Options

Help with a photo

tatetate Registered Users Posts: 66 Big grins
edited October 22, 2011 in Finishing School
Hello! Over the weekend, I did photos for this family. It was a tough session, being almost noon on a sunny day and the grandmother wanted the rock (which was her brothers, who passed a few years ago) in the photo like a family member. This rock was right next to a lake....anyways, Good thing a cloud came by and I was able to get a picture...the problem is the baby on grandmas lap is looking away and sucking her thumb. I didnt have many pictures to pull the baby from and this was the only decent one. Now I have PSE9 and can swap heads in a like picture...but can you pull the baby from another photo and pose entirely? Is there a way to "erase" the baby from the first picture and then place another baby picture in that spot? If it cant be done, at least I know I tried by asking you experts! :) Well I cant upload the original pictures, so I resized the one....but I guess my question is can I take a picture of the baby from a totally unrelated pose and swap them out? If anyone wants to teach me or if they have a link on how to do it, I would be appreciative! THanks!

Comments

  • Options
    RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,931 moderator
    edited October 18, 2011
    It might be possible to replace the baby, but I really don't see why you would want to. It's a perfectly cute pose as is. ne_nau.gif

    Just to address the technical side for a moment, the problem is not just the baby but the woman holding her. If you change the position of the baby's head and arm, that will expose areas of the grandma's clothing that are covered now. You will need to fill in these areas convincingly, which might be difficult.
    My Pics
  • Options
    tatetate Registered Users Posts: 66 Big grins
    edited October 18, 2011
    Richard wrote: »
    It might be possible to replace the baby, but I really don't see why you would want to. It's a perfectly cute pose as is. ne_nau.gif

    Just to address the technical side for a moment, the problem is not just the baby but the woman holding her. If you change the position of the baby's head and arm, that will expose areas of the grandma's clothing that are covered now. You will need to fill in these areas convincingly, which might be difficult.


    Thanks Richard! I had thought about that too...and then the grandmother/baby would look fake. I too thought it was cute how she was looking at her whole family....Some things would be best left alone...Thanks again for your opinion. All I can say is that I am thrilled that the sun went behind a cloud for me to even get that picture, because the other ones were terrible because of the location sun...and didnt have much to work with with the way the rock was set and so close to the water...at least now I have a second opinion about the photo
  • Options
    angevin1angevin1 Registered Users Posts: 3,403 Major grins
    edited October 18, 2011
    Looks perfect as is! Often parents want kids to produce a fake smile and all that. But you really got a good Shot there.
    tom wise
  • Options
    tatetate Registered Users Posts: 66 Big grins
    edited October 18, 2011
    angevin1 wrote: »
    Looks perfect as is! Often parents want kids to produce a fake smile and all that. But you really got a good Shot there.


    True and I know Im one of those parents too...Laughing.gif...BTW, Since the sky was blown out, does the sky area look realistic? Im wondering if too greyish...but didnt want to do too blue either.......I cloned out all the houses and covered them with the fall foliage along the water there too. Good thing for the fall colors...can hide a lot...ha
  • Options
    basfltbasflt Registered Users Posts: 1,882 Major grins
    edited October 18, 2011
    it is possible
    use the head only

    try it ( on a copy ) , and you 'll see

    - mask the head on the "donorpic" and > edit > copy
    -on the pic in question , edit > paste > paste special > in place
    now its a new layer
    -position it by dragging
    -smooth edge with a soft opaque erazer
    -on background , clone away leftovers from original head that are visible
    -on toplayer , adjust color / teint if needed
    -when satisfied , flatten image and save as .....
    Bas

    /ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
  • Options
    angevin1angevin1 Registered Users Posts: 3,403 Major grins
    edited October 19, 2011
    tate wrote: »
    Since the sky was blown out, does the sky area look realistic?


    Yes. When I had read that a cloud came over I had scrolled back up and, sure enough a cloud had rolled in.
    tom wise
  • Options
    SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited October 19, 2011
    Am I missing something here? The baby's position seems fine to me, but the whole image looks way too soft / out of focus, that's what I would be concerned about.

    Sam
    www.samlinvillephotography.com
  • Options
    PhotoGUY123PhotoGUY123 Registered Users Posts: 20 Big grins
    edited October 20, 2011
    I realize that PS and PSE are tools to help photographers improve the image. My thoughts on the image are several; focus looks off (Was AF points all or one and on an eye?), adults are the ones wanting a "perfect" pose--while kids want to be kids for most family photos, infants and animals are unpredictable elements in family portraits (can't be helped easily--unless you have a wrangler), camera height to subject could be a little lower and may have helped with focus (I wonder if the camera AF did not catch the rock and attempt focus there).
  • Options
    idiotabroadidiotabroad Registered Users Posts: 246 Major grins
    edited October 20, 2011
    Agree with Sam. Someone wise once said on here "take a great pic first then you won't have to mess with it too much." Sam or Glort. Or both said that. So yea back to you which is back to square one, try again and again untill you get what you want.
    Mark

    If you don't agree with me then your wrong.
    I can't be held accountable for what I say, I'm bipolar.
  • Options
    tatetate Registered Users Posts: 66 Big grins
    edited October 20, 2011
    Sam wrote: »
    Am I missing something here? The baby's position seems fine to me, but the whole image looks way too soft / out of focus, that's what I would be concerned about.

    Sam


    Hi Sam,

    Its possible that the picture looks out of focus from the way I had to make it smaller and upload it in? Here is the link to the gallery...Its the first picture...... I would appreciate your thoughts on the clarity....After all I just bought the D700 and have the 51 af selected on the camera...and had it for multiple focus...shot on a tripod..maybe up a little too high, but literally had to run, get them adjusted while the cloud gave us 1 minute of shade! :) I hope that I am not doing something wrong with the camera and would appreciate any help...especially since I have 2 sessions this weekend! I did also have my speedlight to try to fill flash.....and yes, Im not liking that grey sky...will adjust that when they order the picture.......

    http://www.christymitchellphotography.com/Family/The-Butler-Family/19557875_kppmWR/

    Its the first picture in that gallery... If by chance it doesnt go thru, my website is www.christymitchellphotography.com its gallery is Family and then Butler Family... Thanks so much for everyones thoughts! And yes, I am a believer of getting the shot out of the camera and not have to fix too much after the fact.......

    Still learning here in CT!
  • Options
    idiotabroadidiotabroad Registered Users Posts: 246 Major grins
    edited October 20, 2011
    Yea Tate it 51 wide and the damn thing goes crazy, almost like the dreaded auto mode. I also think time of day killed you here with huge water reflection.
    Mark

    If you don't agree with me then your wrong.
    I can't be held accountable for what I say, I'm bipolar.
  • Options
    tatetate Registered Users Posts: 66 Big grins
    edited October 20, 2011
    idiotabroad wrote: »
    Yea Tate it 51 wide and the damn thing goes crazy, almost like the dreaded auto mode. I also think time of day killed you here with huge water reflection.


    I had switched it to dynamic af area 51 per someones suggestion...so you think I would be best to just keep it at the default of 9? (On my old d40, I never worried about that, so had no idea, what to put the camera in) Oh I know, this was shot at 11:30ish, near the water, that time was the only time they could do the photos. They were thrilled with the pictures, so I guess thats all that matters, but to me, I know that what saved me was that sun going behind a cloud...because you dont even want to know how horrible they were looking before that happened! HA The thing was the rock had to be the focal point and in the photo. Now was I correct in selecting the auto area af for the group shots and then for individual shots stick with single point af?
  • Options
    SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited October 20, 2011
    Hi Tate,

    The image looks much better on your website, thank goodness. :D

    I would recommend using a single point focus. Using the 51 points will allow the camera pick what ever it wants, not what you want.

    I think the image and pose is fine just the way it is.

    Sam
    www.samlinvillephotography.com
  • Options
    tatetate Registered Users Posts: 66 Big grins
    edited October 20, 2011
    Sam wrote: »
    Hi Tate,

    The image looks much better on your website, thank goodness. :D

    I would recommend using a single point focus. Using the 51 points will allow the camera pick what ever it wants, not what you want.

    I think the image and pose is fine just the way it is.

    Sam

    Thanks Sam....So even for a group, I would still use the single point focus and they would all be in focus? I just put the dynamic AF area back to the default of 9 points... Did you happen to notice the picture right after the first one? The customer is so about the rock, she asked me to photoshop out her daughter and son in laws legs from the whole in the rock.......personally I think it looks better with the legs there...but maybe because I have the original picture...

    Again, Thanks everyone for your help!
  • Options
    AceCo55AceCo55 Registered Users Posts: 950 Major grins
    edited October 21, 2011
    If you mean cloning the legs from #2 ... ... what the??? It just is not believable (or else that guy has an amputated leg ... or is nailed to the rock). It just looks odd to me - and I hadn't read post #15 at that stage. The girl I can accept that it was borderline if a leg appeared or not ... but not the guy.
    The photos in you gallery are MUCH sharper than the photo in post #1. Good luck with Grandma. Keep us informed!
    My opinion does not necessarily make it true. What you do with my opinion is entirely up to you.
    www.acecootephotography.com
  • Options
    tatetate Registered Users Posts: 66 Big grins
    edited October 21, 2011
    AceCo55 wrote: »
    If you mean cloning the legs from #2 ... ... what the??? It just is not believable (or else that guy has an amputated leg ... or is nailed to the rock). It just looks odd to me - and I hadn't read post #15 at that stage. The girl I can accept that it was borderline if a leg appeared or not ... but not the guy.
    The photos in you gallery are MUCH sharper than the photo in post #1. Good luck with Grandma. Keep us informed!

    Oh you are making me laugh! I thought the same thing, but if thats what the customer wants....Do you think I should give Grandma my opinion that it looks odd without the legs there? The poor thing, when she was talking to me after about the rock, she just started to cry...so its a very emotional picture and the rock means a lot to her since it was her brothers who passed unexpectadly 2 years ago......Maybe I could mention it to her daughter (who I have done pictures for in the past, my thoughts and she can relay them to her mom?) Im waiting for the next email asking me to clone the legs out of the other rock picture!
  • Options
    idiotabroadidiotabroad Registered Users Posts: 246 Major grins
    edited October 21, 2011
    Yes single point focus in almost all shots. After all, your making the photo not a divine power. lol. Also try this: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

    Saves my life 85% of the time.
    Mark

    If you don't agree with me then your wrong.
    I can't be held accountable for what I say, I'm bipolar.
  • Options
    AceCo55AceCo55 Registered Users Posts: 950 Major grins
    edited October 22, 2011
    tate wrote: »
    Oh you are making me laugh! I thought the same thing, but if thats what the customer wants....Do you think I should give Grandma my opinion that it looks odd without the legs there? The poor thing, when she was talking to me after about the rock, she just started to cry...so its a very emotional picture and the rock means a lot to her since it was her brothers who passed unexpectadly 2 years ago......Maybe I could mention it to her daughter (who I have done pictures for in the past, my thoughts and she can relay them to her mom?) Im waiting for the next email asking me to clone the legs out of the other rock picture!
    Maybe show her both versions and let her make up her mind (or as you say show her daughter both versions)
    My opinion does not necessarily make it true. What you do with my opinion is entirely up to you.
    www.acecootephotography.com
Sign In or Register to comment.