P: (Lens Blur) Add Noise Option

[jpozzi]

Love the new Lens Blur feature but the blurred area is too smooth and doesn't match the parts of the photo in focus, it would help to add a slider to manually, or better automatically, match the noise (similar to Blur Gallery filters in Photoshop).
A temporary fix is to add noise to entire photo.

Attached a detail of an area affected by lens blur next to in focus.

[ouiouiphoto]

You have already the V13 available in your creative cloud ? 

[jpozzi]

Yes, it is just updated to 13.0

[simonsaith]

>A temporary fix is to add noise to entire photo.
There is also local Effects>Grain via the masking to the blurred background area.

[C.Cella]

I find that using Local Grain gives the best results as there is no "Grain Blur" applied locally.

In case one can blur the grain using negative sharpness.

[jpozzi]

Thank you! Do you know if the depth map calculated in Lens Blur is the same as the one in Subject Detection?

[C.Cella]

@jpozzi it's as yous ay a depth map, similar the ones certain mobile phones/photos have...in fact you can use the deth map provided by the phone if present.

The Subject Ai has no depth map attached to it at all...not yet 😉

.

[juripzz]

@C.Cella Lens Blur AI calculates a depth map, this is why I don't think subject mask is the same and noise will be applied over otiginal image and not just on blurred areas.

[C.Cella]

@jpozzi Maybe there is a bit of depth calculation in the ML/algorithm that produces Subject Ai but all the Subject Masks are bitmap, static.

Only a different Model Version produces a different Ai Mask.

What I advocate is to be able to use Focal Ranges in masking and eventually via masking do also Lens Blur.

So imagine you could use a Focal Range, subtract Subject from it, apply Lens Blur AND grain via that Correction.

Focal Range has enormous potential, not only for local Lens Blur but also sharpening, local contrast, improving Ai selections, etc...

Depth Based sharpening could be the next big thing, and Adobe has now the tech to do it.

[jamesone111]

I'd echo the original comment, but I wonder if there is something to be said for letting the depth map which is calculated for the focus effect carry into the masking tool then we could apply noise to same areas but also darken or lighten things according to distance, etc. 

[melvinf-Camera]

I very much like the new "lens Blur" feature in Camera Raw, and I have been testing it regularly. Would be interesting to have an option that would work like the Nikkor 135mm f/2 DC lens. This would allow both rear blur and front blur to various degrees. This would also give portraits a rich creamy look. Regardless, this new feature works differently than the various Photoshop "blur" features. I, so far, like it better.

[Simon S Chen]

The focus range control in the lens blur UI allows you control both the background and the foreground blur. Does it not work for you?

[C.Cella]

@Simon S Chen 

I think@melvinf-Camera means apply different Lens Blur Amount behind and in front of the focus point.

[C.Cella]

@melvinf-Camera In theory you can alredy do what you ask.

In VC A blur the Background at Amount 100

Leave subject and foreground sharp.

In VC B blur the foreground at Amount 50

Leave subject and background sharp

Export and blend the two in PS.

• With Focal Range in Masking one could blur before and after the focus point in two different ways in LrC.

E.g.

Correction A

Using Focal Range the user sets the limits of DOF and blurs only behind the Subject at Amount 100

For Correction B duplicate and invert Focal Range used in Correction A.

Now changr it to only the keep foregound affected by the blur.

Use Amount 50.

Brush Refinements would have to be made in each separate Correction because the Amount applied isn't the same.

This would work assuming different Focal Ranges were usable in Masking.

This would spare any trip into Photoshop.

.

[C.Cella]

I suppose the team could implement two sliders.

Front Blur Amount

Back Blur Amount

But the challenge with this solution is that it would not be clear what Amount the Brush refinements would use.

Using two different Corrections in Masking with different Blur Amount and different Focal Ranges feels simpler.

@melvinf-Camera 

Oh, an BTW you can already blur only the background at X Amount and use a Brush at Y Amount to blur less the other areas.

Disadvantage being LrC struggles the most at processing brush and there's a limit of how many you can do in LrC.

I for instance I can't do any brush refinements in some of my images as I reached the limit of Masking doable.

[melvinf-Camera]

I have not yet tried that solution.

[melvinf-Camera]

This is correct, similar to how the now classic Nikkor 135 or 105 DC f/2 lenses work. 

[RajivC60]

Good idea

[bejin38610285]

Add ability to blur as masks

[jesse5CEC]

100% Agree. In order for the lens blur effect to work fully and look realistic, film grain must be added back in. Thankfully, with masking, grain can be currently added, but it ultimately does need to be integrated with the lens blur module. 

[Yacov28864256x7c3]

Just a useful tip! I found that if you use the custom range instead of the selection tool you do get smooth drop off as long as you do not go to crazy with the blur slider about 39 is good.

[schillingfilm]

I agree with others, the algorithm already has the masking data necessary.

I would like to order my AI plug-in bots with the ability to look at the Signal-Noise ratios and recreate that noise in the tones (on a slider, of course)

[schillingfilm]

Multiple planes like a large-format swing camera or Tilt-Shift lens would be wild!

[abuse removed by moderator]

[melvinf-Camera]

This is not the same as swing backs and front on large format cameras.
But for this purpose I use "Geometry" feature in the RAW editor. When I need precise modifications I use the manual option in "Geometry" to correct the perspective. This is not the same as a dedicated large format camera feature, but definately helps to correct perspective.