P: Increase the strength of the blur tool.

Chris -

1) The argument that the blur tool is good for what it was designed for (which I have yet to hear described) does not seem sufficient to negate the benefits that could be realized by making it better and more versatile - especially since adding more power and making it more versatile would not compromise it's ability to do whatever it is that it was designed to do - it just adds more functionality.

2) The argument that there are other ways to get the effect that strengthening the Blur tool would provide, which are already built into Photoshop, is not consistent with what Photoshops philosophy has been over the years

When almost anyone associated with Photoshop development (J. Kost, etc., etc.) does a video on aspects of Photoshop they almost always mention, with pride, that Photoshop builds numerous layers of redundancy into the things that PS can do. They seem to think there is an advantage to having multiple ways to approach the same thing and I agree. I've never heard them argue that they see an advantage in limiting whatever PS can do to only one way to approach it.

3) What about new users to PS? The Blur tool is very convenient and handy and the suggestion to apply the gallery of blur options with masks and additional layers to achieve a similar end result is much more intimidating - especially to your new customers.

There are advantages to having a very simple way to help new operators of Photoshop make the transition to using Photoshop and be able to blur things simply and easily with the blur tool and allow them the time to learn all the more complex and convoluted options that will eventually give them more control over more situations.

4) One of the most salient lessons that many developers could learn from the genius of Steve Jobs, in my humble opinion, was his innate sense that there was immense value in making the complex SIMPLE to use. Less is more. It's easier for someone to learn to drive a car with an automatic transmission when they are already overloaded with new information they must absorb and they can eventually learn to drive a stick shift at a later time when they are more comfortable with the basic driving techniques.

5) PS has called it a Blur tool and it's apparently not - it's some sort of specialty tool designed for a purpose that has been kept vague and mysterious. Having a Blur gallery, with lots of complex options, is all very well but to have a tool that is called a Blur tool and doesn't function as a Blur tool (when compared to other blur tools in other programs out there) is confusing at best and, if my experience is at all typical, eventually irritating.

6) The argument that making it stronger and more flexible would slow down the program is hard to consider seriously when I look at the unbelievable depth and complexity that has been continually developed and designed into new versions of Photoshop. PS can do 3D calculations and you would have us believe the reason for not simply making the blur tool stronger is that it will waste developers time and slow down the program? This is the point at which I feel that I've been wasting my time here, I'm sorry to say.

More people in this discussion seem to think my comments are accurate and on-point than yours are.

If you cannot carry on a useful conversation on this topic, then please stop adding noise, insults and random off topic comments to this forum.

As it turns out, apparently the same Chris Cox has made a hobby of ticking off Adobe users, which seems entirely insensible but not unexpectedly arrogant.

For this purpose I'd like to borrow an apparent Chris Cox quote from 2005:

"Please, don't lie to the users - let them see the new features and
decide whether they need them or not for THEMSELVES." Indeed.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=e...

As for whether the users who would benefit from a more powerful blur tool constitute a "small subset," I'll borrow another Cox quote:

"And you know this... how?"

Cox is apparently employed by Adobe not merely for software development, but to show how arrogant the company is and how little it cares about consumers.

Proof that users who would find a stronger blur tool useful is a "small subset" comes from what sampling? A survey was taken? Published? Where?

Your equation could apply to any modification of software, and, if assumed, would lead to an end to innovation, which almost always assumes more math, more memory access, and more time IF there is no corresponding increase in hardware speed. But there have been corresponding increases in hardware speed for decades, and software developers, including Adobe, have anticipated and exploited those increases.

Apple knows very well the key rule of computer innovation: publishers lead and consumers follow.

Now, I'm so disgusted by this atavistic Adobe "scientist" that I want no more of this discussion, and no more of Adobe.

If the condescending comments of Chris Cox are intended to alienate users from Adobe, they serve that purpose well.

Corin, you state yourself clearly, but some do not read as clearly, or are so wedded to the status quo that they throw up walls against change.

While the subject of change is at hand, how much have Adobe's own filters changed over the years? Yes, the app has changed significantly in some ways, but in others it has changed shockingly little. That's why products like those of Macphun do so well in the marketplace. I'm always on the lookout for an app that does more of what I want and less of what Adobe engineers think I should be limited to wanting. It's almost as though the company is allergic to make its products fun: the Microsoft Disease. Lack of major competition is likely the problem, but that won't last forever.

What the tool is intended for is useful.
But there are other things that some people need beyond that tool, which are already available.
Modifying a useful tool to do something already available by other methods , for a small subset of users, seems like a waste of development time.

It would be slower because the tool will have to do more calculations from a larger area, and more math + more memory access = more time taken = slower.

What is was intended for is not necessarily what consumers need and want? Then what is wrong with modifying it so it provides both, or creating a tool that allows the sort of quick spot blurring we want?

I see no reason at all why allowing more flexibility in blurring tool strength would make it "a lot slower." It would make my work a lot faster.

Very thoughtfully expressed.