Background removal help

GoofBckt

I'm having a terrible time with something. I take alot of photos of horses, candid photos with them galloping, bucking etc. Unfortunately, they typically need to be fenced while running around, they aren't wild horses (haven't had that opportunity yet). How can I remove fences, while still keeping flying manes looking natural in the shot? Any fabulous ideas out there? I need to be able to do this. I've tried layers, etc. It just looks like crap. :scratch

jfriend

Techniques like this are specific to a particular photo. You'll probably get a lot more useful help if you can post a specific photo you want help with and start there.

jjbong

You might also try this:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=116223

It's an excellent tutorial by pathfinder on background removal.

GoofBckt

Here's one, with mane flying that looks like crap after trying to fix.

jfriend wrote:

Techniques like this are specific to a particular photo. You'll probably get a lot more useful help if you can post a specific photo you want help with and start there.

GoofBckt

Here is the "before" picture.

GoofBckt wrote:

Here's one, with mane flying that looks like crap after trying to fix.

GoofBckt

Here is one I was able to edit successfully (no flying mane). In the original, he actually had his chin resting on a bright aluminum pipe corral. Does this look ok?

GoofBckt wrote:

Here is the "before" picture.

GoofBckt

Thanks for that, JJ. Sounds really tedious, but that's what I'm after and if it comes out looking professional, then the time spent is worth it.

jjbong wrote:

You might also try this:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=116223

It's an excellent tutorial by pathfinder on background removal.

Flyinggina

Hi Carrie!

I'm sure that some of the folks here on dGrin who know a lot more than I do about this will chime in.

In the meantime, it looks to me that your solution for the first picture was to further blur the background.

In your first example, did you consider cloning out the parts of the fence in front of the horse and below him (or her)? I think it would be fairly easy and it would leave the area around the mane untouched.

Good luck. Horses are beautiful animals. You are lucky to be able to devote so much time to photographing them!

Virginia

GoofBckt

Actually, I did clone out the fences, but that looked like crap too, so that's why I further blurred the background. Maybe I'm in need of cloning help too? When I try to clone things out, (bright, solid things) I end up with a bunch of obvious little circles. When I try to use a different brush setting, it doesn't seem to clone enough out. *sigh* I really appreciate your help though, thank you.

Flyinggina wrote:

Hi Carrie!

I'm sure that some of the folks here on dGrin who know a lot more than I do about this will chime in.

In the meantime, it looks to me that your solution for the first picture was to further blur the background.

In your first example, did you consider cloning out the parts of the fence in front of the horse and below him (or her)? I think it would be fairly easy and it would leave the area around the mane untouched.

Good luck. Horses are beautiful animals. You are lucky to be able to devote so much time to photographing them!

Virginia

divamum

GoofBckt wrote:

Actually, I did clone out the fences, but that looked like crap too, so that's why I further blurred the background. Maybe I'm in need of cloning help too? When I try to clone things out, (bright, solid things) I end up with a bunch of obvious little circles. When I try to use a different brush setting, it doesn't seem to clone enough out. *sigh* I really appreciate your help though, thank you.

I would probably start with the patch tool on a separate layer, then blend that layer down one so that I could clone over that (not to the background layer, but yet another copy layer - the reason for this is that once you've patched, the clone brush doesn't always pick up with you think it will; by merging down a layer, I know I'll get what I see and don't have to guess).

Then I would enlarge it and use a soft, feathered cloning brush into the crinkly bits, possibly using the quick select tool to limit cloning to just that area in the first instance (especially when doing larger brush work). Experiment with different opacities; sometimes it helps to build it up gradually rather than plonk down one 100% opacity stamp.

Then I would clean up what i could using the healing brush where there were funky lines or odd overlaps (this works very well in places where there's already something visually complex, eg trees etc). By mixing opaque cloning and the healing brush, you can seriously blend out obvious lines.

What confuses me is why in the first example you adjusted anything around the mane, since the fence itself is only on the other side - try working on JUST the fenced area with the clone brush and see what happens.

I do know that when I've done cloning jobs like this it has often taken FOREVER, and I've had to go back to try it multiple times before I was satisfied with it. Don't despair....

Your third photo looks fine, btw - I wouldn't have known there was a missing fence if you hadn't mentioned it.

TonyCooper

GoofBckt wrote:

Actually, I did clone out the fences, but that looked like crap too, so that's why I further blurred the background. Maybe I'm in need of cloning help too? When I try to clone things out, (bright, solid things) I end up with a bunch of obvious little circles. When I try to use a different brush setting, it doesn't seem to clone enough out. *sigh* I really appreciate your help though, thank you.

Don't be wholly dependent on the clone tool. The patch tool can sometimes work.

With something like a post, I'll copy an area where the post is not present, paste it (which makes it a new layer) and move that layer under my working layer. Move the pasted segment directly under the post. Make the working layer a Layer Mask, and with a feathered brush paint out the post. Much faster than cloning and much less noticeable.

GoofBckt

Thanks for all that, what a great help. In the first example, I selected around the whole horse, inverted it, then blurred the background, that's why it looks like that. Bad idea, as you can see. I'm starting over. Thanks again for the help.

divamum wrote:

I would probably start with the patch tool on a separate layer, then blend that layer down one so that I could clone over that (not to the background layer, but yet another copy layer - the reason for this is that once you've patched, the clone brush doesn't always pick up with you think it will; by merging down a layer, I know I'll get what I see and don't have to guess).

Then I would enlarge it and use a soft, feathered cloning brush into the crinkly bits, possibly using the quick select tool to limit cloning to just that area in the first instance (especially when doing larger brush work). Experiment with different opacities; sometimes it helps to build it up gradually rather than plonk down one 100% opacity stamp.

Then I would clean up what i could using the healing brush where there were funky lines or odd overlaps (this works very well in places where there's already something visually complex, eg trees etc). By mixing opaque cloning and the healing brush, you can seriously blend out obvious lines.

What confuses me is why in the first example you adjusted anything around the mane, since the fence itself is only on the other side - try working on JUST the fenced area with the clone brush and see what happens.

I do know that when I've done cloning jobs like this it has often taken FOREVER, and I've had to go back to try it multiple times before I was satisfied with it. Don't despair....

Your third photo looks fine, btw - I wouldn't have known there was a missing fence if you hadn't mentioned it.

digismile

Before the latest versions of Photoshop with the healing brush and patch tools, we only had the clone tool to use to blend in parts/edges, etc.

Brush settings are crucial to successful cloning, but the settings will depend on the area being cloned. You will vary 4 things on the clone tool brush:

1: Opacity
2: Flow
3: Brush size
4: Brush hardness

In general, if I were patching a large area, I would first see if I could copy a large chunk from somewhere else in the image (or a similar image). fixing large areas with just the clone tool is very tough to do really well.

Then the next steps would be to blend the edges.

Again, these are really general suggestions for fixing transition areas:

1. Work on a separate layer.

2. Keep the brush diameter to the size of the transition area, i.e. smaller is usually better

3. Keep flow and opacity lower so that you have to build up the cloning detail a bit at a time (but will depend on what it being fixed)

4. If the area being cloned lacks hard detail, you should probablu use a soft(er) brush setting. Harder brush settings will be for areas where there is an obvious texture/detail.

5. Resample every couple/few clicks to make the buildup more random.

What you are trying to do takes some skill, judgement, and patience, all of which will improve with practice. My first "repairs" were pretty brutal .

As well, there are lots of tutorials and excellent books available on retouching, etc. (see Katrin Eismann's Restoration and Retouching).

Keep practicing and I'm sure your results will improve in no time!

kwcrow

I gave it a try.
Casper_0104a.jpg
I first used the stamp tool to get rid of the pole and fence. I then just used the blur tool to blur out the large background areas. I did not get into the mane and just used a soft edged tool. I thought that the horse was too blue so I took out some blue in the coat with camera raw and then color enhanced.

GoofBckt

Wow, very interesting. You guys are all awesome. i can't tell you enough how much I appreciate all the time and effort to help me out on this. YAY! There's hope for me yet! Thank you!

kwcrow wrote:

I gave it a try.
Casper_0104a.jpg
I first used the stamp tool to get rid of the pole and fence. I then just used the blur tool to blur out the large background areas. I did not get into the mane and just used a soft edged tool. I thought that the horse was too blue so I took out some blue in the coat with camera raw and then color enhanced.

dcabarle

GoofBckt wrote:

I'm having a terrible time with something. I take alot of photos of horses, candid photos with them galloping, bucking etc. Unfortunately, they typically need to be fenced while running around, they aren't wild horses (haven't had that opportunity yet). How can I remove fences, while still keeping flying manes looking natural in the shot? Any fabulous ideas out there? I need to be able to do this. I've tried layers, etc. It just looks like crap.

I think what you're looking for is a photoshop plug-in from Onone.

http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=4

This I believe will do exactly what you're looking to do. It's a little work but it can be done. There are instructional videos on the site which you can follow.

Good Luck.

GoofBckt

Thank you for that. It looks very intrigueing. Unfortunately, I don't have Photoshop CS's, I use Elements 7 and apparently, it doesn't work with that. :cry I very much appreciate it though.

dcabarle wrote:

I think what you're looking for is a photoshop plug-in from Onone.

http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=4

This I believe will do exactly what you're looking to do. It's a little work but it can be done. There are instructional videos on the site which you can follow.

Good Luck.

HarrisPhotographicArts

GoofBckt wrote:

Thank you for that. It looks very intrigueing. Unfortunately, I don't have Photoshop CS's, I use Elements 7 and apparently, it doesn't work with that. :cry I very much appreciate it though.

Hey GoofBckt,

I know this is a month old but I wanted to chime in. I worked on the first photo. Hope you're ok with that.

The key to this is to clone starting out with a larger brush then working your way in. Once you get to the stuff around the nose, zoom in to about 400%-500% with a much smaller brush. This gives you much more control. I think I lost one hair to get rid of all the white.

Where the post meets the neck is a little different. Do the same thing as above but then there is still a difference in color at the edge of the neck. I just cloned using a sample from the neck edge at the left and got rid of that background color at the edge. It will never be 100% perfect. But it should be pretty close. You sometimes have to work inward from both sides and make the cloning meet in the middle. Hope this helps. It took me a long time to learn that zooming makes these kinds of fixes a LOT easier.

Don Harris
Harris Photographic Arts
www.harrisphotographicarts.com

GoofBckt

That looks great!! Thank you so much. In the last month, I have learned about the benefits of zooming in really close it is definitely a must for this kind of work. Thank you so much, I love it.

HarrisPhotographicArts wrote:

Hey GoofBckt,

I know this is a month old but I wanted to chime in. I worked on the first photo. Hope you're ok with that.

The key to this is to clone starting out with a larger brush then working your way in. Once you get to the stuff around the nose, zoom in to about 400%-500% with a much smaller brush. This gives you much more control. I think I lost one hair to get rid of all the white.

Where the post meets the neck is a little different. Do the same thing as above but then there is still a difference in color at the edge of the neck. I just cloned using a sample from the neck edge at the left and got rid of that background color at the edge. It will never be 100% perfect. But it should be pretty close. You sometimes have to work inward from both sides and make the cloning meet in the middle. Hope this helps. It took me a long time to learn that zooming makes these kinds of fixes a LOT easier.

Don Harris
Harris Photographic Arts
www.harrisphotographicarts.com

pathfinder

Images with the mane flying about will be challenging, without a Masking program of some sort, like Mask Pro, and it may even be challenged.

The usual way to do this in PS, is to look at the channels, and see if one of the channels displays a good contrast with the background and then use Levels and the Brush to build a mask for the horse to help select it out from the background. When I look at this image however, neither the R, G, or B channel will really work for an easy mask. Indeed, I looked at each of the 10 channels all images have R,G,B L,a,b C,M,Y,K and none of them have a great separation from the background. So that brings you back to selections with the Quick Select tool, or the Pen Tool, or one of the magnetic tools. For me, the QS tool is the tool of choice in this situation with a bit of soft brush for the mane.

This will get a bit easier with practice, but any way you do it, if you have many images to do, it is going to be a LOT of tedious work. Maybe a good place to think about shooting with a 200 f2 L at f2 and let the lens do your separation for you? Or maybe the 300 f4.

GoofBckt

Boy, you're not kidding alot of work!! The last two horse shoots I did were incredibly time consuming in the PP. I like your idea about the 300 lens.

pathfinder wrote:

Images with the mane flying about will be challenging, without a Masking program of some sort, like Mask Pro, and it may even be challenged.

The usual way to do this in PS, is to look at the channels, and see if one of the channels displays a good contrast with the background and then use Levels and the Brush to build a mask for the horse to help select it out from the background. When I look at this image however, neither the R, G, or B channel will really work for an easy mask. Indeed, I looked at each of the 10 channels all images have R,G,B L,a,b C,M,Y,K and none of them have a great separation from the background. So that brings you back to selections with the Quick Select tool, or the Pen Tool, or one of the magnetic tools. For me, the QS tool is the tool of choice in this situation with a bit of soft brush for the mane.

This will get a bit easier with practice, but any way you do it, if you have many images to do, it is going to be a LOT of tedious work. Maybe a good place to think about shooting with a 200 f2 L at f2 and let the lens do your separation for you? Or maybe the 300 f4.