I am still working on the digital background thing... because I am constantly taking pictures on the spur of the moment where the background is really distracting (in this one is the couch and my daughter in the background sitting on a chair).
I did this one
and asked for help. I took a lot of everyone's suggestions for this one. Is it any better? I really tried to match the tones pretty decent as well.
PLEASE do not worry about hurting my feelings. I want honest opinions. Thank you! :)
i like them both! but i have no skill/experience in the whole digital background thing so don't really feel qualified to comment other than to say...cute baby!
I don't find these background distracting at all. I think the subject stands out and the background adds a nice neutral color and some pretty cool texture to boot
Better, definitely. Still some outlining going on, most apparent around the (subject's) right ear and both shoulders. You may need to try a different selection / masking method. Maybe try using chanels for more accurate masking. Still, not a very noticable fault (at this resolution). I'd print it and have a look to be certain (lab print, that is).
@jinximages Ah! Thank you! I didn't see that line at all! I am thinking a lot of editing has to do with knowing where to look for the flaws :) Thank you for your input! I do need to print to look at them, too...
You've improved, no doubt, but where you had very harsh edges before, you have very blurred edges now, so it's still very obvious (to anyone actually looking) what's gone on.
The hard part is, as you can tell in the above "original", that the edges you need to cut out *are* blurred. The left hand (as we look at it) there isn't in focus, so there's no distinct "pixel barrier" between the two "objects" (baby/floor). So, a sharp line won't do for that part, it needs to be a feathered selection... but then if the selection area around, say, the right shoulder, was feathered to the same degree, you'd get too much background in, and that'd look out of place.
I've never dealt with this type of problem of needing varying degrees of feathering on selection areas before, all my previous cut and paste stuff's been from things with well defined edges (for this very reason).
Let me just read the actual thread, see if you've described what process you're using atm... brb...
I remember the octopus picture and did not realize it was not the original background so I think you are on to something. Only when I look closely do I see hints of it. If to offer only a suggestion (having NEVER tried this) a bit of shadow on the background may give it a realistic edge, but I have to really study your photo for that suggestion to be offered.
... ok you didn't. Well, what I do for jobs like this one, say, is first define the selection path as a point to point line. Essentially, one massive polygon of straight lines. For that robot it probably took 15-20 minutes to define the path. That's zoomed in probably 400% so I can make sure my path straddles the "pixel barrier" between the robot and its original background as closely as possible.
That's an object with mostly straight lines, nice and easy, but still time consuming. With curved blurred lines like on your baby, it might take... *a while*. Either way, eventually you wind up with a path. Then you select it, invert it, hit delete, and see how well you did your path. Too much background still visible around the edge? Undo, feather the selection a little more, hit delete again. Try until it looks good. Then splash it onto your new background.
Now, I'm thinking you might need to do that process several times for each different type of edge you've got, with overlapping path selections. So where you need a sharp edge you make a path, and where you need a softer edge (with more feathering) you make a separate one.
In fact, I'll mock up an image explaining this. brb again...
... so, what I'm getting at is, make two overlapping selections here, where the blue one, due to selecting more defined edges, won't need much feathering, but the red area, due to the blurrier edges, will need more feathering. Then cut both separately and reoverlay back into your final composite.
That might be completely retarded, and I'd love @jinximages to tell me I'm mad and there's an easier way, but that'd be my self-taught, hacky approach to this.
I'm glad jinxy and the teddy can help ya. I don't really have any advice but I just thought I would point out that if you aren't actually looking for the flaws then it looks like a great photo!
@eyebrows I abhor doing selections manually, but sometimes one just has to do it that way. In this case, the way you've shown may actually be the only way to do it. I would still check out the chanels tab though, to see if one has higher contrast to make a quick selection easy.
All that said, I didn't realise the originals were taken in ordinary settings. The digital background stuff I've done used a green or blue screen backdrop, just like "in the movies", so that automatic selection is little more than a button click. You need, at the very least, a very clean background that contrasts well with your subject (skin, clothes, hair etc) if you don't want to spend hours making selections and masks.
Now, if I had no choice but to use a photo with a messy background, and had to drop a digital background in (read that as: I would just never do that), I would use my Photoshop plugin from onOne Software - Perfect Mask. It makes these kinds of manual selection jobs so much easier, and will even mask individual hairs perfectly.
@eyebrows CAF is really handy. Actually, I used it in this:
I didn't bother trying to clean it up - just left it "as is" - because I was actually editing for a friend of mine to show him some PS and PS plugins stuff (very rushed demo). So, you can see its faults quite clearly, especially around the bottom left, but in this case I didn't think it mattered (or more truly, just didn't care) - not like it is a client shot, as such (just a Facebook preview).
So, while incredibly useful and cool, it will sample things you wish it wouldn't and will also repeat sampled areas making it obvious that a form of cloning was used. Sometimes it is seamless, and sometimes it is "just a good start".
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
@tamallamma
The hard part is, as you can tell in the above "original", that the edges you need to cut out *are* blurred. The left hand (as we look at it) there isn't in focus, so there's no distinct "pixel barrier" between the two "objects" (baby/floor). So, a sharp line won't do for that part, it needs to be a feathered selection... but then if the selection area around, say, the right shoulder, was feathered to the same degree, you'd get too much background in, and that'd look out of place.
I've never dealt with this type of problem of needing varying degrees of feathering on selection areas before, all my previous cut and paste stuff's been from things with well defined edges (for this very reason).
Let me just read the actual thread, see if you've described what process you're using atm... brb...
That's an object with mostly straight lines, nice and easy, but still time consuming. With curved blurred lines like on your baby, it might take... *a while*. Either way, eventually you wind up with a path. Then you select it, invert it, hit delete, and see how well you did your path. Too much background still visible around the edge? Undo, feather the selection a little more, hit delete again. Try until it looks good. Then splash it onto your new background.
Now, I'm thinking you might need to do that process several times for each different type of edge you've got, with overlapping path selections. So where you need a sharp edge you make a path, and where you need a softer edge (with more feathering) you make a separate one.
In fact, I'll mock up an image explaining this. brb again...
That might be completely retarded, and I'd love @jinximages to tell me I'm mad and there's an easier way, but that'd be my self-taught, hacky approach to this.
All that said, I didn't realise the originals were taken in ordinary settings. The digital background stuff I've done used a green or blue screen backdrop, just like "in the movies", so that automatic selection is little more than a button click. You need, at the very least, a very clean background that contrasts well with your subject (skin, clothes, hair etc) if you don't want to spend hours making selections and masks.
Now, if I had no choice but to use a photo with a messy background, and had to drop a digital background in (read that as: I would just never do that), I would use my Photoshop plugin from onOne Software - Perfect Mask. It makes these kinds of manual selection jobs so much easier, and will even mask individual hairs perfectly.
Maybe that's a reason to obtain CS5 and check for myself, hrm...
I didn't bother trying to clean it up - just left it "as is" - because I was actually editing for a friend of mine to show him some PS and PS plugins stuff (very rushed demo). So, you can see its faults quite clearly, especially around the bottom left, but in this case I didn't think it mattered (or more truly, just didn't care) - not like it is a client shot, as such (just a Facebook preview).
So, while incredibly useful and cool, it will sample things you wish it wouldn't and will also repeat sampled areas making it obvious that a form of cloning was used. Sometimes it is seamless, and sometimes it is "just a good start".