As a matter of fact it is, Mitchell. What gave it away? My wife and kids thought it looked fake too, but they can't articulate why. Can you? I'm practicing composites for some projects I have in mind so want to get good at them. Thanks.
I'm not sure, but my guess is light directionality/strength. I can't quite tell which way the light is coming from in the background, but in the landscape there's no real sense of "shadow", so the shading on her arms doesn't feel natural. Also if she were really in that desert, her face wouldn't be in soft shadow, but harsh sun (I think). Since there's nothing to CAUSE that shadow in the landscape, it feels unnatural.
As a matter of fact it is, Mitchell. What gave it away? My wife and kids thought it looked fake too, but they can't articulate why. Can you? I'm practicing composites for some projects I have in mind so want to get good at them. Thanks.
There is something disproportionate between her size and the background. This seems to be exaggerated by the lighting which looks like studio lighting to my eye. It would have been a little better if you gelled the flash to match the warmer tones in the background.
I also sensed an incongruity between her clothes and that scene. Nobody hikes out there wearing those clothes.
I think the problem has to do with the issue first pointed out -- the camera angle. Looks like lanscape and the girl are shot from different perspectives, I think. Also, she is just too sharp, like she's be drawn into the scene. It's close -- just not quite there.
I'm not sure, but my guess is light directionality/strength. I can't quite tell which way the light is coming from in the background, but in the landscape there's no real sense of "shadow", so the shading on her arms doesn't feel natural. Also if she were really in that desert, her face wouldn't be in soft shadow, but harsh sun (I think). Since there's nothing to CAUSE that shadow in the landscape, it feels unnatural.
There is something disproportionate between her size and the background. This seems to be exaggerated by the lighting which looks like studio lighting to my eye. It would have been a little better if you gelled the flash to match the warmer tones in the background.
I also sensed an incongruity between her clothes and that scene. Nobody hikes out there wearing those clothes.
Thanks, Divamum and Mitchell. I think you guys pretty much nailed it. The lighting and proportion from the two scenes doesn't really play together all that well. Gelling the flash would have helped, but of course I didn't shoot either shot with composites in mind. I just grabbed two images and played around with them to see what I could come up with. I'm not hearing any issues with the mechanics of blending the two images together which was really the focus of my experimentation. So I'm encouraged by that.
I appreciate the help!
Oh and Mitchell, this is a huge dry lake bed in a remote area and you can drive your vehicle anywhere on it. No hiking necessary, just jump out of your car and shoot. Really a great location for all kinds of shoots. I always wanted to do a dinner dress and heels out there for example. But alas, I don't live near there any more. :cry
I think the problem has to do with the issue first pointed out -- the camera angle. Looks like lanscape and the girl are shot from different perspectives, I think. Also, she is just too sharp, like she's be drawn into the scene. It's close -- just not quite there.
Thanks, Brett. Yeah, the studio lighting look on the model in the middle of the desert probably isn't all that realistic in retrospect. The other issue might be the mix of focal lengths. The landscape was shot at 24mm and the model was shot at 50mm. Big difference!
subject is darker than the ground behind. shadow cast is unrealistic in this scenario.
Thanks, Foques! The shadow was the hardest part. I tried it with no shadow and that didn't look right. The lighting on her face was brightest on camera-left, so I placed the shadow to camera right struggled to find an angle and size that I thought was realistic. Can you say more about what's wrong with it?
not much to say, really, it is just not realistic.
given the camera angle relative to the angle of landscape, and relative to the shadow distortion it makes the shadow to be impossible..
the light was, obviously coming from both sides - impossible outside unless you use strobes. If you did use strobes, the shadows would be multiple on each side of her, at the least, and they would be much much more distorted (longer), and further from her.
But I am thinking from the stand point of physics.
not much to say, really, it is just not realistic.
given the camera angle relative to the angle of landscape, and relative to the shadow distortion it makes the shadow to be impossible..
the light was, obviously coming from both sides - impossible outside unless you use strobes. If you did use strobes, the shadows would be multiple on each side of her, at the least, and they would be much much more distorted (longer), and further from her.
But I am thinking from the stand point of physics.
That's a good standpoint to be thinking from! Makes sense, thanks for analysis.
I knew instantly it was a compost. I think it's a good fun image and the shadow is pretty good. Like the others I have difficulty in articulating why, but for me it boils down to white balance / exposure proportional sizes, hair ends chopped off and the sharp crisp edges on your daughter. When placing an object into a second image it helps to slightly blur the edges to emphasize that cut and paste look.
I also instantly knew it wasn't real... but I can articulate why.
The contrast of her is too low, white balance isn't matched, exposure isn't bright enough, shadows aren't cast in the same angle as the shadow cast by the sun, and she looks very sharply and too cleanly cut out, instead of slightly blurred edges to diffuse her into the photo.
The light source is coming from 8 o'clock to 8:30 ish. It's on the ground in the divots and in the mountains.
After matching all of that, you'd need to burn in accordingly if you imagine the light coming from 8:30, anything with dimension would have some shadows on the right sides creating that illusion of being lit from just 1 source.
I knew instantly it was a compost. I think it's a good fun image and the shadow is pretty good. Like the others I have difficulty in articulating why, but for me it boils down to white balance / exposure proportional sizes, hair ends chopped off and the sharp crisp edges on your daughter. When placing an object into a second image it helps to slightly blur the edges to emphasize that cut and paste look.
Sam
I'm assuming you mean DE-emphasize the crisp edge, and that sounds like a good tip to play around with. Thanks, Sam.
I also instantly knew it wasn't real... but I can articulate why.
The contrast of her is too low, white balance isn't matched, exposure isn't bright enough, shadows aren't cast in the same angle as the shadow cast by the sun, and she looks very sharply and too cleanly cut out, instead of slightly blurred edges to diffuse her into the photo.
The light source is coming from 8 o'clock to 8:30 ish. It's on the ground in the divots and in the mountains.
After matching all of that, you'd need to burn in accordingly if you imagine the light coming from 8:30, anything with dimension would have some shadows on the right sides creating that illusion of being lit from just 1 source.
You nailed the light direction perfectly. The light is brighter on that side of her face, but you're right about the missing shadows for sure.
Probably the biggest takeaway for me in both your and Sam's comments is the observation about the hard cut-out looking edge. This is something I'll have to experiment with. Thanks for the help.
Comments
Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.
My SmugMug Site
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
Link to my Smugmug site
As a matter of fact it is, Mitchell. What gave it away? My wife and kids thought it looked fake too, but they can't articulate why. Can you? I'm practicing composites for some projects I have in mind so want to get good at them. Thanks.
The original shows the jump better.
Link to my Smugmug site
I'm not sure, but my guess is light directionality/strength. I can't quite tell which way the light is coming from in the background, but in the landscape there's no real sense of "shadow", so the shading on her arms doesn't feel natural. Also if she were really in that desert, her face wouldn't be in soft shadow, but harsh sun (I think). Since there's nothing to CAUSE that shadow in the landscape, it feels unnatural.
I think. Maybe. Just thinking out loud.
There is something disproportionate between her size and the background. This seems to be exaggerated by the lighting which looks like studio lighting to my eye. It would have been a little better if you gelled the flash to match the warmer tones in the background.
I also sensed an incongruity between her clothes and that scene. Nobody hikes out there wearing those clothes.
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
I appreciate the help!
Oh and Mitchell, this is a huge dry lake bed in a remote area and you can drive your vehicle anywhere on it. No hiking necessary, just jump out of your car and shoot. Really a great location for all kinds of shoots. I always wanted to do a dinner dress and heels out there for example. But alas, I don't live near there any more. :cry
Link to my Smugmug site
subject is darker than the ground behind. shadow cast is unrealistic in this scenario.
My Site
My Facebook
Thanks, Brett. Yeah, the studio lighting look on the model in the middle of the desert probably isn't all that realistic in retrospect. The other issue might be the mix of focal lengths. The landscape was shot at 24mm and the model was shot at 50mm. Big difference!
Regards,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
Link to my Smugmug site
Oh, and if nobody said it before, welcome to Dgrin!
Link to my Smugmug site
given the camera angle relative to the angle of landscape, and relative to the shadow distortion it makes the shadow to be impossible..
the light was, obviously coming from both sides - impossible outside unless you use strobes. If you did use strobes, the shadows would be multiple on each side of her, at the least, and they would be much much more distorted (longer), and further from her.
But I am thinking from the stand point of physics.
My Site
My Facebook
That's a good standpoint to be thinking from!
Link to my Smugmug site
Sam
The contrast of her is too low, white balance isn't matched, exposure isn't bright enough, shadows aren't cast in the same angle as the shadow cast by the sun, and she looks very sharply and too cleanly cut out, instead of slightly blurred edges to diffuse her into the photo.
The light source is coming from 8 o'clock to 8:30 ish. It's on the ground in the divots and in the mountains.
After matching all of that, you'd need to burn in accordingly if you imagine the light coming from 8:30, anything with dimension would have some shadows on the right sides creating that illusion of being lit from just 1 source.
Link to my Smugmug site
Probably the biggest takeaway for me in both your and Sam's comments is the observation about the hard cut-out looking edge. This is something I'll have to experiment with. Thanks for the help.
Link to my Smugmug site