Lens Blur (Early Access) in Lightroom Classic
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лип 2024
- With the help of artificial intelligence, Lightroom Classic can automatically generate a synthetic depth map based on the content of an image, enabling photographers to change the focus plane and quickly create a “narrow” or “shallow” depth of field in an image. The video below demonstrates how to use Lens Blur, apply a Bokah effect, visualize and customize the Depth Map, and use the Refinement brush.
Additional tips, tricks, and tutorials from Julieanne Kost can be found on her blog: jkost.com/blog
Facebook: / julieannekost
Twitter: / julieannekost
Instagram: / jkost
Behance: behance.net/julieannekost
Thanks a lot JulieAnne you're so clear in your videos...This video below demonstrates how to use Lens Blur in LR C. Again thank you .
I use Lens blur on a lot of my Photography. This will be a game changer for me. Thanks for the update.
Excellent explanations, Julieanne, thank you! - Like a number of times before, I experienced your tutorial tends to have more depth while maintaining clarity and conciseness.
Compliments!
Thanks for this tutorial! Seems an incredible useful feature!
always well done and easy to follow - many thanks
The best master teacher
Thanks again, great stuff.
Great video!
This is an interesting feature, not sure I’ll ever use it. There have been occasions when I would like to slightly increase the blur I captured in camera. I’ve been able to do that with existing tools. This new tool certainly has more features. The Lens Blur module looks able to create some very unrealistic blur. I’ll play with it, if I find a need. But I have to admit I prefer getting blur “right” in camera. We’ll see.
Great feature! Is there a way to copy/paste the lens blur to another photo?
Looking at 100% it is still very imprecise
Thank you for the easy-to-understand examples.
This appears to be *incredibly* well thought out! Question: Can it do to a background light source what a wide aperture on a real lens does? That is, a lens will not simply blur the background light source, but will rather retain the shape and *expand* it. Thank you.
It's constrained to the shape of the aperture you've chose in Bokeh. The Ring option makes it really obvious as it gives that strong donut you'd see with a mirror/reflex lens.
Thanks for the interesting video about this new feature in LrC 13.0. Do you know if LrC 13.0 on Sonoma can *finally* use the Apple Silicon Neural Engine for Denoise AI like Eric Chan wrote about in his Denoise AI article months ago? Right afterward Adobe (and DxO) said that Ventura introduced some Neural Engine bugs so Adobe was waiting until Apple fixed those bugs to enable the Neural Engine code in LrC. DxO said the bugs did not exist in Monterey. Apparently Apple never fixed the bugs in Ventura. Sonoma is out now. Did it fix the bugs? Does LrC 13.0 finally use the much faster Neural Engine?
This videoʼs thumbnail, of the icebear, where can I look at it? It means things to me
I'm currently running LrC and PS on a Windows 10 PC with 32GB of RAM and just onboard graphics. Finding that Lens Blur and Denoise run slow. What is a mid-range graphics card I should get?
is there a keyboard shortcut for this?
Everytime I try to do it I get a message that says "There was an unexpected error and your request could not be completed." I've tried it on several photos and I get the message each time. Can someone help me with this issue?
I use LR Classic but I don't have "Lens Blur" function. When will the update be available?
I updated today - and lens blur is now an option in the develop module.
I just wonder why this feature is a LR one and not photoshop's. I don't want LR to become PS. I want LR to remain the software for develop digital raw files. It's a cool technique, but I think it's something for "the socials" and not for the photographers.
"I don't want LR to become PS"
Sorry, but do you OWN Adobe? In the 0.0001% chance LR becomes PS, is that a bad thing? Just use the features you want, and disregard the rest you don't need. Not every feature in a software is made for just YOU.
" but I think it's something for "the socials" and not for the photographers."
What is this even supposed to mean? Whaaat? The last I checked, a photographer is someone who takes photographs. The intended destination of the photos or the medium used to take the photo had NO bearing on what the word "photographer" meant.
Y'all are bitter to see any good feature come to LR. I extensively use LR for editing my photos, about 95% of the work is done in LR. This Lens Blur and hopefully someday the Remove Tool from PS coming to LR would mean for my end to end edits, I'd need only LR, instead of currently me bouncing around between LR and PS.
If they added Lens Blur and took away some LR features, your whining would be understandable. In this case, they've added a feature that makes life for OTHER photographers easier, and you're here pissed.
Geesh!
@@KhoPhi I read only the first line. You have a problem.
Julieanne, I really like your posts, but as a long time Lightroom user, it's getting away from me slightly. Ever more complexity.
I'm terribly dissatisfied and disappointed in the direction image editing is heading. Where is the actual skill in photography anymore. For someone who makes a living from good photography, this just further blurs the lines between good photography and tricky editing, making it even more difficult for image illiterate clients to understand what they are being fed by so called professional photographers. I exclusively use prime lenses and often incorporate a tilt shift for portraits. Now there is no need. Crazy.
There still is a lot of skill in knowing how to use a tool and how much of it to use at the right time. That applies to editing too. I can give lightroom to someone who doesnt have and eye for things and results will be bad, even with these tools.
Profitable portrait photography depends on outstanding people skills. Being able to sell is essential.
@@GainesvilleKen I agree about having to have great people skills. I disagree about the selling. Photography, for me, is not sales based, but a quality of product. However more and more photographers, so called professionals, are selling based on editing, which to be fair is the easy part. Again, not many clients are visually literate and this just helps to blur the line of what is good photography.
@@sundersquare I agree with that yes. However it is much easier to learn Lightroom and call yourself a professional photographer than it is to learn photography and be a professional photographer.
I don’t agree that “now there is no need” for your skill. I might use Lens Blur here and there, but there are issues with leaning too much on Lens Blur as part of a business model. If you use high quality lenses, your images are ready to go out of the camera, partly because your depth of field transitions are perfect. But someone who uses lesser lenses and relies on Lens Blur is likely to spend extra time tuning this feature and fighting with the depth map to make it look good enough, because the automatic mask is not always perfect. This extra labor time will eat into their margins and any inconsistencies will show. If they’re smart, they’ll realize that at scale, it might be more economically viable to just buy the right camera and lens.
Also, it is not advisable to make a business so dependent on specific equipment or technique, because technology changes too quickly and can commoditize things before you know it (“portrait mode” in every smartphone). As the others are saying, a successful professional offers a total package of product (in this case image) quality, customer service, sales, and marketing. Historically, even before digital, the richest photographers are not the best photographers, they are the best businesspeople.
Also, technology and democratization don’t ruin photography. 35mm cameras 50 years ago (Remember? They said “How can you call yourself a professional with a negative that small?”), Photoshop 30 years ago, digital cameras 20 years ago, and then smartphones 10 years ago, were all feared to make great images “too easy” and “would klll good photography.” They didn’t, and neither will this.