Skip to main content
Webshark2000
Known Participant
March 3, 2009
Question

How can I create a gradient blur?

  • March 3, 2009
  • 16 replies
  • 86658 views
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.

Can anyone help?
    This topic has been closed for replies.

    16 replies

    Participant
    November 30, 2020

    use the tilt shift blur from the blur gallery under the filter menu.

    shoot_me_now-d3u3se
    Participating Frequently
    March 8, 2009
    No arguments from me, Pierre, I just posted the first thing that popped into my head. Did you guys over at PST ever automate your blur technique?
    March 6, 2009
    Thanks for the link Don. Interesting reading to say the least.
    PECourtejoie
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    March 6, 2009
    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 ;)
    Webshark2000
    Known Participant
    March 4, 2009
    PeterK,

    I tried the method you mentioned just to see what the results would look like and, you're right, that came closer to the look I was trying to get.

    Ho's method did look better than the original one I mentioned that I had tried, but the lens blur is even better.

    Thanks for your suggestion and thank all of you for the help.
    Webshark2000
    Known Participant
    March 4, 2009
    >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 in 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.
    Participating Frequently
    March 4, 2009
    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.
    Known Participant
    March 4, 2009
    David

    Much had been written on the change to new forums coming up soon, including the rating system.

    http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b7c637/
    March 4, 2009
    As always, I never received a copy of the memo on the new rating system.
    shoot_me_now-d3u3se
    Participating Frequently
    March 4, 2009
    >fake gradual blur

    Any digitally created representation of a blur is fake. Lens Blur may suit some subjects better, and I certainly endorse using whatever method produces the best restult. Like many things, there are at least 4 or 5 ways to do this in Photoshop.