One day, I started writing, not knowing that I had chained myself for life to a noble but merciless master. When God hands you a gift, he also hands you a whip; and the whip is intended solely for self-flagellation...I'm here alone in my dark madness, all by myself with my deck of cards --- and, of course, the whip God gave me." Truman Capote
Slippery When Wet - How I did it. This thread is geared toward those among us who are relatively new to Photoshop.
My entry this time was more Photoshop intensive than usual. To be honest, the image SOOC pretty much sucked. I was really hung-up on the concept that I had in my head so I stuck with it.
Here's what it looked like straight out of the camera.
First thing that I need to do was to straighten it and get it as flat as possible, (Make the circles true circles and the squares true squares.) so I double-clicked on the layer to bring it up off of the canvas.
Then I added extra space around it by increasing the canvas size. (Image/Canvas Size)
I gave myself several inches all around. (It will be obvious why in a minute.)
Now to get it straight. After adding a horizontal guide at a good reference point in the image I activated the rotate tool. (Edit/Free Transform) Moved the centerpoint to a spot around which I wanted the image to rotate. Then just clicked and dragged outside of the box until the bricks were lined up with the guide.
Next, fixing the perspective. After adding two vertical guides I actived the perspective tool (Edit/Tranform/Perspective)
By dragging one of the corners you can bow the image in or out. By dragging one of the center edge points you can slant the image left/right or up/down.
Now that everything was pretty much squared up I needed to make my circles true circles and the squares true squares. I added a second layer and changed the opacity to 50%. Took my circular marquee tool and by holding down the Atl. and Shift keys drew a perfect circle over the manhole. (Alt. key lets you pick the center point of the marquee and the shift gives you the perfect circle. Works for squares also.) Then filled it with a color.
I got rid of the marquee at this time and clicked on the first layer. After activating the Transform tool again I moved the center point over the center point of the manhole. While holding the Alt. key down I dragged on the top center edge point to size the image until the manhole matched the yellow circle.
At this point I went ahead and cropped to my final image size taking note of the bricks along the edge.
Now to get the look that I had in my head onto the screen.
By creating adjustment layers (Levels, Curves, Exposure, etc.) I got the image to look the way that I wanted.
Now I cloned out unwanted blotches and expanded the grass along the upper right edge of the manhole.
The last touch was to make it look even wetter than it already was. So I went into the filters (Filters/Artistic/Plastic Wrap).
Here I played with the numbers until I was satisfied. (Alot of doing and undoing)
Finally I was satisfied and decided to quit before going overboard. (As if I hadn't already.)
And there you have it. Thanks for sticking with me this long.
This thread is geared toward those among us who are relatively new to Photoshop.
— Kevin
Wow Kevin, thanks for sharing! I just wish I could have seen this before I tried to figure out that perspective tool for myself... but hey, I learned.
BTW, I love the grass to the side of the cover. I think it really added to the picture.
Great Job!
Thanks for sharing. Wouldn't a ladder and a little water have accomplished the same thing? I think you've just convinced me to never use Photoshop.
Sorry my satellite imaging unit was not working that day. Also, Photoshop is why digital images are rarely allowed in court as evidence. "Don't believe everything you see."
Sorry my satellite imaging unit was not working that day. Also, Photoshop is why digital images are rarely allowed in court as evidence. "Don't believe everything you see."
I got rid of a table edge and a candle using Cloning in Aperture for my entry and I felt guilty about it.
I think most of us want that PERFECT picture to come straight out of the camera. Lord knows I have fought it as hard or harder than anyone. My pictures will usually be what they are and just tweaked a little. But if I see a idea in my head and need to piece it together in Gimp, then I am happy I have that option.
I hear you. I try to get the most out of the camera as well myself. Sometimes you just have to do a little more polishing than usual.
Ya know.. I hear a lot on this issue on the DG with PS.. After making a lengthy study of Ansel Adams and his work,, I always viewed PS as the "new darkroom" and indeed it is..
If ya know Ansel and his books, then you would know that he was very big on the darkroom and that is exactly what made his images stand out in the crowd.
They say he was a "master" in the darkroom when it came to burning and dodging, and that if you did not see the man behind the camera, then he was in the darkroom, and for endless hours at a time..
So in my humble opinion, the darkroom is equally just as important to know and utilize as an artist in photography. Just a tool to polish your vision....
Although I do agree, if ya start dumping into vector, well then you have lost the photography,, I think there is a fine line of balance..:D
But then that is just me rattling on like I tend to do.... :ivar
and ya know how that is..
Ya know.. I hear a lot on this issue on the DG with PS.. After making a lengthy study of Ansel Adams and his work,, I always viewed PS as the "new darkroom" and indeed it is..
If ya know Ansel and his books, then you would know that he was very big on the darkroom and that is exactly what made his images stand out in the crowd.
They say he was a "master" in the darkroom when it came to burning and dodging, and that if you did not see the man behind the camera, then he was in the darkroom, and for endless hours at a time..
So in my humble opinion, the darkroom is equally just as important to know and utilize as an artist in photography. Just a tool to polish your vision....
Although I do agree, if ya start dumping into vector, well then you have lost the photography,, I think there is a fine line of balance..:D
But then that is just me rattling on like I tend to do.... :ivar
and ya know how that is..
Kat
And then, for balance, there is Henri Cartier-Bresson, who reportedly hated the darkroom and didn't develop his own prints.
Bottom line, there are lots of ways to make a picture, from SOOC to almost entirely within Photoshop. There is no "right" or "wrong," on this one; It's a matter of personal taste and aesthetic judgement.
And then, for balance, there is Henri Cartier-Bresson, who reportedly hated the darkroom and didn't develop his own prints.
Bottom line, there are lots of ways to make a picture, from SOOC to almost entirely within Photoshop. There is no "right" or "wrong," on this one; It's a matter of personal taste and aesthetic judgement.
Yes, Yes, indeed guys... I most definitely agree... D
I am only making the point > that I don't think it is a negative thing when photographers use PS because it "is" the new darkroom of the new age....
I don't think there are too many images out there that are published on a professional level without it, as a matter of fact most publishers have entire departments dedicated to it, and "mandate the polish before publishing", so I think it is a good and positive skill to know and learn for polishing, at the very least the basics...... that is all I am saying... :D:D
Finally I was satisfied and decided to quit before going overboard. (As if I hadn't already.)
— Kevin
Thanks Kevin, for taking the time to put this together. Its a great tutorial and shows that the "darkroom" is just another tool used to enhance our artistic vision.
I even learned something that I did not know previously, I did not realize you could create the marquee (circle or square) from the center point.
And then, for balance, there is Henri Cartier-Bresson, who reportedly hated the darkroom and didn't develop his own prints.
Bottom line, there are lots of ways to make a picture, from SOOC to almost entirely within Photoshop. There is no "right" or "wrong," on this one; It's a matter of personal taste and aesthetic judgement.
H C-B may have hated the darkroom, but he liked the results. He was just able to outsource the processing and printing to someone patient enough to help him realize his vision.
From the start and by its nature, photography has interposed mechanical, chemical and now digital barriers between the photographer and the viewer. Those barriers should be manipulated as much as needed to produce the best possible image. For some the goal may be to minimize the required processing, while others will find unique ways to craft an image. End of the day, it's up to the viewers to decide what they like.
But however much or little processing is done, there has not yet been invented the photographic equivalent to music's "unprocessed" form: the live performance of an unamplified voice or instrument. Until that time, photography is going to always be more or less about processing.
H C-B may have hated the darkroom, but he liked the results. He was just able to outsource the processing and printing to someone patient enough to help him realize his vision.
From the start and by its nature, photography has interposed mechanical, chemical and now digital barriers between the photographer and the viewer. Those barriers should be manipulated as much as needed to produce the best possible image. For some the goal may be to minimize the required processing, while others will find unique ways to craft an image. End of the day, it's up to the viewers to decide what they like.
But however much or little processing is done, there has not yet been invented the photographic equivalent to music's "unprocessed" form: the live performance of an unamplified voice or instrument. Until that time, photography is going to always be more or less about processing.
Well My GOSH - Halite.. So well spoken.. I think I will just shut up now.. hehe:D
H C-B may have hated the darkroom, but he liked the results. He was just able to outsource the processing and printing to someone patient enough to help him realize his vision.
From the start and by its nature, photography has interposed mechanical, chemical and now digital barriers between the photographer and the viewer. Those barriers should be manipulated as much as needed to produce the best possible image. For some the goal may be to minimize the required processing, while others will find unique ways to craft an image. End of the day, it's up to the viewers to decide what they like.
But however much or little processing is done, there has not yet been invented the photographic equivalent to music's "unprocessed" form: the live performance of an unamplified voice or instrument. Until that time, photography is going to always be more or less about processing.
I think we're actually saying pretty much the same thing. An image is taken with a camera. That image is processed (or not) by the camera and the artistador* then decides if it matches his vision or if further intervention is required and to what degree. Lather, rinse, repeat. I have found myself of late using minimal post-processing, but that's probably sheer laziness on my part.
But however much or little processing is done, there has not yet been invented the photographic equivalent to music's "unprocessed" form: the live performance of an unamplified voice or instrument. Until that time, photography is going to always be more or less about processing.
All very well said.
I think I just realized something. A lot of what I take is nature, just because I like it. When I am working on those pictures, my goal is to make it look like what I saw.
With other things, I find myself playing with them more to try to get something "cool" looking out of it.
Huh, interesting, I just never thought about it.
Harumpf, harumpf! I didn't get a harumpf out of that guy. HARUMPF, HARUMPF! (Sorry, fell into my Blazing Saddles mode.)
I pretty much agree with everyone that Photoshop, or what-have-you, is the new darkroom to be used as little or as much as need be. I admit that I did use it extensively this time. I also hope that I was able to pass on a little knowledge as well. And to think, this invaluable discussion has come about all due to a crappy photo.
Linda asked for a how-to on my Small world, so I thought I'd try to write one.
First of all this kind of a funny float-in-the-air ball is a polar panorama. In a sentence, you take a 360 degree view, shoot it, stitch it and then do a polar coordinate conversion.
In more detail, first you need a nice location. I chose a spot in Helsinki called Pikku-Huopalahti on a windless clear day at sunset. A sunset magic-hour will go a long way toward decent light and more so if your location puts the sun in a good direction.
I could have done more fine tuning on just where to stand, but the sun was setting fast so I didn't even go for the tripod.
My original set of 21 images shot at 17mm and f/4 is here. The polar conversion stretches the sky a lot and compresses the foreground, which is why I chose to go with a wider angle - to try to avoid an overload of meaningful detail in the top and the bottom. A wider angle will also make buildings etc. smaller so they don't distort as much. You need to stand away from anything too big - a tree or a house or a polar bear that reaches to the top will end up being a moon. f/4 was an educated guess at a good depth of field from a few meters to infinity.
After a little raw processing mainly using the fill slider to coarsely match foreground brightnesses I loaded the lot into PS and ran photomerge.
You can see that Photomerge didn't do a perfect job and ended up with an undulating horizon, so as I prepped it further I gave it a warp. Using a properly leveled tripod would have helped I guess...
At this stage it's important to rotate the picture so that the ends, which are a about to meet, but don't know it just yet, fit together. Hence the horizontal guide in the next picture. The vertical guides are crop markers - I shot past 360 degrees and used a powerline pylon in the distance to mark the exact cut.
And now starts the fun. You have your pan all squared up - now get ready to lose most of it: we need to make this into a square. First crop it using the vertical markers for width and the edges for height - the biggest pic with clean edges is the target. Then it's image size tool, uncheck the constrain proportions and, quite crudely, make the width the same as the height:
Looks kinda silly, but it gets better... The bottom becomes the outer part and viceversa so to make a planet floating in the blue - a flip, like so:
And now, filters > distort > polar coordinates > rectangular to polar.
Et Vóil..not quite. As can be expected the exposures didn't quite match up and there are a few funny things goin' on.
So it's quality time with the healing & cloning brushes dealing with the edges, stitch issues etc. The large areas of sky with messed up clouds I just painted over with a large brush using the eye dropper for colour.
Going final: try different rotations and apply any curves.
Harumpf, harumpf! I didn't get a harumpf out of that guy. HARUMPF, HARUMPF! (Sorry, fell into my Blazing Saddles mode.)
I pretty much agree with everyone that Photoshop, or what-have-you, is the new darkroom to be used as little or as much as need be. I admit that I did use it extensively this time. I also hope that I was able to pass on a little knowledge as well. And to think, this invaluable discussion has come about all due to a crappy photo.
— Kevin
Harumph!
Also, there's a reason why Adobe's raw format is called Digital Negative - it's meant to be processed in the modern equivalent of a darkroom. In-camera jpegs are like polaroids, aren't they
Also, there's a reason why Adobe's raw format is called Digital Negative - it's meant to be processed in the modern equivalent of a darkroom. In-camera jpegs are like polaroids, aren't they
Harumpf! What's wrong with Polaroids?
And who has some Lightroom Presets to mimic Polaroids?
Comments
Peace,
Donna P.
This thread is geared toward those among us who are relatively new to Photoshop.
My entry this time was more Photoshop intensive than usual. To be honest, the image SOOC pretty much sucked. I was really hung-up on the concept that I had in my head so I stuck with it.
Here's what it looked like straight out of the camera.
First thing that I need to do was to straighten it and get it as flat as possible, (Make the circles true circles and the squares true squares.) so I double-clicked on the layer to bring it up off of the canvas.
Then I added extra space around it by increasing the canvas size. (Image/Canvas Size)
I gave myself several inches all around. (It will be obvious why in a minute.)
Now to get it straight. After adding a horizontal guide at a good reference point in the image I activated the rotate tool. (Edit/Free Transform) Moved the centerpoint to a spot around which I wanted the image to rotate. Then just clicked and dragged outside of the box until the bricks were lined up with the guide.
Next, fixing the perspective. After adding two vertical guides I actived the perspective tool (Edit/Tranform/Perspective)
By dragging one of the corners you can bow the image in or out. By dragging one of the center edge points you can slant the image left/right or up/down.
Now that everything was pretty much squared up I needed to make my circles true circles and the squares true squares. I added a second layer and changed the opacity to 50%. Took my circular marquee tool and by holding down the Atl. and Shift keys drew a perfect circle over the manhole. (Alt. key lets you pick the center point of the marquee and the shift gives you the perfect circle. Works for squares also.) Then filled it with a color.
I got rid of the marquee at this time and clicked on the first layer. After activating the Transform tool again I moved the center point over the center point of the manhole. While holding the Alt. key down I dragged on the top center edge point to size the image until the manhole matched the yellow circle.
At this point I went ahead and cropped to my final image size taking note of the bricks along the edge.
Now to get the look that I had in my head onto the screen.
By creating adjustment layers (Levels, Curves, Exposure, etc.) I got the image to look the way that I wanted.
Now I cloned out unwanted blotches and expanded the grass along the upper right edge of the manhole.
The last touch was to make it look even wetter than it already was. So I went into the filters (Filters/Artistic/Plastic Wrap).
Here I played with the numbers until I was satisfied. (Alot of doing and undoing)
Finally I was satisfied and decided to quit before going overboard. (As if I hadn't already.)
And there you have it. Thanks for sticking with me this long.
— Kevin
My Site, My Book
BTW, I love the grass to the side of the cover. I think it really added to the picture.
Great Job!
My SmugMug
- I really thought it was raining when you took it
TravelwaysPhotos.com ...... Facebook
VegasGreatAttractions.com
Travelways.com
Thanks for sharing. Wouldn't a ladder and a little water have accomplished the same thing?
Actually it was raining. Just not hard enough and the light wasn't picking it up very well.
My Site, My Book
Sorry my satellite imaging unit was not working that day.
My Site, My Book
TravelwaysPhotos.com ...... Facebook
VegasGreatAttractions.com
Travelways.com
I got rid of a table edge and a candle using Cloning in Aperture for my entry and I felt guilty about it.
I hear you. I try to get the most out of the camera as well myself. Sometimes you just have to do a little more polishing than usual.
My Site, My Book
TravelwaysPhotos.com ...... Facebook
VegasGreatAttractions.com
Travelways.com
My SmugMug
Ya know.. I hear a lot on this issue on the DG with PS.. After making a lengthy study of Ansel Adams and his work,, I always viewed PS as the "new darkroom" and indeed it is..
If ya know Ansel and his books, then you would know that he was very big on the darkroom and that is exactly what made his images stand out in the crowd.
They say he was a "master" in the darkroom when it came to burning and dodging, and that if you did not see the man behind the camera, then he was in the darkroom, and for endless hours at a time..
So in my humble opinion, the darkroom is equally just as important to know and utilize as an artist in photography. Just a tool to polish your vision....
Although I do agree, if ya start dumping into vector, well then you have lost the photography,, I think there is a fine line of balance..:D
But then that is just me rattling on like I tend to do.... :ivar
and ya know how that is..
Kat
And then, for balance, there is Henri Cartier-Bresson, who reportedly hated the darkroom and didn't develop his own prints.
Bottom line, there are lots of ways to make a picture, from SOOC to almost entirely within Photoshop. There is no "right" or "wrong," on this one; It's a matter of personal taste and aesthetic judgement.
My SmugMug
Yes, Yes, indeed guys... I most definitely agree...
I am only making the point > that I don't think it is a negative thing when photographers use PS because it "is" the new darkroom of the new age....
I don't think there are too many images out there that are published on a professional level without it, as a matter of fact most publishers have entire departments dedicated to it, and "mandate the polish before publishing", so I think it is a good and positive skill to know and learn for polishing, at the very least the basics...... that is all I am saying...
Kat
I even learned something that I did not know previously, I did not realize you could create the marquee (circle or square) from the center point.
Thanks!
H C-B may have hated the darkroom, but he liked the results. He was just able to outsource the processing and printing to someone patient enough to help him realize his vision.
From the start and by its nature, photography has interposed mechanical, chemical and now digital barriers between the photographer and the viewer. Those barriers should be manipulated as much as needed to produce the best possible image. For some the goal may be to minimize the required processing, while others will find unique ways to craft an image. End of the day, it's up to the viewers to decide what they like.
But however much or little processing is done, there has not yet been invented the photographic equivalent to music's "unprocessed" form: the live performance of an unamplified voice or instrument. Until that time, photography is going to always be more or less about processing.
Well My GOSH - Halite.. So well spoken.. I think I will just shut up now.. hehe:D
Here - Here-
Nice choice on the plastic wrap Kevin.. I was wondering..:D
Thanks for the share.. I saw your tut on the rays over on the grad school board too.. your good at breaking it down... thanks..
I think we're actually saying pretty much the same thing. An image is taken with a camera. That image is processed (or not) by the camera and the artistador* then decides if it matches his vision or if further intervention is required and to what degree. Lather, rinse, repeat. I have found myself of late using minimal post-processing, but that's probably sheer laziness on my part.
All very well said.
I think I just realized something. A lot of what I take is nature, just because I like it. When I am working on those pictures, my goal is to make it look like what I saw.
With other things, I find myself playing with them more to try to get something "cool" looking out of it.
Huh, interesting, I just never thought about it.
My SmugMug
I pretty much agree with everyone that Photoshop, or what-have-you, is the new darkroom to be used as little or as much as need be. I admit that I did use it extensively this time. I also hope that I was able to pass on a little knowledge as well. And to think, this invaluable discussion has come about all due to a crappy photo.
— Kevin
My Site, My Book
First of all this kind of a funny float-in-the-air ball is a polar panorama. In a sentence, you take a 360 degree view, shoot it, stitch it and then do a polar coordinate conversion.
In more detail, first you need a nice location. I chose a spot in Helsinki called Pikku-Huopalahti on a windless clear day at sunset. A sunset magic-hour will go a long way toward decent light and more so if your location puts the sun in a good direction.
I could have done more fine tuning on just where to stand, but the sun was setting fast so I didn't even go for the tripod.
My original set of 21 images shot at 17mm and f/4 is here. The polar conversion stretches the sky a lot and compresses the foreground, which is why I chose to go with a wider angle - to try to avoid an overload of meaningful detail in the top and the bottom. A wider angle will also make buildings etc. smaller so they don't distort as much. You need to stand away from anything too big - a tree or a house or a polar bear that reaches to the top will end up being a moon. f/4 was an educated guess at a good depth of field from a few meters to infinity.
After a little raw processing mainly using the fill slider to coarsely match foreground brightnesses I loaded the lot into PS and ran photomerge.
You can see that Photomerge didn't do a perfect job and ended up with an undulating horizon, so as I prepped it further I gave it a warp. Using a properly leveled tripod would have helped I guess...
At this stage it's important to rotate the picture so that the ends, which are a about to meet, but don't know it just yet, fit together. Hence the horizontal guide in the next picture. The vertical guides are crop markers - I shot past 360 degrees and used a powerline pylon in the distance to mark the exact cut.
And now starts the fun. You have your pan all squared up - now get ready to lose most of it: we need to make this into a square. First crop it using the vertical markers for width and the edges for height - the biggest pic with clean edges is the target. Then it's image size tool, uncheck the constrain proportions and, quite crudely, make the width the same as the height:
Looks kinda silly, but it gets better... The bottom becomes the outer part and viceversa so to make a planet floating in the blue - a flip, like so:
And now, filters > distort > polar coordinates > rectangular to polar.
Et Vóil..not quite. As can be expected the exposures didn't quite match up and there are a few funny things goin' on.
So it's quality time with the healing & cloning brushes dealing with the edges, stitch issues etc. The large areas of sky with messed up clouds I just painted over with a large brush using the eye dropper for colour.
Going final: try different rotations and apply any curves.
Final image:
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
harumpf! ... sorry your secretary had me distracted with other things...
My SmugMug
It's not all that difficult really. It's a lot of work, but the steps are fairly simple.
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
Harumph!
Also, there's a reason why Adobe's raw format is called Digital Negative - it's meant to be processed in the modern equivalent of a darkroom. In-camera jpegs are like polaroids, aren't they
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
nah, raw would be above my skills too.
My SmugMug
Harumpf! What's wrong with Polaroids?
And who has some Lightroom Presets to mimic Polaroids?