Last night at a get together at a friends house, a few women mentioned that my photos were very good. I mentioned something to Gary about this on the way home. I told him that whenever anyone says that to me, I just want to blurt out "But they are Fake!" because I Photoshop them ... some to within an inch of their lives!
I realize that this is probably not true - unless I put say ... someones head on the body of someone else - it is JUST Photoshopped, but it is Photoshopped AND fake.
That being said - the real confession? I really don't take great photos at all ... just average photos that I make look good with Photoshop.
Why am I 'confessing' this to you? Well, I want to share some fun stuff I did - sort of like a Kindergartner on their first day of school ... and you will see my 'original' photo and don't want y'all to feel the need to sheepishly come to me and take back what you said ...
Whew! Well, with that out of the way - I was playing today with two aforementioned crappy photos, that I felt with a little work could be pretty photos. The problem with both? Photoshop was, in some ways, doing more damage than good - so I had to get creative. I was so thrilled, I made Gary sit down and watch like I was some five year old and he was my mother.
He was sufficiently impressed, but it was not enough, apparently - so now I need to shout it off the roof tops. It could help any of you out there Photoshopping, but if you aren't I won't feel bad if you stop reading ...
So: Photo #1: Problem: Too Dark:
OK, and if you must be PICKY, crooked and in need of a bit of cropping ...
So - I straighten using the ruler tool and Image-Rotation, crop out the extra ground that is doing nothing for the photo and I lighten it. To lighten it - I use a fairly non-destructive process.
1) duplicate the photo (using Layer-Duplicate Layer - or just [ctrl]J)
2) on the new (top) duplicate layer, I change the blending mode to 'screen' - this must be a throwback to regular photo developing since it seems like a random word to me ...
this lightens the photograph significantly and often, you will need to increase the opacity to make it darker (I know - confusing - but you are making it more and more transparent therefore letting more of the bottom, dark photo show through - thus - darkening it)
Problem: I am loosing definition - like the wooden slats of the church - stuff I would like to keep around:
You can see them much better in this, darker photo:
But it is all depressing and whatnot - so I am going to fix it. I was very clever - but it is a bit complicated. I realized that helping a friend who uses a different version of Photoshop, that the stuff is really not in the same place - but they rarely (OK, more often than 'rarely') change the name of something so I will just describe what I did.
This is going to sound sort of familiar since it is the first major steps I used making a sketch (in "You Too Can Be an Artist").
I take the photo I have above and make a duplicate layer again ([ctrl]J) and the rest of what I do until I say - will be working on the top layer of the photo.
Then I apply a filter: Filter-Stylize-Glowing Edges:
I then inverse (from a negative looking thing) by Select-Inverse:
I then take all the color (desaturating it) by hitting[shift][ctrl]U or: Image-Adjustments-Desaturate:
I then add a Levels Adjustment Layer and dick with the black and white levers to darken the black and make the white ... well, whiter:
You want the white all white (no grey) since the next thing we are going to do is select our 'Magic Wand' ...
... no kidding!
You thought I was exaggerating when I said Photoshop was magic? So not so!
With the magic wand, you can (make sure 'contiguous' is unchecked) select every pixel in a photo that is the color you click on. This comes in very handy (like, say in the next example I show you. ....... By the way y'all - this is going to be LONG - with all these photos and explanation - not fun if you are checking it out on your Blackberry).
I want to select white (and hopefully this means everything that is not black, but if there was some gray - I could select black, then do that Select-Inverse and it would change to everything that was not black). This will put 'marching ants' around everything that it selected. And if you are not familiar with that term, there isn't much I can do about it. If you are following along - you will notice when you take your magic want and click it on a white section that little moving dots cover your photo - thus the 'marching ants' ... not my term - Photoshop's
With the white all selected - I want to hit delete - and since I have photo below me, it will delete the white and replace it with nothing - so you can see through to the photo below. But I wanted to use a lighter photo - I used the darker photo so I could be sure to pick up the lines I wanted to pick up.
So, after hitting delete, it will show through, but I am going to delete the lower layer, leaving only the layer that has transparent parts - thus it cannot be created as a .jpg file or all that would go white - so I save the file as a .png file:
I then pull both the .png file of the lines in, and the lighter photo of the church, combine them into one photo (this is done many ways). I then reduce the opacity of the lines (the top layer) to about 20% to make it look realistic:
Lovely, yes?
Here is a side by side comparison of the light photo and the one with my newly created lines added on top (left):
Yes, well, and all those comments about my beautiful Wildflower photos? Y'all will discover that they / I am merely average ...
Here is my original photo and it lacks 'oomph':
I add a duplicate layer and change the blending mode to 'color burn':
I REALLY like what it does to the flowers and grass - gives it some oomph, but makes the background and fence so dark that you cannot see them.
I tried something very clever where I selected all the yellow, put it on another layer and did a blending mode of 'Linear Burn' but it looked too fake.
I then tried this - which is using the 'Selective Color Adjustment Layer' which will let me select a color (say, yellow) then change that color by using a bunch of adjustment sliders. I did this for yellow (who knew green had so much yellow in it? When I changed the flowers, I changed the grass, so went back using green to try to fix it), blue, red, green and cyan. Since I don't understand the color wheel (getting there) I had to just try it and see what looked good, what didn't.
It looks better, but nothing like my first one:
So I just decided to put in some time. I selected each section of the photo that was not fence (that would be one on the bottom, three in the middle and one on the top). I put the selected piece (which I basically outlined in by just drawing along the line of the fence and edge of the photo - put each section on it's own layer. When I was done doing that, I decided that I wanted the yellow flowers to 'pop' but the back - I just wanted it to look natural. So I changed all the modes for the 5 new layers to 'Linear Burn' - which changed everything on my photo but the fence (you with me?). But this would not look natural at 100% and the fence at 0% so the bottom I made 88% opacity, the middle three I made 50% opacity and the top one I made 25% opacity. If you look, you can see that the photo gets progressively darker, but it does not slap you in the face.
I flattened out all the new layers that I had just made. Then I made a copy of the original, light
version and put it on the very top. I changed it's opacity to 19% so that it was almost not showing - thus letting my kluge show through, but lessening the effects. Flattened it and called her done! (Can you see the lines? Sort of looks fake, but was just having fun - so just still learning, no major disaster one way or the other ...)
Here I show top: the too dark one, middle - original, too light one, bottom - just right one!
So, there you have it. I am no Super Woman Photographer ... I just own software that lets me pretend that I am ...
6 comments:
You are not a photographer - but an artist. My sister-in-law painted a picture of Old Main that you've seen in our entryway. You can never see that exact view as she took multiple pictures and put them together to get the greenery, entrance, and everything in an artistic composition. She started with real elements, but she arranged them to have artistic composition.
That is what you do. You have an eye for art and make the pictures sing. Well done!
Right now it feels like a Texas Whoopass Fire Ant crawled in my left ear and stung my brain!
I feel like George from; Of Mice And Men, trying to follow your technique.
Don't take this wrong, but... "I just like the perty flowers, George".
Seriously I'm not concerned how you create your masterpieces, I'm only thankful that you share them with us/me.
Talk to you later AJ
Ha Ha I am fake also! I can take a semi good picture and make it a great picture through photoshop! I think that is how lots of photographers are cameras just dont capture the true vibrance of the colors. As for your church....have you ever edited it raw? I just learned and it is so nice. I turn my camera setting to raw and take the picture then....you don't upload them which sucks you have to leave the pictures on your memory card and take them from your memory card to your photoshop. And you have to install the program, but it allows you to take a picture that was too dark and lighten it without making the picture grainier or taking out details...it makes it nice, but has it's annoyances as well. I love to see your steps as to what you do because you are really good and I learn a lot!
Color is only one of the things that makes a photo good. Lighting has a lot to do with it, but unless you arise in the dark to get that good morning light or wait around all day for the evening shadows and twilight you get what you get. Taking a photo is just more than point and shoot and composition is a major part of a good photo. Without an artist's eye for composition your photos would be blah, even if you jazzed up the colors. So don't beat yourself up over the details. You were there to take the photo and you knew the subject was worth a photo and you moved around until you had just the right angle, background and whatever else seemed to be needed. Then and only then did you compose the camera in your viewfinder and push the button to capture the moment.
Dad
Vicki, thank you - I NEVER think of my photography as art, because I don't feel like a artist.
A.J. - You may just look at the 'perty' pictures!
Sometimes I feel a need to confess that they are photoshopped and I get multiple requests for 'mini-lessons'. If I were you - I would just skip 'em! I just read through it and I forget that I have read AT LEAST 8 books (and re-read, and refer to often) and read two magazines per month to make this second nature. If I hadn't read any of this, I guess it would just sound like another language!
Dad, thank you - sometimes I forget these things. I is so nice when you remind me!
Kaci - Yours was longer so I decided to make another comment.
I use Camera RAW often and I really do like it. Unfortunately at the moment in time that I captured this church, I had ants crawling up my legs biting me and just set it on auto and began shooting (auto will not shoot Camera RAW photos).
I find that often, I don't have the RAW version of something once I look at it and fall in love with that particular photo and then have to learn how to make do. This was more an experiment in fun - there was no real purpose in doing it other than to see if I could do it. I have no need for the photo and I am still learning. It all will end up in the virtual garbage or be forgotten in days.
For you - it is a profession - I have a feeling I get to play a lot more than you because I have no client other than myself!
As for your comments about RAW. I have a setting on my camera that lets me write a RAW version and a JPG version. I can also copy both to my computer, but can only look at the RAW files in Photoshop lightroom, so when just looking using windows 'explore' the JPG file is invaluable - it lets me see all the photos and pick the best one to work on in RAW. If I had to look through them all via Photoshop, I would never do it.
I also did not need to install a program - Photoshop just recognized my Canon Digital Rebel -so lucky there.
But it might be worth some time to you to see if your camera will record both, see if you can copy to your compute (I don't see why you couldn't) and then you are able to 'see' what you shot - then, there is literally no down side but the file size.
I also usually need a tripod if I am to shoot in RAW since it is only on the 'creative setting' of my camera and the shutter speed is too slow (hand shake) for the setting I want to take the photo at and unless the sun came out during this particular Wildflower hunt - the shutter speed was too slow and I had forgotten my tripod!
Whew! Just thought I would share that RAW does not need to be so cumbersome - and I LOVE it when I have it!
Post a Comment