Help with skies?

MarkR

I like the compo but the robin's egg blue sky is very boring and dull.

Any ideas about how to fix this without making it look fake?

pyrtek

In PS3 I first selected the sky with the quick selection tool. I opened a second
pic with a nicer sky, copied the whole pic, closed it, then in your pic, with the
marching ants still active I chose Edit->Paste Into. I then used the move tool
to move around the sky until it looked just right. Finally, I refined the sky mask
by clicking on it so it became active and then running Filter->Other->Maximize
with a value of 1. Here's the result. EDIT: I forgot to add that the layer you get
after "Paste Into" should be in Darken mode so that the transition between the
new sky and the ground isn't too obvious.

MarkR

pyrtek wrote:

In PS3 I first selected the sky with the quick selection tool. I opened a second
pic with a nicer sky, copied the whole pic, closed it, then in your pic, with the
marching ants still active I chose Edit->Paste Into. I then used the move tool
to move around the sky until it looked just right. Finally, I refined the sky mask
by clicking on it so it became active and then running Filter->Other->Maximize
with a value of 1. Here's the result.

It looks ok. I was wondering if there was anything I could do with the existing sky to make it pop, tho.

pyrtek

The Hobbyist wrote:

It looks ok. I was wondering if there was anything I could do with the existing sky to make it pop, tho.

Oh, I misunderstood. It's hard to say with the tiny file you've provided, but
in all honesty, it doesn't look like there's much information in that sky to "pop".

Scotty_R

You could add a duplicate layer, apply a gradient (with what ever "popped" blue you choose), fade the gradient to taste, then erase the gradient from the detailed parts of the image (grass, buildings, trees). This blue isn't probably what you're looking for, but it was a quick edit.

MarkR

pyrtek wrote:

Oh, I misunderstood. It's hard to say with the tiny file you've provided, but
in all honesty, it doesn't look like there's much information in that sky to "pop".

It's ok. I'm posting this at work so I have to do things in bits and starts. I didn't see much to "pop" either, but there's some real PS geniuses lurking on these boards.

Anthony

pyrtek wrote:

Oh, I misunderstood. It's hard to say with the tiny file you've provided, but
in all honesty, it doesn't look like there's much information in that sky to "pop".

I often use an old Scott Kelby trick to perk up light skies, etc. It involves (assuming photoshop) adding a gradient adjustment layer, inverting it, and changing the blend mode to soft light. you can tweak the grad itself to suit as well as fading back the opacity of the soft light mode. Seems to do the trick and takes a few seconds. As Russell Brown would say "...give it a try - today!"

Anthony.

pathfinder

The Hobbyist wrote:

I like the compo but the robin's egg blue sky is very boring and dull.

Any ideas about how to fix this without making it look fake?

You're right - flat, even skies are just not that visually interesting. This is something that all landscape shooters have to confront. Shoot closer, shoot details, avoid the sky if possible.

The best choice is to avoid them in the camera.

Or clone in a new one if you can do that in a believeable way. It is harder than it looks to fool a critical looking eye.

You can create a duplicate layer with CTRL-J and then move the image to the LAB color space. You then do a Multiply Blend and use the Blend IF sliders to limit the multiply blend only to those areas that are negative in the B color space. This avoids having to do any selction of the sky versus the vegetation. Any blue areas other than sky can be painted out with a mask.

Like I said, skies like this are better not shot

rutt wrote about using LAB to fix blown skies here

rutt

I think this particular shot would look best if you cropped out most of the sky. Crude, but effective.

There are all kinds of easy ways to get something interesting in the sky. But in this case, it would just be chest thumping, IMHO.

MarkR

rutt wrote:

I think this particular shot would look best if you cropped out most of the sky. Crude, but effective.

There are all kinds of easy ways to get something interesting in the sky. But in this case, it would just be chest thumping, IMHO.

Rutt,

I like your idea best. Actually, I like Pathfinder's idea best, but what's done is done, and now I have to work with what I got.

As an experiment, I did try using Photoshop to create a duplicate layer. I then used some advanced editing tools to try to add more "pop" into the sky. The end result, alas, was less than satisfactory ...



I'll try cropping out the sky tonight when I get home. I suspect the panorama-style I'll end up with will give me a good feel for the wide open spaces I was trying for with the original.

Scotty_R

You know, Hobbyist, you asked a question and several people gave you very good suggestions on how to improve the image without throwing it away entirely. Goofing up the image with silliness is sort of like thumbing your nose at them--trust me, people have better things to do with their time than to be snubbed after they've legitimately tried to help you.

thebigsky

It made me chuckle,

Charlie

pathfinder

Me too, but.......I am going to close this thread to pre-empt emotional deterioration in this thread.:D


The improvement of skys in images is a worthy topic, and one I have previously discussed, as well as rutt and others.

I am willing to discuss it further in a new thread