First go at textures - which is better?

I like it, if anything i would say it has improved the photo, can i ask how you have done this please.
 
The 1st image is so much better to me has created an interest in the image
 
Bassit said:
I like it, if anything i would say it has improved the photo, can i ask how you have done this please.
Click to expand...

Hi - this was my first time trying this, but i created a texture layer, used a layer mask and then reduced the opacity. Not sure if thats how it should be done but it worked for me.

S
 
The textured background is better IMO - how did you add it?
 
Both are excellent, no.1 with the texture just adds that little extra :)
 
Hi, as a photoshop novice I can't explain it any better than I did above!
 
Textured one for me too mate, just adds something I can,t put my finger on but I like it .
 
shannensdaddy said:
Textured one for me too mate, just adds something I can,t put my finger on but I like it .
Click to expand...

Cheers. I think it makes the background more interesting and less bright at the same time - leading your eye to the bright face. That's how I see it. Although I quite like the "clean" original background. I'll ask her mum which one she prefers (as I suspect it'll end up on her wall!)

S
 
Stevie- said:
Looks more like a textured backdrop than an applied texture - very nice.
Click to expand...

Cheers Stevie, appreciate that coming from you, especially as it was your studio work that inspired me to want to get better!

S
 
Not trying to be an arse or anything, but why not just use a background that you want in the first place when shooting?

What I don't like about this is the way that even at 2048 pixels I'm seeing some loss of detail in the hair due to how you've masked it. BTW... refine edge is your friend when masking hair.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Not trying to be an arse or anything, but why not just use a background that you want in the first place when shooting?

What I don't like about this is the way that even at 2048 pixels I'm seeing some loss of detail in the hair due to how you've masked it. BTW... refine edge is your friend when masking hair.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip......I'll look into that. Hair is a pain and in an ideal world yes - I would shoot on the background I wanted. I'm new to photoshop so am constantly learning!

This was actually taken whilst quickly testing some lights purchased on here (it was nearing 2 weeks since purchase - so had to make time!)View attachment 17563 Quickly set up in the bedroom and taken down quicker to keep SWMBO happy!

Very valid points and thanks for the tip!
 
Nothing wrong with composites BTW... I'm not saying there is. I do it all the time.

I think I posted these in that silly EXIF thread a couple of weeks ago

Gzl3v4s.jpg


6GNFqTf.jpg



I like composite images. :)

[edit].. If you're wondering what the hell is going on there, it's a PR shot for a contemporary version of As You Like it... so from left to right... Rosalind, Celia and Touchstone.... I think... my Shakespeare's a bit rusty :)

I'd have MUCH rather have taken studio lighting into a forest though! However.. weather, and time did not permit. It's FAR easier, and FAR less work to actually use the backdrop you want while shooting.


Refine edge was used to mask the hair.

Here's the tutorial I give to students... the course is week by week, so some things may be missing/lack context, but it will get you started. I'm sure there are others on the net though. The problem with online tutorials is they usually try to out do each other, so end up overly bloated with crap you don't need in order to seem more comprehensive.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23953768/Week 12 Hair Masking.pdf
 
Last edited:
David thanks so much for sharing that. and love that forest shot.

Back on topic though and yes...No.1 for me too. Part of the reason is just due to the contrast in skin tone against that background though. Now David has pointed it out I can see the fouling of the masking, but for a novice with PS i'd be happy with that :)
 
Thanks David

I'm glad you put in the edit.....I did wonder what was going on!

I know you sometimes get a bad press on here but people should also remember how genuinely helpful you are too.

Thanks again

Shaheed
 
@Sir SR I'm often busy.... I'll barge in, say what I need to say, then barge out. I speak my mind... and I'm not really concerned with making friends on here. That doesn't mean I don't LIKE people on here... LOL I'm just too busy to care what people think, but I love helping people with their photography, why else would I stop shooting professionally to take up teaching it? Most on here who just judge me by how I write in forums would be staggered by the amount of work (including photographic work) that goes into the lessons I write, and yes, as it's a degree, I DO write them... not take them off a shelf like a BTEC or EDEXCEL course.

Often though, you need to tell people what they really need to here... not what they want to hear.. and unless you take the time to create a s**t sandwich with your feedback, they cry and spit their dummy out. Too busy to wet nurse people who can't take it on the chin though usually. As I'm off work at the mo, I'm taking more time than I normally do with responses... so perhaps people can see the human behind the words more... dunno... as I said.. (shrug) :)

If any of the idiots on here who cry and pout when I'm harsh could sit in a classroom with me, they'd change their tune. That's their problem though, not mine.

And just to add again.. there's nothing wrong with the edited shot you posted.. just a bit of practice with refine edge would make it perfect. I have no objection to using a composited background... but would urge you to start collecting a variety of backdrops for future use, as it's simply faster, easier, and better to do this in camera.
 
Having had a go at this - I whole heartedly agree that in camera this would have been a doodle compared to the pp work I attempted!

S
 
Sir SR said:
Hi, as a photoshop novice I can't explain it any better than I did above!
Click to expand...

I was wondering whether you'd used:

a) a chromakey background when you took the shot
b) a layer mask to trace around the hair in Photoshop (tricky due to the thin strands on left & right ***)
c) something else in Photoshop

Hence my post 8.


*** This is what David's pdf solves (post 25).
 
Last edited:
Ozei said:
I was wondering whether you'd used:

a) a chromakey background when you took the shot
b) a layer mask to trace around the hair in Photoshop (tricky due to the thin strands on left & right ***)
c) something else in Photoshop

Hence my post 8.


*** This is what David's pdf solves (post 25).
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't gather those points from your initial post.

A and b answered above as picture shows how it was shot.

C - no!

S
 
Oh god.... the opening statement on the web page is


"Go ahead and take the shot! Worry about the background later."

That sums up photography these days quite nicely.
 
After reading that I'm glad I prefer the original. :D

I agree that @Pookeyhead is a very knowledgeable member and if you take the time to read and understand his advice it's very sound and you will learn a load to boot!

Shame the username @BRASH is already taken really. :D
 
The more I read on that websiote the more worrying it becomes.


Jeff Wendorff (whooooo?) said:
It is a royal pain to make a good cut-out in Photoshop and it is very very time consuming. With ReMask, an easy cut-out can be done in a couple of minutes and I’ve never spent more than 15 minutes on a hard one. I photograph mostly wildlife, so importantly for me, it does a better job extracting fur and feathers from the background.
Click to expand...

Can I suggest Jeff... that digitally putting animals into environments they were not makes you a totally crap wildlife photographer and is a practice that would get you banned from most major wildlife awards? LOL
 
And he's never spent more than 15 minutes on even the hardest mask. :cautious:
 
1st for me, but I agree with what's been said.

..
 
Last edited:
That's not a composite shot though... he's not taken a bird in captivity and made out it was a shot in the wild. He's merely moved the bird in the frame. Something perhaps just as easily, and better done in Photoshop incidentally. He could have also just framed the shot as he wanted it in camera if he was a better photographer. However.. taking a single horse from a herd, from what's pretty obviously a coral or other man made environment, and dropping into an icy, snowy wilderness to make it look like a shot in the wild, is quite simply, so far as wildlife photography goes... cheating.

Putting animals in different locations digitally is just bad form in wildlife photography, where half of the skill is understanding the animals environment, tracking it... getting to know the species you're shooting etc. Any prat can shoot in captivity and then drop it in digitally... so sorry.. Jeff Wendorff is a s**t wildlife photographer.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Oh god.... the opening statement on the web page is


"Go ahead and take the shot! Worry about the background later."

That sums up photography these days quite nicely.
Click to expand...

I agree that makes me queezy...get it right in the camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top