I don’t consider it illegitimate to restate a request, as it should only help to make the point about what (some) people hope to get from future versions of Photoshop.
Anyway, bigger Brush sizes (if feasible programming-wise) would certainly be welcome.
But what do You mean regarding the banding?
Could You post an example? What color-mode and -space do You work in?
larger Feathering tool
I am glad you approve of the bigger brushes.
Probably for me the the larger diameter feathering tool would be more
important. When feathering at 250 pixels on such a large canvas (30MP+) the
feathering is too narrow.
2000 pixels would be more appropriate, even more if possible.
The problem is that with digital camera files being so large now the tools
have got left behind.
I have attached the BANDING you require. That is what I call it anyway.
Perhaps some refer to it as steps or rings?
I have just done a 250 feather on a 10x8 canvas. You can clearly see the
banding in steps going out from the middle.
This banding also appears when producing a graduation.
Please let me know.
I couldn’t find the attachment.
But if You have banding when feathering Selections You might consider working in 16bit – which would bloat the file-size considerably unfortunately.
I tried 16bit and 32bit makes no difference.
I will have a go at uploading the sample on the forum, this was produced in
You blurred something at a large radius, now it's incredibly smooth and you're seeing each individual value out of 255.
The slight color variation is due to your display profile and calibration.
Adding a small amount of noise will break up the bands.
But the more you blur something, the more likely you are to see banding.
Thank you for your message.
Is there no way of programming a better solutuion for this?
Basically why was it decided on only 255 steps for a histogram. With todays
technology why not a radical change? (i.e. like the change to HD)
If the shades are all about smoothness then surely a histogram with say 1024
steps would be way better.
Am I talking crap or does that make sense?
No, you can't program around the fact that 8 bit graphics only have 256 levels available.
And you can't program around the fact that the human eye is very good at picking out subtle edges.
You can avoid some banding using 16 bit/channel or 32 bit/channel -- but it'll reappear in output (because few output devices handle more than 8 bits/channel).
Again: the normal way to reduce the effect is to add some noise.
And yeah, the histogram comments aren't making sense.