background
tony cooper
What do you do about background when it distracts?
Using http://tonycooper.fileave.com/pete.jpg as an example, I can do a
layer mask and apply a heavy Gaussian blur to the background, or I can
drop it out and replace it. This was taken inside a building, and a
quick snap of a guy that did something for me and wanted his picture
taken.
I've got a stock series of images I've taken of various things that
can be used for backgrounds...brick walls, stucco walls, sky, outdoor
scenes, etc. I can put Pete up in front of something that wasn't
there, but I'm wondering what others here do.
This one would mask easily because there's no hair tendrils floating
around or fuzzy edges, but I thought I might do something a bit
different.
What do others do?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Ray Fischer
>To those who Photoshop...
>
>What do you do about background when it distracts?
There are three techinques that I use, in varying proportions:
Reduce sharpness, reduce brightness, reduce color.
Blurring out the background will queue the viewer to ignore it.
Reducing brightness (or, occasionally, increasing brightness)
separates the background visually from the foreground object.
And reducing color saturation for the background can also make it less
noticable.
>Using http://tonycooper.fileave.com/pete.jpg as an example, I can do a
>layer mask and apply a heavy Gaussian blur to the background, or I can
>drop it out and replace it. This was taken inside a building, and a
>quick snap of a guy that did something for me and wanted his picture
>taken.
Replacing it would be an approach. Depends how the result looks.
>I've got a stock series of images I've taken of various things that
>can be used for backgrounds...brick walls, stucco walls, sky, outdoor
>scenes, etc. I can put Pete up in front of something that wasn't
>there, but I'm wondering what others here do.
Replacing the background can be chancy because of the lighting doesn't
match then the result will look odd.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Dave Cohen
Whatever the response (and you seem to have answered your own question),
I would have thought any half decent photo editor is capable of the same
steps (at about 1/10th the cost).
Dave Cohen
tony cooper
wrote:
I'm guilty of using "Photoshop" in the generic. If you can work the
twist out of your y-fronts, and have a suggestion or observation about
what can be done with any editor, please feel free to comment. Or, if
you prefer, sulk.
measekite
I would say that the more correct statement would be that any half decent
photo editor is capable of SIMILAR steps (at about 1/10th the cost) Most
other photo editors even if they match the PS features do not have as good
a quality algorithms.
Bob Williams
Polygonal Lasso Tool to select him. (Enlarge the image to ~300% for
precision selecting).
Then I'd create a NEW file and apply a B > W gradient to it.
Then paste the selected subject onto the B?W gradient.
Makes a very profesional looking Portrait.
Bob Williams
D.Mac
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9os4n49dua0n1p4r5...@4ax.com...
How about just darkening the background? Using blur without the lens effect
with a DOF setting is fraught with danger.
What you need to do in that instance is plot the depth of field with a depth
map It is a new feature of CS4. This way the blur looks more authentic.
Unless you are a past master at shading and then blending the edges of a cut
out image, any attempt to paste a different background into it will look
like you did!
That shot is what I'd call warts and all portraiture. LOL. BTW. Are you
going to focus the face or try to focus just the edges?
Douglas
Mark Thomas
I never use other backgrounds, partly because it's just not my thing,
but also because unless the lighting and colour balance gels, it just
won't work. Plus you have to be mighty careful about the edges.
In that case you are lucky to have the subject well isolated from the
background, so I think a moderate background blur would look quite
'real'. At that size, I reckon a gaussian blur of about 5-8 pixels
works pretty well. If it was me, I'd desaturate the background a bit as
well to get rid of the impact of Mr Brightshirt. I would be leery about
darkening the background - watch them edges carefully!
(I'd also tone the saturation down overall - maybe it's me, but it looks
a bit strong..)
Celcius
I downloaded your photo, brought it into Photoshop CS3, selected the
background with the "Quick selection tool", clicked on "Filter", "Gaussian
blur" at 6,1 Pixel. That's it. I could have blurred it more or even less,
but it might not look natural. Had this been shot with a 24-105mm Canon f/4
L IS, the background would be slightly out of focus. Marcel
Celcius
David J Taylor
[]
I think a slight darkening of the background would aslo help.
David
tony cooper
wrote:
I don't know what that means. Focus the face?
I selected that image as an example. Distracting backgrounds occur in
all sorts of images. I recently went to an indoor show put on by a
group that collects antique hand tools. The objects are very
photographable, and I like taking shots of old objects.
The objects are not arranged for the photographer, though. Usually
they are just placed on uncovered tables. These are collectors, not
museum people. I like this type of show, and there are several
different groups who exhibit their collectibles at local shows. I see
there's an antique toy collector's show coming up, and I'll go there.
I can do a certain amount of rearranging on the table, but I can't
really set-up the objects for good photographs. If it's a tall
object, where I shoot horizontally, the room background is filled with
people.
These shows are usually indoor venues in rather stark settings.
Usually there's a horrible combination of lighting, too. You get a
table under fluorescent lights with a window behind the table letting
in sunlight and the next table is in fluorescent only. I have to
manually set my white balance several times during my visit.
Next time I go to a similar show, I'm going to carry a folded-up
square of cloth to use as a make-shift background, but that isn't
going to solve all the problems.
If there was one object, or a small number of objects, that I
particularly wanted to photograph, I could make arrangements with the
owner to take it off somewhere where I could arrange it properly and
set up a background. This isn't the case normally, though.
As it is, I do a lot of masking, cloning, and other post-processing
steps to isolate the objects. Just looking for new ideas in this.
J. Clarke
FWIW, I tried the same in Elements 5 with the result shown at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39383723@N00/3207003828/, including the
darkened background.
There's a bit of a dark halo around the hat though--I was able to cut
down on that some by cutting the subject out of the background instead
of copying, but it's still there and seems to be an artifact of the
Gaussian blur.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Dave Cohen
I know the term is often used in a generic sense but people should
realize that for non-professional use there are others out there.
Specifically, PhotoPlus, Paint Shop Pro and Adobe's own Elements fall
into that category and in terms of features in about that order.
I never sulk.
Dave Cohen
tony cooper
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>David J Taylor wrote:
>> Celcius wrote:
>> []
>>> Sorry, Tony... I forgot:
>>> http://celestart.com/images/publiques/blurred.jpg
>>> Marcel
>>
>> I think a slight darkening of the background would aslo help.
>
>FWIW, I tried the same in Elements 5 with the result shown at
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/39383723@N00/3207003828/, including the
>darkened background.
>
>There's a bit of a dark halo around the hat though--I was able to cut
>down on that some by cutting the subject out of the background instead
>of copying, but it's still there and seems to be an artifact of the
>Gaussian blur.
The darkening, coupled with a blur, works well on this. Some objects
might require the opposite: lightening. Blur alone can leave blobs
of color even if the object is less defined.
Celcius
"Savageduck" <savag...@savage.net> wrote in message
news:2009011809073527544-savageduck@savagenet...
> chose to use the Lens Blur Filter. Then I went to "select" + "Refine
> Edges" + "Feather". That seems to be a Down & Dirty quick fix which should
> be easy to modify and refine, for this and other files you have in mind.
> http://snipr.com/aakd9-lntlf9
> --
> Regards,
Hi Savageduck!
I like your correction better than mine, especially around the hat. Mine has
a bit of a reddish line ;-(
Marcel
David J Taylor
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Celcius wrote:
>> []
>>> Sorry, Tony... I forgot:
>>> http://celestart.com/images/publiques/blurred.jpg
>>> Marcel
>>
>> I think a slight darkening of the background would aslo help.
>
> FWIW, I tried the same in Elements 5 with the result shown at
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/39383723@N00/3207003828/, including the
> darkened background.
>
> There's a bit of a dark halo around the hat though--I was able to cut
> down on that some by cutting the subject out of the background instead
> of copying, but it's still there and seems to be an artifact of the
> Gaussian blur.
Perhaps a little darker than I was thinking, but otherwise excellent. To
me the problem originally was that the face and the door had too similar a
colour.
Thanks for doing that adjustment and sharing. Yes, I do see what you mean
about the edges round the had. Do you think the white balance a little
yellow?
Cheers,
David
J. Clarke
In which order, are you saying that PhotoPlus has more features than
Paint Shop Pro which has more than Elements or do you mean the other
way around?
Incidentally, I had never heard of PhotoPlus before--checking their
web site I see that for the full featured version it's 10 bucks--while
I don't object to the 10 bucks is it worth my time to diddle with it
compared to Elements?
> I never sulk.
> Dave Cohen
--
tony cooper
I was shooting with a manual white balance setting, but the room (a
civic center auditorium) has both fluorescent fixtures and
incandescent spotlights. I'd re-set the WB when I was planning a
shot, but not with Pete.
The man is very tanned and leathery-looking, but the white point would
be the "Embarq" lettering on his cap. That's white thread.
The "halo" doesn't bother me, but Pete's left (left as you view the
image) is a bit chopped by the selection. You only notice it if you
compare the original and the worked-on version.
tony cooper
wrote:
I agree completely. I'm a total amateur, but I use both Photoshop and
Elements and tend to think of any manipulation beyond the basics as
"photoshopping". Adobe, btw, objects to people doing this. They
don't want "photoshopping" to become a generic term.
>Specifically, PhotoPlus, Paint Shop Pro and Adobe's own Elements fall
>into that category and in terms of features in about that order.
>I never sulk.
>Dave Cohen
--
tony cooper
wrote:
>On 2009-01-18 04:27:13 -0800, "Celcius" <celc...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>>
>Using CS4 I made a similar edit using the Quick Select Tool. However I
>chose to use the Lens Blur Filter. Then I went to "select" + "Refine
>Edges" + "Feather". That seems to be a Down & Dirty quick fix which
>should be easy to modify and refine, for this and other files you have
>in mind.
>http://snipr.com/aakd9-lntlf9
What would you do when you want to completely change the background?
Blurring helps on some images, but sometimes leaves unwanted figures
and blobs of color.
Outdoor shots are easier because a background of woods or sky can be
inserted. Indoor shots pose more of a challenge.
It should be noted that I'm speaking of images where manipulation to
this extent is perfectly permissible and required because of the
circumstances when taking the shot.
Let's say you see an antique lamp in shop and you want to present an
image of the lamp. You don't have the opportunity to place the lamp
in front of a neutral background when you take the shot, but you want
to end up with an image of the lamp with a neutral background. The
lamp, though, is on a counter where other objects that distract are
very prominent in the background.
David J Taylor
[]
> I was shooting with a manual white balance setting, but the room (a
> civic center auditorium) has both fluorescent fixtures and
> incandescent spotlights. I'd re-set the WB when I was planning a
> shot, but not with Pete.
Mixed lighting can be a real pain!
> The man is very tanned and leathery-looking, but the white point would
> be the "Embarq" lettering on his cap. That's white thread.
So it should be straight-forward to correct, if that would improve the
result.
> The "halo" doesn't bother me, but Pete's left (left as you view the
> image) is a bit chopped by the selection. You only notice it if you
> compare the original and the worked-on version.
Well, a most interest thread to see how different things work. Thanks for
the chance to have a play!
Cheers,
David
tony cooper
wrote:
>> What would you do when you want to completely change the background?
>> Blurring helps on some images, but sometimes leaves unwanted figures
>> and blobs of color.
>>
>> Outdoor shots are easier because a background of woods or sky can be
>> inserted.
>
>Agreed.
>Outdoor shots where there is a branch sticking out of your subject's
>eat, or some such composition problem, I find easy to fix using the
>clone tool to hide the offending item.
>
>> Indoor shots pose more of a challenge.
>
>Once more I agree.
>Background, lighting, subject and lens selection can make a
>satisfactory fix all but unobtainable.
>
>>
>> It should be noted that I'm speaking of images where manipulation to
>> this extent is perfectly permissible and required because of the
>> circumstances when taking the shot.
>> Let's say you see an antique lamp in shop and you want to present an
>> image of the lamp. You don't have the opportunity to place the lamp
>> in front of a neutral background when you take the shot, but you want
>> to end up with an image of the lamp with a neutral background. The
>> lamp, though, is on a counter where other objects that distract are
>> very prominent in the background.
>
>This is where you need to use all PS provides, starting with multiple
>layers & masks.
>The first thing to do is take your time and make a very careful
>detailed selection of your subject (in this case I would imagine it
>would be the lamp.) I know this is easier said than done, but this is
>the road to your goal.
I'm more than reasonably proficient at making selections with a layer
mask. I have a Wacom tablet, and comfortable with detailed work.
I've been doing this for several years. (Actually, I often use a
combination of tools for any extraction, with the layer mask the last
step.)
>From here saving that extraction as a smart object would allow you the
>flexibility to paste it onto the background of preference, or make
>blur, saturation or other adjustments to the original background to
>obscure it.
I use Photoshop V 7.0, which does not have "smart objects", but I can
still do the above without any problem.
>As an exercise in photo-manipulation all that work might be satifying
>once you reach an acceptable result, however it seems it would be
>better to find some way to position yourself, or the subject to
>minimize the background issue.
I'm trying to set-up a "what if?" scenario. Just assume that all
possible steps have been taken before pushing the button, and the
owner of the shop would not allow you to move the object or any other
objects in the frame, and you were restricted to stand in one place
only. In other words, you have no control over what you do before
taking the photograph, but want to change the result.
My question has more to do with what can be brought in as a new
background so the result looks natural. In this case, I might use
one of the stock of background shots I have on file. By that, I mean
I have files of painted walls, wallpapered walls, stuccoed walls,
paneled walls, weathered wood walls, brick walls, etc. For this, I
might use a lightly stuccoed wall with a bit a blur applied to provide
a slightly textured background.
People wonder why I shoot images of sections of walls with no object
in focus, but I keep these for this purpose. I have similar files of
outdoor backgrounds.
>Also learning to become a little more proficient with PS (even
>Elements) and what it offers, will help (Adobe falls over its self
>providing training.)
I posed this question because I know there are techniques that I
haven't thought of or tried. I'm proficient enough with Photoshop to
do just about anything, but I'm hoping to prompt some new thinking.
tony cooper
<david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>[]
>> I was shooting with a manual white balance setting, but the room (a
>> civic center auditorium) has both fluorescent fixtures and
>> incandescent spotlights. I'd re-set the WB when I was planning a
>> shot, but not with Pete.
>
>Mixed lighting can be a real pain!
>
>> The man is very tanned and leathery-looking, but the white point would
>> be the "Embarq" lettering on his cap. That's white thread.
>
>So it should be straight-forward to correct, if that would improve the
>result.
I didn't do anything to the image, other than cropping it, before
posting the link because my question had to with what is behind Pete,
not what Pete looks like. It's posted strictly as an exercise.
>
>> The "halo" doesn't bother me, but Pete's left (left as you view the
>> image) is a bit chopped by the selection. You only notice it if you
>> compare the original and the worked-on version.
>
>Well, a most interest thread to see how different things work. Thanks for
>the chance to have a play!
>
>Cheers,
>David
--
Alan Browne
> To those who Photoshop...
>
> What do you do about background when it distracts?
>
> Using http://tonycooper.fileave.com/pete.jpg as an example, I can do a
> layer mask and apply a heavy Gaussian blur to the background, or I can
> drop it out and replace it. This was taken inside a building, and a
> quick snap of a guy that did something for me and wanted his picture
> taken.
>
> I've got a stock series of images I've taken of various things that
> can be used for backgrounds...brick walls, stucco walls, sky, outdoor
> scenes, etc. I can put Pete up in front of something that wasn't
> there, but I'm wondering what others here do.
>
> This one would mask easily because there's no hair tendrils floating
> around or fuzzy edges, but I thought I might do something a bit
> different.
>
> What do others do?
First I corrected the green tinge by pulling down the green and pushing
the magenta. Still looks a little green/yellowish.
Would rather have the raw file for this.
1) http://www.aliasimages.com/images/TCman1.jpg
Just chopped him out (select/invert). Layered "tree of life" behind him
(and blurred it for OOF effect).
2) http://www.aliasimages.com/images/TCman2.jpg
Restored "tree of life" to focus; pulled it in front and reduced the
opacity of the man slightly to emulate him being behind the glass.
Why this BG(FG)? Well it sort of 'reflects' the amulet he is presenting.
This isn't necessarily "what I'd do" it's what I did here.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Alan Browne
> Using CS4 I made a similar edit using the Quick Select Tool. However I
> chose to use the Lens Blur Filter. Then I went to "select" + "Refine
> Edges" + "Feather". That seems to be a Down & Dirty quick fix which
> should be easy to modify and refine, for this and other files you have
> in mind.
> http://snipr.com/aakd9-lntlf9
You missed a spot in select near his collar (right, near the blue
shirt). Good blur level, however.
Alan Browne
> On 2009-01-18 13:41:28 -0800, Alan Browne
>
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>
>>> Using CS4 I made a similar edit using the Quick Select Tool. However
>>> I chose to use the Lens Blur Filter. Then I went to "select" +
>>> "Refine Edges" + "Feather". That seems to be a Down & Dirty quick fix
>>> which should be easy to modify and refine, for this and other files
>>> you have in mind.
>>> http://snipr.com/aakd9-lntlf9
>>
>> You missed a spot in select near his collar (right, near the blue
>> shirt). Good blur level, however.
>
Not a complaint, just thought you'd like to know.
tony cooper
That's the idea. First sign of an imaginative solution. Is that a
gradient effect behind the window in TCman1?
Maybe we should do something like this for the Shoot-In: best, and
most imaginative, combination of two images with both images taken
during the competition period.
That "amulet", by the way, is a telephone box. "Embarq" is our local
telephone company, and Pete is a retired telephone worker. He was
showing me his necklace. The door opens and closes.
Dave Cohen
I think you will find that $10 is for an earlier version. You can try it
to get a feel for the product.
All the ones I mentioned play catch up with each other so it's hard to
rank, but I believe the latest PhotoPlus will cover anything the others
have. Exceptions are:
PSP does animal red eye (which isn't normally red).
Elements has keystroke shortcuts.
Of course, the others may have slipped this in on latest versions.
In the final analysis, like everything else, it all ends up in the skill
and patience of the user.
Dave Cohen
Paul Furman
> "tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:9os4n49dua0n1p4r5...@4ax.com...
>>
>> What do you do about background when it distracts?
>>
>> Using http://tonycooper.fileave.com/pete.jpg as an example, I can do a
>> layer mask and apply a heavy Gaussian blur to the background, or I can
>> drop it out and replace it. This was taken inside a building, and a
>> quick snap of a guy that did something for me and wanted his picture
>> taken.
>>
>> I've got a stock series of images I've taken of various things that
>> can be used for backgrounds...brick walls, stucco walls, sky, outdoor
>> scenes, etc. I can put Pete up in front of something that wasn't
>> there, but I'm wondering what others here do.
>>
>> This one would mask easily because there's no hair tendrils floating
>> around or fuzzy edges, but I thought I might do something a bit
>> different.
>>
>> What do others do?
>>
>>
> http://celestart.com/images/publiques/blurred.jpg
This one show a halo from the blur. Savageduck's didn't, I don't know
why but I've had to resort to cloning in spare background (subject cut &
pasted to a top layer) so the blur has something to blur behind the
subject. I might try faking in people-free building background where the
guy in the blue shirt is, maybe after the blur.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Paul Furman
Here's mine:
http://edgehill.net/1/temp/pete.jpg
I did as above and blurred, then used the smudge tool to remove halos &
get rid of the blue-shirt guy. I used the eyedropper on a levels
adjustment layer to do the WB picking on the gray shirt, different areas
gave different results, some better than others.
tony cooper
wrote:
Whoa! You used the smudge tool to remove Mr Blue Shirt?
Mark Thomas
Whoa!! (squared!)
Very nice removal Paul - care to explain what method/sequence you used
to get such a good result?
I'll hire you to do that sort of work, but *I'll* do the edges... (O:
Dave Cohen
I should have mentioned The Gimp in my post. Some people like it, it's
free and has most of what anyone would need but no hand holding.
Download and try it.
Also, I've just noticed PSP 9 has at least basic keyboard shortcuts.
Dave Cohen
Celcius
> I found there was more flexibility using the lens blur filter. Also
> feathering the edges makes the transition around the hat less of a
> problem.
> I was not going to mess with any of the color/white balance issues as that
> was not what Tony's post was about.
> ...it was all fun trying.
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
***********************
I did feather next to nothing. owever, I still got this line around the hat.
Any suggestion?
Marcel
Celcius
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:%rTcl.14019$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
I'm getting a blank page.
I'm interested because as you said in a previous post, "this one shows a
halo from the blur".
I don't know why, but I tried it many ways and it's still the same, even
with feathering reduced to zero.
Marcel
J. Clarke
I see. Their site is very confusing--searching on "Photoplus" in
Google, the first hit that comes up is
http://www.freeserifsoftware.com which lists version 6 for free,
version 8 for 10 bucks, and version 9 in a different place for 30
bucks, but no mention of any other version unless one looks in the
FAQ. Was finally able to to find http://www.serif.com that lists
"Photoplus X2" for 80 bucks.
> All the ones I mentioned play catch up with each other so it's hard
> to
> rank, but I believe the latest PhotoPlus will cover anything the
> others have. Exceptions are:
> PSP does animal red eye (which isn't normally red).
> Elements has keystroke shortcuts.
> Of course, the others may have slipped this in on latest versions.
> In the final analysis, like everything else, it all ends up in the
> skill and patience of the user.
> Dave Cohen
--
Paul Furman
Yeah the edge selection was quick & dirty. I used the smudge tool
('finger pointing down', under the blur 'drop') after blurring at 100%
strength,0% hardness and a large 160px radius. You can keep dragging all
the way across the screen. Difficult to make straight lines though. And
the same smudging to fill the halo gap all the way around. Smudge works
better than blur if you just want to extend something.
Paul Furman
The blur has a large radius and it grabs from the subject's edge or
nothingness or white behind/at the edge of the selection. So you need to
paste the subject on another layer on top, turn that layer off & clone
in some fake background to blur from. I did this with the smudge tool
after blurring rather than clone.
One of the other examples didn't have halos, maybe the lens blur tool on
newer versions self corrects for this issue, I used just plain gaussian
blur.
Celcius
Marcel
Alan Browne
No. In the orig. photo of the window it is sharply in focus, but its BG
is OOF. Outside the ground is snow covered and the treeline is in the
distance. For TCman1, I made the window slightly OOF as it would likely
be with such a shot.
> Maybe we should do something like this for the Shoot-In: best, and
> most imaginative, combination of two images with both images taken
> during the competition period.
Ugh.
tony cooper
wrote:
>Mark Thomas wrote:
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:37:14 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> Here's mine:
>>>> http://edgehill.net/1/temp/pete.jpg
>>>> I did as above and blurred, then used the smudge tool to remove halos
>>>> & get rid of the blue-shirt guy. I used the eyedropper on a levels
>>>> adjustment layer to do the WB picking on the gray shirt, different
>>>> areas gave different results, some better than others.
>>>
>>> Whoa! You used the smudge tool to remove Mr Blue Shirt?
>>
>> Whoa!! (squared!)
>>
>> Very nice removal Paul - care to explain what method/sequence you used
>> to get such a good result?
>>
>> I'll hire you to do that sort of work, but *I'll* do the edges... (O:
>
>Yeah the edge selection was quick & dirty. I used the smudge tool
>('finger pointing down', under the blur 'drop') after blurring at 100%
>strength,0% hardness and a large 160px radius. You can keep dragging all
>the way across the screen. Difficult to make straight lines though. And
>the same smudging to fill the halo gap all the way around. Smudge works
>better than blur if you just want to extend something.
Let me make sure of something here...you removed the man in the blue
shirt with the smudge tool as described above?
I can't make that work and end up even close to your result.
Jeff
Keep trying, with your own settings! It's very powerful, you just
have to think a little differently as it is more of a painting than a
strictly darkroom type photo tool. But then, there is little straight
photography anymore.
I'd like to say this about the original image. Learn to take a better
initial image. Don't be shy about choosing the moment or the location
for the subject. Often just turning the subject will give either better
lighting or a better background.
A little less depth of field (if the lens was stopped down), would
have given the OP a softer background and probably a sharper image as I
suspect some of the softness is motion blur.
And fix the color tint.
Jeff
>
>
>
tony cooper
Any tips on sucking eggs?
The image was posted specifically as an example of where background
would be distracting. In other words, an image with a problem was
*deliberately* selected. There would have been no resulting thread
of suggestions if the photograph was taken under better conditions.
The photo was unaltered from the way it came from the camera. That
does not mean that I am unaware of how to improve the color or any
other part of it.
It is not enough to just read a thread. Sometimes you should try to
understand what the thread is actually about.
Jeff
I thought I would get *that* response.
>
> The image was posted specifically as an example of where background
> would be distracting. In other words, an image with a problem was
> *deliberately* selected. There would have been no resulting thread
> of suggestions if the photograph was taken under better conditions.
And remarkably little in the way of practical suggestions for the
typical photo that needs some work done. What we have is first a lesson
in masking and wholesale blurring, smudging or replacing of backgrounds.
In practice that is seldom done, and seldom needed. And seldom yields
a satisfying picture.
If you do drop in backgrounds you'll need to watch that the
background has the same quality and direction of lighting. That the
subject fits and needed shadows/highlights are created. That the depth
of field is appropriate and matches the subject.
What often is needed is that distracting hot spots need to be cleaned
up, either through darking or cloning, and that whatever lies on the
edge may need some attention and often removal. Then there is the
question of what is your subject and cropping to emphasize that. And
often burning down corners. Basically you are usually concerned with a
few details that make a good picture a great picture.
Fixing a bad picture to make it a fair picture is usually only of
interest to relatives.
>
> The photo was unaltered from the way it came from the camera. That
> does not mean that I am unaware of how to improve the color or any
> other part of it.
>
> It is not enough to just read a thread. Sometimes you should try to
> understand what the thread is actually about.
I'm aware of that, which is why I waited. I thought you might want to
be a better photographer/printer. Getting defensive won't serve you well
in the long run.
Now, you've said that you wanted to return a favor (of a photo) for
the subject, and I ran with that.
Jeff
>
>
tony cooper
Your efforts to show how it's done are eagerly anticipated.
> If you do drop in backgrounds you'll need to watch that the
>background has the same quality and direction of lighting. That the
>subject fits and needed shadows/highlights are created. That the depth
>of field is appropriate and matches the subject.
Really? Who would of ever thought of that?
> What often is needed is that distracting hot spots need to be cleaned
>up, either through darking or cloning, and that whatever lies on the
>edge may need some attention and often removal. Then there is the
>question of what is your subject and cropping to emphasize that. And
>often burning down corners. Basically you are usually concerned with a
>few details that make a good picture a great picture.
>
> Fixing a bad picture to make it a fair picture is usually only of
>interest to relatives.
>> The photo was unaltered from the way it came from the camera. That
>> does not mean that I am unaware of how to improve the color or any
>> other part of it.
>>
>> It is not enough to just read a thread. Sometimes you should try to
>> understand what the thread is actually about.
>
>
> I'm aware of that, which is why I waited. I thought you might want to
>be a better photographer/printer.
Oh, I do, I do. Do you have someone in mind who can teach me?
> Getting defensive won't serve you well
>in the long run.
> Now, you've said that you wanted to return a favor (of a photo) for
>the subject, and I ran with that.
I don't understand the above sentence. Did you leave some words out?
Jeff
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to say this about the original image. Learn to take a better
>>>> initial image. Don't be shy about choosing the moment or the location
>>>> for the subject. Often just turning the subject will give either better
>>>> lighting or a better background.
>>>>
>>>> A little less depth of field (if the lens was stopped down), would
>>>> have given the OP a softer background and probably a sharper image as I
>>>> suspect some of the softness is motion blur.
>>>>
>>>> And fix the color tint.
>>> Any tips on sucking eggs?
>> I thought I would get *that* response.
>>> The image was posted specifically as an example of where background
>>> would be distracting. In other words, an image with a problem was
>>> *deliberately* selected. There would have been no resulting thread
>>> of suggestions if the photograph was taken under better conditions.
>>
>> And remarkably little in the way of practical suggestions for the
>> typical photo that needs some work done. What we have is first a lesson
>> in masking and wholesale blurring, smudging or replacing of backgrounds.
>>
>> In practice that is seldom done, and seldom needed. And seldom yields
>> a satisfying picture.
>
> Your efforts to show how it's done are eagerly anticipated.
Snippy?
>
>
>> If you do drop in backgrounds you'll need to watch that the
>> background has the same quality and direction of lighting. That the
>> subject fits and needed shadows/highlights are created. That the depth
>> of field is appropriate and matches the subject.
>
> Really? Who would of ever thought of that?
You can do almost anything in PhotoShop or one of the other programs.
If you want to make it look realistic, and you don't always, then you
have to look at everything. Look at the history of Painting and you'll
see the tricks used in Realistic Paintings are different than those used
in other genres.
If you want an exercise in depth of field and focus, take pictures of
flowers. Taking a great flower picture is not easy and requires a
mastery of depth of field, focus and background control.
>
>> What often is needed is that distracting hot spots need to be cleaned
>> up, either through darking or cloning, and that whatever lies on the
>> edge may need some attention and often removal. Then there is the
>> question of what is your subject and cropping to emphasize that. And
>> often burning down corners. Basically you are usually concerned with a
>> few details that make a good picture a great picture.
>>
>> Fixing a bad picture to make it a fair picture is usually only of
>> interest to relatives.
>
>
>>> The photo was unaltered from the way it came from the camera. That
>>> does not mean that I am unaware of how to improve the color or any
>>> other part of it.
>>>
>>> It is not enough to just read a thread. Sometimes you should try to
>>> understand what the thread is actually about.
>>
>> I'm aware of that, which is why I waited. I thought you might want to
>> be a better photographer/printer.
>
> Oh, I do, I do. Do you have someone in mind who can teach me?
I don't know where you live, but I would suggest joining a local photo
club. Most clubs have critiques and most also have guest speakers that
talk about ways to improve your photography or printing. Mine also has
workshops and outings. It also helps if you have photographer friends.
If you want to learn tricks and techniques then you need to see them
in action in great pictures, not poor ones. What do you aspire to?
>
>> Getting defensive won't serve you well
>> in the long run.
>
>> Now, you've said that you wanted to return a favor (of a photo) for
>> the subject, and I ran with that.
>
> I don't understand the above sentence. Did you leave some words out?
<quote>
This was taken inside a building, and a
quick snap of a guy that did something for me and wanted his picture
taken.
</quote>
I take it that your friend asked for a picture. That implies to me
that he would have worked with you. You could have positioned him (or
yourself) where there was a better background/lighting or waited for
people to pass.
I just shot the MLK activities. Even in a fast moving event you can
make quick adjustments left/right or up/down and ask people to turn or
move slightly. Get the best initial picture that you can. Always.
Jeff
tony cooper
>> Any tips on sucking eggs?
>
> I thought I would get *that* response.
>>
>> The image was posted specifically as an example of where background
>> would be distracting. In other words, an image with a problem was
>> *deliberately* selected. There would have been no resulting thread
>> of suggestions if the photograph was taken under better conditions.
>
>
> And remarkably little in the way of practical suggestions for the
>typical photo that needs some work done. What we have is first a lesson
>in masking and wholesale blurring, smudging or replacing of backgrounds.
>
> In practice that is seldom done, and seldom needed. And seldom yields
>a satisfying picture.
> Fixing a bad picture to make it a fair picture is usually only of
>interest to relatives.
Photography is not just about the perfectly composed and exposed
photograph. Those family snaps are, in the long run, more important
to most photographers than the brag shots. Ask just about any
non-professional photographer which images he'd rescue first in case
of fire, and he'll choose the family snapshots regardless of quality.
Sometimes you have to make the best of a poorly executed photograph
because the subject matter is important to you. Sometimes the
carelessly snapped-off shot reveals the subject better than the
prepared shot. You can always find another sunset, but you can't
always find another shot of a child or a grandchild blowing out his
first candles or taking her first steps.
So you learn to patch up the bad pictures to make them better. You
learn to use the tools that are available in the editing programs to
rescue the best you have available. You practice in advance to know
how to do it when it counts; when there are no do-overs.
tony cooper
><snip>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to say this about the original image. Learn to take a better
>>>>> initial image. Don't be shy about choosing the moment or the location
>>>>> for the subject. Often just turning the subject will give either better
>>>>> lighting or a better background.
>>>>>
>>>>> A little less depth of field (if the lens was stopped down), would
>>>>> have given the OP a softer background and probably a sharper image as I
>>>>> suspect some of the softness is motion blur.
>>>>>
>>>>> And fix the color tint.
>>>> Any tips on sucking eggs?
>>> I thought I would get *that* response.
>>>> The image was posted specifically as an example of where background
>>>> would be distracting. In other words, an image with a problem was
>>>> *deliberately* selected. There would have been no resulting thread
>>>> of suggestions if the photograph was taken under better conditions.
>>>
>>> And remarkably little in the way of practical suggestions for the
>>> typical photo that needs some work done. What we have is first a lesson
>>> in masking and wholesale blurring, smudging or replacing of backgrounds.
>>>
>>> In practice that is seldom done, and seldom needed. And seldom yields
>>> a satisfying picture.
>>
>> Your efforts to show how it's done are eagerly anticipated.
>
>Snippy?
Wasn't it clear that I intended to be so? I'll work on it.
>>> I'm aware of that, which is why I waited. I thought you might want to
>>> be a better photographer/printer.
>>
>> Oh, I do, I do. Do you have someone in mind who can teach me?
>
>I don't know where you live, but I would suggest joining a local photo
>club. Most clubs have critiques and most also have guest speakers that
>talk about ways to improve your photography or printing. Mine also has
>workshops and outings. It also helps if you have photographer friends.
You missed the snippy sarcasm in my comment, but I do belong to a
large camera club and routinely enter the monthly competitions. I
haven't gone on any of the outings that they arrange because they seem
to be all nature study stuff, and taking photographs of flowers and
butterflies bores the hell out of me. The next one scheduled is to
Bok Tower Gardens, and you couldn't drag me there.
http://boksanctuary.org/ The world doesn't need another picture of
an azalea in bloom.
> If you want to learn tricks and techniques then you need to see them
>in action in great pictures, not poor ones. What do you aspire to?
Here, just to get more favorable comments on my Shoot-In submissions.
The critics here have been too rough on me.
>>
>>> Getting defensive won't serve you well
>>> in the long run.
>>
>>> Now, you've said that you wanted to return a favor (of a photo) for
>>> the subject, and I ran with that.
>>
>> I don't understand the above sentence. Did you leave some words out?
>
><quote>
>This was taken inside a building, and a
>quick snap of a guy that did something for me and wanted his picture
>taken.
></quote>
>
> I take it that your friend asked for a picture.
You take it wrong. He wanted to pose. I don't know the guy, he
didn't ask for a print, and I wouldn't know where to send one. He
just said "Take my picture" when he saw me taking photographs of some
things on exhibit there. All I know is his name was "Pete", and I
know that because his wife said "Pete! You'll break his camera."
The photograph was to be deleted from my files, but I was thinking
about the background exercise and used it for that purpose.
Alan Browne
> tony cooper wrote:
>> I can't make that work and end up even close to your result.
> Learn to take a better initial image.
Tony can't take that particular hint very well...
Alan Browne
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:50:22 -0500, Jeff <dont_...@all.uk> wrote:
>> Keep trying, with your own settings! It's very powerful, you just
>> have to think a little differently as it is more of a painting than a
>> strictly darkroom type photo tool. But then, there is little straight
>> photography anymore.
>>
>> I'd like to say this about the original image.
>> Learn to take a better initial image.
Well said Jeff.
>> Don't be shy about choosing the moment or the location
>> for the subject. Often just turning the subject will give either better
>> lighting or a better background.
>>
>> A little less depth of field (if the lens was stopped down), would
>> have given the OP a softer background and probably a sharper image as I
>> suspect some of the softness is motion blur.
>>
>> And fix the color tint.
>
> Any tips on sucking eggs?
No need, we're sure you suck eggs quite well as a natural inclination.
Tony, you put the problem up, don't be surprised or offended at what
people suggest. You're efforts are amateurish and so people correctly
assume you have lot to learn.
> It is not enough to just read a thread. Sometimes you should try to
> understand what the thread is actually about.
Sometimes you should try to understand that free speech can result in
things you don't want to hear. This is usenet. People do not review
the entire thread. People do not come to assumptions about its nature
that were your intent.
This is the 3rd time (at least) that you've put up photos for
'suggestions' on improvement and then gotten snarky with those who reply.
Don't be surprised when people say "Learn to take a better initial
image" since that is what _photography_ is about.
Frank ess
tony cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:04:27 -0500, Jeff <dont_...@all.uk> wrote:
>
>> <snip> (but not enough)
>>
>> I take it that your friend asked for a picture.
>
> You take it wrong. He wanted to pose. I don't know the guy, he
> didn't ask for a print, and I wouldn't know where to send one. He
> just said "Take my picture" when he saw me taking photographs of
> some things on exhibit there. All I know is his name was "Pete",
> and I know that because his wife said "Pete! You'll break his
> camera."
>
> The photograph was to be deleted from my files, but I was thinking
> about the background exercise and used it for that purpose.
ResIST the URGE to exPLAIN.
--
Frank ess
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>This is the 3rd time (at least) that you've put up photos for
>'suggestions' on improvement and then gotten snarky with those who reply.
>
>Don't be surprised when people say "Learn to take a better initial
>image" since that is what _photography_ is about.
If I put an image up with the clearly stated reason of putting it up
because it is an example of a problem, I don't expect people to tell
me it's a problem image. I can't very well put up a good image and
tell them to imagine a problem and make suggestions on how the problem
can be treated.
If you want to learn to fix things, you work on broken things.
Jeff
I gave you more than the benefit of a doubt. I see now that you are
unable to benefit by that.
>
>>>> I'm aware of that, which is why I waited. I thought you might want to
>>>> be a better photographer/printer.
>>> Oh, I do, I do. Do you have someone in mind who can teach me?
>> I don't know where you live, but I would suggest joining a local photo
>> club. Most clubs have critiques and most also have guest speakers that
>> talk about ways to improve your photography or printing. Mine also has
>> workshops and outings. It also helps if you have photographer friends.
>
> You missed the snippy sarcasm in my comment,
No, I thought it was childish, and I refrained from stating that.
but I do belong to a
> large camera club and routinely enter the monthly competitions.
Well, how have you been doing?
I
> haven't gone on any of the outings that they arrange because they seem
> to be all nature study stuff, and taking photographs of flowers and
> butterflies bores the hell out of me. The next one scheduled is to
> Bok Tower Gardens, and you couldn't drag me there.
> http://boksanctuary.org/ The world doesn't need another picture of
> an azalea in bloom.
I didn't say photograph the whole damn bush. Photograph a flower.
Ansel Adams has done it, so has Edward Weston. And Robert Maplethorpe:
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=maplethorpe+flower&btnG=Search+Images
It's damn hard to take a great flower image. But, it's a great exercise.
You don't feel that you need to learn technique?
>
>> If you want to learn tricks and techniques then you need to see them
>> in action in great pictures, not poor ones. What do you aspire to?
>
> Here, just to get more favorable comments on my Shoot-In submissions.
> The critics here have been too rough on me.
Then learn from it instead of getty snarky. Or consign yourself to being
a poor photographer.
First, learn to take an interesting picture. And then fix it if need be.
You seem to think you can make great images just by running them
through photo shop. You can't. The image has to have something going for
it to start with.
Take an interesting photo, take it as well as you can. Fix the remaining
problems in your image editor.
Great images start before you click the shutter.
I *was* trying to help you. With the problem you have, not with the
problem you think you have.
Jeff
tony cooper
>>>> Your efforts to show how it's done are eagerly anticipated.
>>> Snippy?
>>
>> Wasn't it clear that I intended to be so? I'll work on it.
>
> I gave you more than the benefit of a doubt. I see now that you are
>unable to benefit by that.
While I'm sure you are well-meaning, you come across to me as
patronizing and superficial. "Learn to take an interesting picture"
is not advice; it's a platitude.
>
> but I do belong to a
>> large camera club and routinely enter the monthly competitions.
>
>Well, how have you been doing?
OK. A few "ribbons". (They used to award ribbons for photographs
that scored over a certain number, but they discontinued that.) Now
you get a pretend ribbon for a score over 90 (usually, a 95 or 96 is
best in group). Last month there were 71 entries. That's low for the
club, but attendance is normally low in December.
> I
>> haven't gone on any of the outings that they arrange because they seem
>> to be all nature study stuff, and taking photographs of flowers and
>> butterflies bores the hell out of me. The next one scheduled is to
>> Bok Tower Gardens, and you couldn't drag me there.
>> http://boksanctuary.org/ The world doesn't need another picture of
>> an azalea in bloom.
>
> I didn't say photograph the whole damn bush. Photograph a flower.
>Ansel Adams has done it, so has Edward Weston. And Robert Maplethorpe:
It's "Mapplethorpe", but who says "Robert Mapplethorpe, the great
flower photographer"?
It's strange to me that you mention Ansel Adams in conjunction with
technique, but seem to regard improving skills in post-processing with
a photo editor as - at most - a necessary evil. I think Adams would
have loved Photoshop. He pioneered the use of filters in photography.
He applied them in-camera, but obviously was in favor of artificially
enhancing for effect.
>It's damn hard to take a great flower image. But, it's a great exercise.
>You don't feel that you need to learn technique?
Not about flower photography. It just doesn't interest me in the
slightest. What I do find interesting might not interest you. One of
the things that makes photography an interesting hobby is that there
is so much latitude in the subject matter that the photographer can
find to be interesting.
I don't mean to sound critical of flower photographs or flower
photographers, but - to me - it's like okra or Marmite: it's may be
something you like, but I'll pass.
>>> If you want to learn tricks and techniques then you need to see them
>>> in action in great pictures, not poor ones. What do you aspire to?
>>
>> Here, just to get more favorable comments on my Shoot-In submissions.
>> The critics here have been too rough on me.
>
>Then learn from it instead of getty snarky. Or consign yourself to being
>a poor photographer.
It's not an either/or choice.
>Take an interesting photo, take it as well as you can. Fix the remaining
>problems in your image editor.
>
> Great images start before you click the shutter.
Oooph. You *really* have prosaic down pat.
Jeff
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:00:32 -0500, Jeff <dont_...@all.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>> Your efforts to show how it's done are eagerly anticipated.
>
>>>> Snippy?
>>> Wasn't it clear that I intended to be so? I'll work on it.
>> I gave you more than the benefit of a doubt. I see now that you are
>> unable to benefit by that.
>
> While I'm sure you are well-meaning, you come across to me as
> patronizing and superficial. "Learn to take an interesting picture"
> is not advice; it's a platitude.
What I actually said was this:
"Take an interesting photo, take it as well as you can. Fix the
remaining problems in your image editor."
>>
>> but I do belong to a
>>> large camera club and routinely enter the monthly competitions.
>> Well, how have you been doing?
>
> OK. A few "ribbons". (They used to award ribbons for photographs
> that scored over a certain number, but they discontinued that.) Now
> you get a pretend ribbon for a score over 90 (usually, a 95 or 96 is
> best in group). Last month there were 71 entries. That's low for the
> club, but attendance is normally low in December.
Everybody gets better with time and you learn little from easy
judges. I've had a judge that used my photograph as an example of what
*not* to do. He would even refer back to it when critiquing other
images. Next time he judged, my image took first.
>
>> I
>>> haven't gone on any of the outings that they arrange because they seem
>>> to be all nature study stuff, and taking photographs of flowers and
>>> butterflies bores the hell out of me. The next one scheduled is to
>>> Bok Tower Gardens, and you couldn't drag me there.
>>> http://boksanctuary.org/ The world doesn't need another picture of
>>> an azalea in bloom.
>> I didn't say photograph the whole damn bush. Photograph a flower.
>> Ansel Adams has done it, so has Edward Weston. And Robert Maplethorpe:
>
> It's "Mapplethorpe", but who says "Robert Mapplethorpe, the great
> flower photographer"?
Petty.
Mapplethorpe made a fortune in flowers, probably more than his other
work. Adams took as many portraits (including Jimmy Carters White House
portrait) as landscapes. Great photographers photograph more than one
genre.
>
> It's strange to me that you mention Ansel Adams in conjunction with
> technique, but seem to regard improving skills in post-processing with
> a photo editor as - at most - a necessary evil.
No, I've never said that. It's absolutely necessary. What I have said is
take the best picture you can to start with.
Ansel was a strong believer in manipulating the negative. But he
always started with strong images, his canvas, so to speak.
I think Adams would
> have loved Photoshop. He pioneered the use of filters in photography.
> He applied them in-camera, but obviously was in favor of artificially
> enhancing for effect.
Absolutely.
>
>> It's damn hard to take a great flower image. But, it's a great exercise.
>> You don't feel that you need to learn technique?
>
> Not about flower photography. It just doesn't interest me in the
> slightest. What I do find interesting might not interest you. One of
> the things that makes photography an interesting hobby is that there
> is so much latitude in the subject matter that the photographer can
> find to be interesting.
>
> I don't mean to sound critical of flower photographs or flower
> photographers, but - to me - it's like okra or Marmite: it's may be
> something you like, but I'll pass.
Then take something you like and photograph it until you understand
it thoroughly. Many photographers photograph things they see in every
day life. Use different qualities of light, different shooting angles,
different compositions.
From the little I've seen of your work you need work with depth of
field and composition. Flowers are great at learning that, but it's not
your cup of tea.
The great photographers I know, and I know a number of them, have no
objection to photographing anything.
>
>
>>>> If you want to learn tricks and techniques then you need to see them
>>>> in action in great pictures, not poor ones. What do you aspire to?
>>> Here, just to get more favorable comments on my Shoot-In submissions.
>>> The critics here have been too rough on me.
>> Then learn from it instead of getty snarky. Or consign yourself to being
>> a poor photographer.
>
> It's not an either/or choice.
Don't take it personal.
>
>> Take an interesting photo, take it as well as you can. Fix the remaining
>> problems in your image editor.
>>
>> Great images start before you click the shutter.
>
> Oooph. You *really* have prosaic down pat.
You done with the insults?
Jeff
>
>
tony cooper
> You done with the insults?
I dunno. You done being condescending?
Jeff
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:25:46 -0500, Jeff <dont_...@all.uk> wrote:
>
>> You done with the insults?
>
> I dunno. You done being condescending?
>
Didn't you start this by saying this:
"Any tips on sucking eggs?"
If you think Photo Shop will fix your photography then I won't be the
last person you will be offended by.
Jeff
tony cooper
>> While I'm sure you are well-meaning, you come across to me as
>> patronizing and superficial. "Learn to take an interesting picture"
>> is not advice; it's a platitude.
>
> What I actually said was this:
>
>"Take an interesting photo, take it as well as you can. Fix the
>remaining problems in your image editor."
>>>
You also said, in the same post, "First, learn to take an interesting
picture." That's what I was quoting. Either statement, though, is
both supercilious and a platitude.
Peter
Maybe you should learn programming language, use tags. :-)
[\end sarcasm]
--
Peter
Jeff
You overlook a lot of good advice and the fact that you were pretty
snarky at that point.
My entire original post that you flipped out over is this:
<quote>
Keep trying, with your own settings! It's very powerful, you just
have to think a little differently as it is more of a painting than a
strictly darkroom type photo tool. But then, there is little straight
photography anymore.
I'd like to say this about the original image. Learn to take a better
initial image. Don't be shy about choosing the moment or the location
for the subject. Often just turning the subject will give either better
lighting or a better background.
A little less depth of field (if the lens was stopped down), would
have given the OP a softer background and probably a sharper image as I
suspect some of the softness is motion blur.
And fix the color tint.
</quote>
I still think that's good advice.
Now you may indeed be a good photographer, but all I have seen to
date is images that needed more thought at the time of exposure, not in
post processing. You mention that you don't like photographing with
others, but all good photographers learn from others. And it is not
always what you expect.
Now, I have a passion for photography and I could have let this go at
the first uncalled for insult. But I thought it was worth the effort to
get you to see things photographically, instead of technically.
Now, I'm not going to apologize to you, your first reaction was
uncalled for. You may look at my subsequent posts as being
condescending, I look at them as refraining from calling you an egg sucker.
Jeff
>
>
>
tony cooper
I should not have entered into this discussion. It would have been
wiser just to have ignored the post.
It irritated me, though. I thought it would be interesting to have
something new to talk about in these groups, and something that
actually dealt with an aspect of photography. So, I posted a link to
an image and asked about how people handle the problem of unwanted
background problems. Several people did participate in this vein. It
was a momentary diversion from the ankle biting that usually appears
here.
Then, it turned into yet another ankle-biter of a thread...and that's
my fault. I really didn't pay attention to the overall image I linked
to because it was a throw-away in the first place. I saw only an
example of a problem I felt would be interesting to discuss.
My irritation was based on what I think was a wholly irrelevant and
unrelated discussion of the image itself in the form of a lecture on
photographic skills. Not even a meaty one, but a superficial
hand-wave at the default basics. Part of the irritation came from
feeling that the poster jumped on the pulpit without any attempt to
understand what the thread was supposed to be about.
Yeah, as one other poster pointed out, it's a free country and anyone
can add anything to any thread. The sentient anyone, though aims the
comment in the general direction of the target, though.
Threads here seem to degenerate into petty squabbles or become
sounding boards for those who like to pontificate on the bloody
obvious. This thread has gone both ways, and I regret my involvement
in allowing it to do so.
If anyone wants to discuss eliminating distracting background clutter,
start a new thread. I'd be interested because I take often take
photographs in settings where it is impossible to control the scene.
I've got some shots taken at some antique shows of objects on exhibit
tables where there was no opportunity to control the composition, and
I'd like to isolate and show the object to the best advantage.
They're for my own use for reference. I prefer that even reference
photos look as best they can. And, I enjoy the challenge and
technicality of working on them. I don't post links to these images
because I prefer to do the work myself, and don't want people to think
I'm trying to Tom Sawyer them.
At any rate, I'm outta here in this exchange.
Pat
Tony, I haven't been following this thread because it meandered off
topic but for future reference, here are a few ideas for you.
First off, don't be afraid to grab someone and move them. Sometimes
the easiest was to get rid of the background is to change locations.
You might grab the guy with the necklace and say, "hey look, the
background here s**ks. Can you step outside and let me get a better
picture?" That also works for bad lighting.
If you can't move the subject, try moving yourself. If you had gotten
down lower, the background would have been okay.
Mobility is cheap and easy.
In the situation you were in, a diffused flash would be your next best
bet. It would have kept the subject lit and darkened the background.
There is always using a really fast lens. However, that runs the risk
of getting your subject out of focus, too.
Then there's digital editing. That's a completely different story.
My favorite method is to select the background and de-saturate it a
bit. That does a lot to make it go away because you eye concentrates
on the stronger colors of the foreground.
tony cooper
<gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>First off, don't be afraid to grab someone and move them. Sometimes
>the easiest was to get rid of the background is to change locations.
>You might grab the guy with the necklace and say, "hey look, the
>background here s**ks. Can you step outside and let me get a better
>picture?" That also works for bad lighting.
>
>If you can't move the subject, try moving yourself. If you had gotten
>down lower, the background would have been okay.
>
>Mobility is cheap and easy.
>
>In the situation you were in, a diffused flash would be your next best
>bet. It would have kept the subject lit and darkened the background.
>
>There is always using a really fast lens. However, that runs the risk
>of getting your subject out of focus, too.
>
>Then there's digital editing. That's a completely different story.
>My favorite method is to select the background and de-saturate it a
>bit. That does a lot to make it go away because you eye concentrates
>on the stronger colors of the foreground.
The subjects that I shoot where I have this problem are objects
sitting on tables in shows or in shops. The distracting background
might be other objects on the table and people viewing the tables or
on other rows or other people in the store.
I can so far in repositioning objects, but you really can't ask an
exhibitor or a store owner to rearrange a sufficient area for me to
photograph an object that I'm buying. The exhibitors or store owners
are there to sell, not to be a photo studio. I can't clear the
aisles, either. I suppose I could yell "Fire!", but that seems a bit
drastic.
The example photo was - unknowingly - ill-chosen. Everyone thinks the
subject is a person. I picked the example because of the *background*
without thinking of the person that was the foreground. It seemed to
be a simple example. Little did I know.
I have masked the object, blurred and then desaturated a duplicate
layer, and then placed it behind the masked cut-out layer on some
photos, but there are other ways...and that's what I'm looking into.
Paul Furman
You need an assistant with a long gray trench coat to stand on the
opposite side of the display tables & 'flash' away from you <g>
providing the perfect curtain backdrop. That clears the next row of
tables too...
Seriously, there is a lot that can be done with about a 135mm eq.
fast-ish lens and moving around to get the most distant, most neutral
background.
> The example photo was - unknowingly - ill-chosen. Everyone thinks the
> subject is a person. I picked the example because of the *background*
> without thinking of the person that was the foreground. It seemed to
> be a simple example. Little did I know.
>
> I have masked the object, blurred and then desaturated a duplicate
> layer, and then placed it behind the masked cut-out layer on some
> photos, but there are other ways...and that's what I'm looking into.
>
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Jeff
Absolutely.
And to borrow a few tricks from wildflower photographers (no, I'm not
one), carrying a black cloth (or two sided) and a small (they even have
pocket size) folding reflector to fill in the shadows or add highlights.
Jeff
Jeff
> Dave Cohen wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> Dave Cohen wrote:
>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>>>> To those who Photoshop...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you do about background when it distracts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Using http://tonycooper.fileave.com/pete.jpg as an example, I
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> do a layer mask and apply a heavy Gaussian blur to the
>>>>>>> background,
>>>>>>> or I can drop it out and replace it. This was taken inside a
>>>>>>> building, and a quick snap of a guy that did something for me
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> wanted his picture taken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> can be used for backgrounds...brick walls, stucco walls, sky,
>>>>>>> outdoor scenes, etc. I can put Pete up in front of something
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> wasn't there, but I'm wondering what others here do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This one would mask easily because there's no hair tendrils
>>>>>>> floating around or fuzzy edges, but I thought I might do
>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>> a bit different.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do others do?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we to assume that those of us who don't 'PhotoShop' need not
>>>>>> reply. Whatever the response (and you seem to have answered your
>>>>>> own question), I would have thought any half decent photo editor
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> capable of the same steps (at about 1/10th the cost).
>>>>>> Dave Cohen
>>>>> I'm guilty of using "Photoshop" in the generic. If you can work
>>>>> the
>>>>> twist out of your y-fronts, and have a suggestion or observation
>>>>> about what can be done with any editor, please feel free to
>>>>> comment.
>>>>> Or, if you prefer, sulk.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I know the term is often used in a generic sense but people should
>>>> realize that for non-professional use there are others out there.
>>>> Specifically, PhotoPlus, Paint Shop Pro and Adobe's own Elements
>>>> fall
>>>> into that category and in terms of features in about that order.
>>> In which order, are you saying that PhotoPlus has more features
>>> than
>>> Paint Shop Pro which has more than Elements or do you mean the
>>> other
>>> way around?
>>>
>>> Incidentally, I had never heard of PhotoPlus before--checking their
>>> web site I see that for the full featured version it's 10
>>> bucks--while I don't object to the 10 bucks is it worth my time to
>>> diddle with it compared to Elements?
>>>> I never sulk.
>>>> Dave Cohen
>> I think you will find that $10 is for an earlier version. You can
>> try
>> it to get a feel for the product.
>
> I see. Their site is very confusing--searching on "Photoplus" in
> Google, the first hit that comes up is
> http://www.freeserifsoftware.com which lists version 6 for free,
> version 8 for 10 bucks, and version 9 in a different place for 30
> bucks, but no mention of any other version unless one looks in the
> FAQ. Was finally able to to find http://www.serif.com that lists
> "Photoplus X2" for 80 bucks.
I can't speak for PhotoPlus, but I have used other Serif software (a
vector editor) and I was less than delighted with it. They had the same
marketing scheme for that. The lesser versions are well, lesser.
Dave has already suggested Gimp, lot of people use it as well as
PaintShop.
I've always been fond of Picture Publisher. Not sure if you can even
get it anymore. Photo Plus 8 may turn out to be terrific, what do I
know? You can do a lot with most any photo editor you may just have to
work harder.
If you want to try CS4, there's always the free trial.
Jeff
>
>> All the ones I mentioned play catch up with each other so it's hard
>> to
>> rank, but I believe the latest PhotoPlus will cover anything the
>> others have. Exceptions are:
>> PSP does animal red eye (which isn't normally red).
>> Elements has keystroke shortcuts.
>> Of course, the others may have slipped this in on latest versions.
>> In the final analysis, like everything else, it all ends up in the
>> skill and patience of the user.
>> Dave Cohen
>
Peter
There are some store owners who are happy to let you do that provided the
store is not busy at the time. Offering a print of the object is a good
incentive. Better yet, give him/her a print first. I've walked into antique
stores, admired the <fill in the blank> and requested permission to
photograph it in isolation, while offering a print. I've rarely been refused
when the store is not full of customers. The right approach can work
wonders.
Yes, you did not intend to make a picture of Pete, but your approach brought
out his personality.
--
Peter
Jeff
I think that sums it up. The right approach.
I've been amazed at the lengths that people are willing to go through
to be helpful. You do have to choose your moment and explain what you
want. The idea of a photograph is excellent, and I believe it is a good
idea to carry a sample of your work if it is a hard to understand request.
Everyone has skills to connect with either the subject, or the
subjects owner. Some, though, are much better at this. I'm thinking of
a friend that has no qualms at smoozing complete strangers to
cooperatively posing, often with relevant props. The images are
remarkable. The difference in ordinary photographs and extraordinary
ones is often no more than the personal touch of the photographer. Yet
this is a difficult concept for many.
Jeff