >
    > No doubt about it... Purists will fall in love with a F/1.0 lens that costs
    > as much as a small car. They often cite background blur (Bokur) and
    > sharpness as the reason. I might state up front that I own such a lens and
    > love it!!
    >
    > My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
    > out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much... *IF*
    > you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!
    >
    > I put together a quick and dirty description of how to achieve this " Bokur
    > effect" in Photoshop (CS3) from a P&S camera which has a very deep depth of
    > field for the same field of view as a FF sensor camera.
    > http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Blur.htm
    >
    > Disclaimer:
    > I'm an owner of DSLRs and far too many expensive lenses.
    > I use them professionally but I also use an FZ50 Panasonic P&S and an
    > Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit
    > these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water!
    >
    > I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
    > with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S owners.
    > Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
    > civil responses... And pigs do fly!
    >
    > Enjoy,
    > Douglas
    >
    >

    I hate to say this Doug, but the grass under the boy's feet should be in
    focus, or at least nowhere near as unsharp as you have it. It looks
    very unnatural, and nothing like a wide-aperture shot from a good lens
    would look like.

    I keep out of trouble these days, so I am not inviting a slanging match
    here, just a technical observation about that image.

    Colin D.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    Colin_D, Dec 1, 2007
    #9
  10. Douglas

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Nov 30, 9:21 pm, "Douglas" <> wrote:
    >
    > Fair is when you take a photo in conditions beneficial to what? The P&S or
    > the DSLR?
    > Fair is when you use exposures a camera is designed for or when they benefit
    > one of the cameras more than the other?


    No, clueless, FAIR is showing two images from different cameras taken
    with the same exposure settings and processed the same way. That's the
    only way you can compare equipment properly. It's called controlled
    testing ... look it up.

    >
    > True fairness is when the final photo is produced. Only then does it matter
    > and when they both look identical, the comparison is correct.


    Uh, no, that doesn't make any sense. You aren't trying to make the
    photos look alike. You take the photos with the same settings so that
    the differences between the cameras can be noted.
    Geez, even you can't be this thick. I think you're just trolling me.
    Nobody is that fuckin stupid. Are they?


    >When I showed
    > a Panel of photographic judges (as I have done recently) a bunch of
    > Panasonic prints intermixed with 20D prints, they couldn't pick which was
    > which.


    I don't doubt that. I'm sure all of them were equally wretched.

    >Why is it you need to see a lopsided comparison to fortify your
    > investment in gear you can't find a use for?


    Once again you are confused. I want a fair comparison. You are the
    one who makes it lopsided by underexposing one and overexposing the
    other. Then you try to sharpen up your Crapasonic pic and declare it
    the winner.

    Whatever. Keep shooting with your shitty cameras. Who cares?
    Keep pretending that you have a 5D or a fleet of 20D Canons.
    Matters not to me.

    As for my finding a use for my gear, I do OK.
    I'm currently working on a macro pic that'll blow your socks off.
    Just wait till my new motherboard comes in next week and I get my
    computer back up and running.
    Annika1980, Dec 1, 2007
    #10
  11. Douglas

    Noons Guest

    On Dec 1, 3:09 pm, Annika1980 <> wrote:

    > No, clueless, FAIR is showing two images from different cameras taken
    > with the same exposure settings and processed the same way. That's the
    > only way you can compare equipment properly. It's called controlled
    > testing ... look it up.


    hmmm, I wonder if flash cards would
    react well to being souped in developer....


    > I'm currently working on a macro pic that'll blow your socks off.


    "working"? I thought you shot everything
    straight off the 40d sensor?
    Noons, Dec 1, 2007
    #11
  12. Douglas

    Dayrl Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Nov 30, 9:21 pm, "Douglas" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Fair is when you take a photo in conditions beneficial to what? The P&S
    >> or
    >> the DSLR?
    >> Fair is when you use exposures a camera is designed for or when they
    >> benefit
    >> one of the cameras more than the other?

    >
    > No, clueless, FAIR is showing two images from different cameras taken
    > with the same exposure settings and processed the same way. That's the
    > only way you can compare equipment properly. It's called controlled
    > testing ... look it up.
    >
    >>
    >> True fairness is when the final photo is produced. Only then does it
    >> matter
    >> and when they both look identical, the comparison is correct.

    >


    I don't know, Brett. I have seen a few examples of both your stuff and
    Douglas stuff is better than yours though yours is funny sometimes (in an
    odd way).
    Dayrl, Dec 1, 2007
    #12
  13. Douglas

    Douglas Guest

    "Colin_D" <> wrote in message
    news:4750bb9c$0$25995$...
    > Douglas wrote:
    >> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
    >> Microsoft!!!
    >>
    >> No doubt about it... Purists will fall in love with a F/1.0 lens that
    >> costs as much as a small car. They often cite background blur (Bokur) and
    >> sharpness as the reason. I might state up front that I own such a lens
    >> and love it!!
    >>
    >> My opinion has always been that a $500 P&S camera and Photoshop can often
    >> out perform a DSLR camera/lens combination costing 20 times as much...
    >> *IF* you know when to use a plastic wondercam and when not to!
    >>
    >> I put together a quick and dirty description of how to achieve this "
    >> Bokur effect" in Photoshop (CS3) from a P&S camera which has a very deep
    >> depth of field for the same field of view as a FF sensor camera.
    >> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Blur.htm
    >>
    >> Disclaimer:
    >> I'm an owner of DSLRs and far too many expensive lenses.
    >> I use them professionally but I also use an FZ50 Panasonic P&S and an
    >> Olympus E330 (underwater version) Professionally when the conditions suit
    >> these camera better. Let's see a 40D work under water!
    >>
    >> I am a passionate photographer. For me the tools I have are what I work
    >> with. I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S
    >> owners. Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will
    >> lead to civil responses... And pigs do fly!
    >>
    >> Enjoy,
    >> Douglas

    > I hate to say this Doug, but the grass under the boy's feet should be in
    > focus, or at least nowhere near as unsharp as you have it. It looks very
    > unnatural, and nothing like a wide-aperture shot from a good lens would
    > look like.
    >
    > I keep out of trouble these days, so I am not inviting a slanging match
    > here, just a technical observation about that image.
    >
    > Colin D.
    >
    > --

    You're welcome Colin. You and I both know the obvious, which is the reason
    for the exercise in the first place... To show the difference between PS and
    lens blur. I might point out that had I taken more time and used a gradient
    mask on the background, you wouldn't have been able to pick it. But then
    it's not a contest to see who is the best PS worker but an exercise in what
    can be done quickly with the blur tool.

    I rather liked the "motion blur" I did first (not published) which made the
    boy look a little too "superboy" LOL! Good to see you are still around
    Colin. Post some of your pics sometime, don't worry about what the clowns
    have to say. Real people are needed here more than ever.

    Douglas
    Douglas
    Douglas, Dec 1, 2007
    #13
  14. Douglas wrote:
    > This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
    > Microsoft!!!


    Yes, you newsreader (Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138) does.
    Learn how to use it! Look at the third line of the compose message
    header! "Follow-up to".

    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 1, 2007
    #14
  15. Douglas

    Pete D Guest

    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
    wrote in message news:Hz74j.55900$...
    > Douglas wrote:
    >> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
    >> Microsoft!!!

    >
    > Yes, you newsreader (Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138) does. Learn
    > how to use it! Look at the third line of the compose message header!
    > "Follow-up to".
    >
    > David
    >


    Indeed it does. :)
    Pete D, Dec 1, 2007
    #15
  16. Pete D wrote:
    > "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    > message news:Hz74j.55900$...
    >> Douglas wrote:
    >>> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group!
    >>> Bloody Microsoft!!!

    >>
    >> Yes, you newsreader (Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138) does.
    >> Learn how to use it! Look at the third line of the compose message
    >> header! "Follow-up to".
    >>
    >> David
    >>

    >
    > Indeed it does. :)


    I find it difficult to raise enthusiasm for reading the rest of Douglas's
    post when it starts with (a) a slagging off (b) based on the inability to
    use a tool correctly (c) due to lack of knowledge or experience. But am
    glad that a discussion ensued.

    I'm from a slide-photography background - get it right in the camera - and
    I rarely do post-processing, so my preference would normally be for a lens
    blur over a software one. But I can appreciate that selective software
    blur could be useful at times.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 1, 2007
    #16
  17. Douglas

    Douglas Guest

    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
    wrote in message news:Hz74j.55900$...
    > Douglas wrote:
    >> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group! Bloody
    >> Microsoft!!!

    >
    > Yes, you newsreader (Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138) does. Learn
    > how to use it! Look at the third line of the compose message header!
    > "Follow-up to".
    >
    > David
    >

    Am I missing something here? the 3rd line is Cc: as in send a carbon copy
    to:
    I guess It's RTFM time !

    Douglas
    Douglas, Dec 1, 2007
    #17
  18. Douglas wrote:
    > "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    > message news:Hz74j.55900$...
    >> Douglas wrote:
    >>> This stupid newsreader doesn't let me set a follow up to group!
    >>> Bloody Microsoft!!!

    >>
    >> Yes, you newsreader (Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138) does.
    >> Learn how to use it! Look at the third line of the compose message
    >> header! "Follow-up to".
    >>
    >> David
    >>

    > Am I missing something here? the 3rd line is Cc: as in send a carbon
    > copy to:
    > I guess It's RTFM time !
    >
    > Douglas


    I'm talking about the NNTP part of the program - the newsreader. The
    three lines are:

    News Server:
    Newsgroups:
    Followup-To:

    It sounds as if you may be accessing the newgroups through e-mail. Why
    not access them directly?

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 1, 2007
    #18
  19. Douglas

    Douglas Guest

    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
    wrote in message news:v584j.55902$...
    >
    > I find it difficult to raise enthusiasm for reading the rest of Douglas's
    > post when it starts with (a) a slagging off (b) based on the inability to
    > use a tool correctly (c) due to lack of knowledge or experience. But am
    > glad that a discussion ensued.
    >
    > I'm from a slide-photography background - get it right in the camera - and
    > I rarely do post-processing, so my preference would normally be for a lens
    > blur over a software one. But I can appreciate that selective software
    > blur could be useful at times.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David
    >

    'twould appear you picked up on this thread halfway down after my pet troll
    tried to bite the keyboard (again). Had you started at the top, you'd have
    realized I attempted to keep it civil.

    Douglas
    Douglas, Dec 1, 2007
    #19
  20. Douglas

    Pete D Guest

    "Douglas" <> wrote in message
    news:fir51f$7lp$...
    >
    > "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
    > wrote in message news:v584j.55902$...
    >>
    >> I find it difficult to raise enthusiasm for reading the rest of Douglas's
    >> post when it starts with (a) a slagging off (b) based on the inability to
    >> use a tool correctly (c) due to lack of knowledge or experience. But am
    >> glad that a discussion ensued.
    >>
    >> I'm from a slide-photography background - get it right in the camera -
    >> and I rarely do post-processing, so my preference would normally be for a
    >> lens blur over a software one. But I can appreciate that selective
    >> software blur could be useful at times.
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> David
    >>

    > 'twould appear you picked up on this thread halfway down after my pet
    > troll tried to bite the keyboard (again). Had you started at the top,
    > you'd have realized I attempted to keep it civil.
    >
    > Douglas
    >


    Then why put this in at all?

    " I have no "bent" on bashing up DSLR owners or putting down P&S owners.
    Just in a balanced and informed discussion which hopefully will lead to
    civil responses... And pigs do fly!"
    Pete D, Dec 1, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    11
    Views:
    519
    Roy G
    Sep 2, 2006
  2. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Blur, Layers and Blending Modes, a Magic Mix in Photoshop, Part 1

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Feb 8, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    285
    Paul Furman
    Feb 10, 2007
  3. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Blur tutorial extra part, How Much Blur?

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Feb 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    377
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Feb 16, 2007
  4. Ofnuts

    Re: Modifying A 'Gaussian Blur' Tool Use Question

    Ofnuts, Mar 12, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    157
    Ofnuts
    Mar 13, 2011
  5. PeterN

    Re: Modifying A 'Gaussian Blur' Tool Use Question

    PeterN, Mar 13, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    490
    John Turco
    Apr 28, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page