[REJECTED] Tag implication: blurry_background -> depth_of_field

create implication blurry_background -> depth_of_field

Link to implication

Subset.
Depth of field is describing blurryness of objects that are not the focus of the image.
Blurry background is depth of field where the whole background is blurried.

EDIT: The tag implication blurry_background -> depth_of_field has been rejected by @Type-kun.

remove implication blurry_background -> blurry

Link to request

Not needed when the request above gets through.

EDIT: This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1293 (forum #136134) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

+1. blurry foreground should also be considered, however it's extremely underpopulated so there needs to be some serious tag gardening first (which applies to blurry_background too, as a quick search through blurry -blurry_background shows).

Blurred background can come about from more than just depth of field so -1 to both.

This implication would require blurry background tag be removed from things where the background is not or may not be the setting the character is in (eg if it is/is likely to be an abstract background - I wouldn't tag post #2584937 with depth of field but it is definitely a blurry background - or a zoom layer like post #2602381), as well as from situations where the blur is a motion blur rather than depth of field eg. post #1785057 or post #2260812.

Throwing together a quick wiki for the tags would probably help but yeah, I'll +1 this in the meanwhile.

kuuderes_shadow said:

Blurred background can come about from more than just depth of field so -1 to both.

This implication would require blurry background tag be removed from things where the background is not or may not be the setting the character is in (eg if it is/is likely to be an abstract background - I wouldn't tag post #2584937 with depth of field but it is definitely a blurry background - or a zoom layer like post #2602381), as well as from situations where the blur is a motion blur rather than depth of field eg. post #1785057 or post #2260812.

Hmm, completely forgot about motion blur (despite bumping the topic :c), but the point you have is correct.
But note that this would only apply to the very last example post. The first two are still good with depth of field, because it covers the goal of the depth of field tag.
post #1785057 is neither blurry bakground or depth of field, but motion blur only (the sky isn't blurried).

post #2260812 is probably the only post where it wouldn't fit..

-1 I agree with kuuderes shadow for his reasons stated... another set of examples include when various print backgrounds are blurred, e.g. heart background + blurry background a la post #2691608, or floral background + blurry background a la post #2335707.

Backgrounds encompass more than just images that have a composite scenario with three dimensions. If those were the only things backgrounds encompassed, then yes the above implication would make sense. However, backgrounds also encompasses compositions that are purely two-dimensional like the above mentioned scenario with the print background.

Well, with that input given, it seems that there are enough reasons why this implication shouldn't be done and therefore the request be rejected. Same as in topic #13986.

The tag implication blurry_background -> depth_of_field has been rejected by @Type-kun.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

The bulk update request #1293 (forum #136134) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.