P: Increase the strength of the blur tool.

1) Yes, their "strength" looks like it just sets the opacity/density of a mask painting operation.

2) Yes. That is not what the tool is designed for, not what it is good at, and would be a lot slower...

3) that method already exists in Photoshop, plus there are many other methods that can achieve the same basic result, without trying to modify the existing tool (which is already useful for what it is intended for).

Chris - Thank you for the explanation, which I find helpful in understanding the process that Aperture uses. I've got 3 questions, if you wouldn't mind helping me get a little clearer.

1) Would it be accurate to interpret your description "blur and use a layer mask" as describing a process where the "Strength" slider that Aperture uses for the Blur tool sets the density of a layer mask. The mask is fixed at the % it will allow the Blur tool to react with the photo, and the Blur tool is functioning at full power at all times?

2) Is there any reason the existing Blur tool in Photoshop couldn't be made more powerful to have a higher, and variable degree of effect on the photo?

3) Can yo think of any reason the system that Aperture and Lightroom use that create a mask could not coexist with a more powerful blur tool?

I appreciate your input - Richard

That is because Aperture is doing something closer to "blur and use a layer mask" method.
Lightroom and ACR use the same method for many of their painted adjustments.

There is an additional function (beyond the ability to vary the strength of the blur tool so that it would be stronger) that would make the blur tool and a few of the other tools (Dodge, Burn, Blur, Sharpen, etc.) MUCH more valuable and useful in my opinion.

The tools are all set to keep adding more adjustment on EVERY pass at whatever degree you have initially set them to. So if you overlap your strokes you will get double the adjustment where the strokes overlap which creates an uneven effect if you attempt to build up the adjustment by multiple passes. In fact even if you want only a single pass of the adjustment you will have uneven application where the strokes overlap unless your brush size is large enough to cover in one pass, and who is so good they can perfectly match the edge of one stroke up against the next stroke you put beside it?

In Aperture if you select any one of the tools - say the Dodge tool - it doesn't matter how many times you go over the area back and forth or how often your strokes overlap - the final STRENGTH of the effect on the photo is the same, and perfectly even over the entire application area because it maxes out at whatever STRENGTH (from 0 to 100) that you choose. It would be great if Photoshop were to increase the strength potential of the Blur tool and also add a toggle switch for each adjustment tool that toggles between a variable but set LIMIT to the maximum effect of the adjustment (as Aperture does) and the CUMULATIVE effect that they have now. Having both would increase our creative choice and efficiency as well - not to mention keeping Photoshop at the top of the heap.

My experience with the Blur tool, as it relates to your car speed analogy, is that the top speed of the Blur tool is more like 10km/h when other Blur tools are capable of 200km/h. I don't think we'd be having this discussion if the existing Blur tool were actually capable of the equivalent of 120km/h in a car.

I too have been baffled, for many years now, as to why the blur tool is so weak. The justification for keeping it so weak is even less sensible. Adding the option of increasing it's strength, would not prevent people from using it at a low setting, and enabling stronger settings would let the tool be able to achieve so much more.

I'm a graphic artist so I use Photoshop for digital painting, and I do a lot of color blending. I've tried several programs but so far Photoshop has won in the end, because it has offered the best overall selection of tools. Not necessarily the best tool for all situations, but good enough for most. Since I really dislike juggling several different programs while working, Photoshop has been my go to choice for over 15 years.

There is a lot to like in Photoshop, and along the years many tools have been expanded and new options have been added and thus made more versatile. But the Blur tool has stubbornly remained the same, and lately I've been thinking: Does Photoshop really offer me the best overall selection of tools, or am I using it simply because I'm used to it, and am accustomed to dancing around it's flaws.

The weak Blur tool is a good example. Other programs offer so much better options for controlled blurring with pressure sensitive brush tool, that not having anything even close to it in Photoshop has become really jarring. Using layer masks and blur filters to achieve the effect is so tedious and fiddly that it's actually less of a hassle to just port the work into a program that has a decent blur tool. Even for just one phase of the work.

But the things is: If I am going to have to do that step in another program, then I might as well do the rest of it in that program as well. That is, if it's easier to live without the things I like about Photoshop, than it is to work around the bits I don't like about Photoshop. So far that hasn't been the case, but there are some pretty neat programs out there, and lately I've seriously started to think about whether Photoshop is the program for me. A decent Blur tool would certainly go a long way towards maintaining Photoshops image as the king of the hill. Insisting on limiting it's utility is just keeping on shooting at it's own foot.

And to clarify: This is not intended to mean the Feature Request lacks merit.

"since it apparently wasn't intended to be one they should call it something else"
That makes about as much sense as demanding cars that don’t go over 120km/h be called something other than cars.

I also find the weakness in the blur tool to be baffling - and saying it's intended for "subtle" retouching as a way to explain its built in limitation sounds as absurd as limiting color saturation to 10% and saying that's all it was intended for. It doesn't take much imagination to realize that if you make it adjustable through a wider range then the "user" can decide what they want too use it for and adjust it to their needs. If the user only wants a "subtle" blur then they simply adjust it to where they need it. I have to take the photo I want to blur from Photoshop over to Aperture where they have a fully functional and totally adjustable blur tool that actually blurs. Photoshop doesn't really have a fully functional "blur" tool at the moment and since it apparently wasn't intended to be one they should call it something else and make a real one or just copy the one that Aperture has which is great.

Of course the blur tool should continue to offer a range of strengths, but I cannot think of a good reason why it should not be much more powerful at the top end.