Alteration: now you see it, now you don't!

Finally,

the final image

Alteration: now you see it, now you don't!

Continued...

I started with using a larger size of the brush, gradually moving to smaller sizes to deal with small details and edges.

I usually work on a 50 to 100% enlargement of an image to help see small details – it is amazing how much detail can be missed when working on an image without the enlargement.

  

Picture 4: Using the Clone Stamp Tool to remove the figure

Alteration

It’s probably true that for many people the clone stamp tool becomes the first introduction to Photoshop - this might be because the first task that many people try to do when start using Photoshop is often about removing an unwanted object or a person from an image.

My task for today is to make alterations to an image shot at Peterhouse in Cambridge. The image was shot in the late October afternoon and aimed to capture the atmospheric moment and the quality of light passing through the arch and reflecting on the masonry. I had to be very quick to catch the light as the sun was about to hide behind a cloud. I wanted to have a picture without any people in the frame but I could not risk waiting for the young woman to pass outside the imaginary boundary of my picture. I took a shot noting that I would probably need to remove the figure in Photoshop at later stage.

Today I am going to do just that – to remove the figure of a young woman that happened to be in the shot at that moment of time. Below is the original image displayed in Photoshop.

I used the Blur tool to soften the face features to protect identity of the person.  

Picture 1: Original image displayed in Photoshop

Addition

Continued...

Final image

Addition

Continued...

For my final image, I used the sky from a different image to enhance my image of the abbey altar. I wanted to try a blue sky with just a hint of a cloud in this image to see if it complements the idea of this picture. Below is my original image.  

Picture 16: Original image before adjustments

I first selected the area of the sky in the main original image. I saved the selection. I then pasted the sky from the desert scene into the original image.

Addition

Continued...

Final image

Addition

Continued...

Picture 11: Dropping in the sky

Picture 12: Lightening selection before joining the two parts of the new image

Addition

Continued...

For the second part of this exercise, I chose an image of this desert scene and decided to combine two different versions of it (one exposed for the sky and the other exposed for the foreground) using Photomatix. I like Photomatix and use it occasionally though my personal preference remains with performing a manual conversion in Photoshop.

Picture 9: Two images combined in Photomatix – version one

Picture 10: Two images combined in Photomatix – version two

The conversion in Photomatix was easy to manage but I was not too satisfied with the outcome.  I think that the sky is still slightly overexposed and I decided to use this image to practice dropping the sky in.

I followed the process used with the first two images though I had to use some extra steps to combine these two images. These extra steps were:

1)    Making multiple selections (lighter foreground rocks; then darker rocks at the back of the image; the sky)

2)    Using Select / Deselect function to define the area to be moved

3)    Using eraser, Blur, Dodge and Burn tools to adjust the tone, the edges and the shape of the cut-out

4)    Using eraser to join and burn/dodge tools to join the two parts of the new image

5)    Using Ctrl function to move parts of the image around

6)    Using the Curves tool to adjust the tonal range of the selection.

Addition

Continued...

Final image

A quote for the day: William Albert Allard

I think the best pictures are often on the edges of any situation, I don't find photographing the situation nearly as interesting as photographing the edges. 
William Albert Allard, "The Photographic Essay"

Addition

For my first image I selected this scene of Scottish highlands. Two shots were made – one exposed for the sky and the other for the foreground. My aim was to combine these two images in Photoshop, replacing the sky in the image with properly exposed foreground.

Picture 1: Two images are saved as separate layers.

I started by copying the lighter image onto the darker image. I used the quick selection tool to define the area of the sky. I then used the Eraser tool to erase the overexposed sky in the top image. I used the clone stamp tool to remove some dust specks. Finally I flatten the layers and saved the image on the drive. The sequence below demonstrates the process that I followed.

Addition

Is there anyone in Britain who is involved in photography and does not wish that we have more blue sky days?

There is a good reason as to why British people seem obsessed with the weather forecast and often pass time in conversations about the weather. I am sure every photographer is aware of this reason. Bad weather, dull weather, grey sky and flat light are the likely obstacles for anyone trying to snatch a nice and bright shot of the beautiful British countryside.

A modern digital darkroom offers some solutions to this problem. As the solution is associated with adding an element (blue sky) to an image, I believe that this requires some careful thinking about the ethics of digital manipulation and how far can it go before the image loses its integrity.

Nevertheless, this time I geared up to practice adding (or ‘dropping’ as most photographer would put it) the blue sky to some of my images. Whilst I intend this exercise to be a session to practice some ‘digital manipulation’ skills , my personal preference remains with having patience and waiting for the blue sky to appear for real. Nothing is more beautiful than the blue sky in England when it finally arrives!

Enhancement

Finally...

For my final image, I combined the two approaches and made some adjustments to the face and the eyes. Finally, I adjusted the tonal range slightly. I used the Blur tool to work on the background. I used the clone stamp tool to take out some blemishes and specks of dust from the face and the clothes. I then used the clone stamp and blur tools to lessen the look of the laughter lines around the eyes. The final image is below.

Are these adjustments legitimate and realistic?

I think that lightening the face for visibility is a valid and necessary adjustment and I don’t think it means tampering with reality.

Adjusting the tone range of the image, including taking out or reducing any colour cast, is acceptable.

Removing any dust specks (particularly those that are sitting on the lens rather than the subject / object photographed) could be necessary and it does not usually undermine the truthfulness of the image.

When it comes to removing any blemishes, skin defects and wrinkles, adjusting eyes colour or similar drastic changes, the integrity of the image can be compromised. I believe that these adjustments need to be used with caution and only when appropriate. Before these enhancements are considered, follow this simple good practice check and ask yourself:

1)    What is the rationale behind making these adjustments and why are they needed?

2)    Is the reason strong enough to justify compromising the truth?

3)    What is the smallest level of enhancement that the image requires?

A quote for the day: Ansel Adams

“There is nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept.” Ansel Adams

Enhancement

Continued...

For the second part of this exercise, I made a smaller selection (the pupils and the irises of both eyes) to experiment and make enhancements. First, I played with the colour palette to select various colours. Having settled on two different colours for the eyes of my imaginary person, I made two different versions of the image.  

Enhancement

Continued...

I started by making a selection of the face to make some enhancement. The idea is to make some gentle adjustments to draw attention to the face, without it looking unnatural.

I decided to use a quick selection tool as the face is lighter than the surroundings. The original selection included some of the background near the top of the image – this happened because the tonal range of the background is similar to the average tone of the face. I used the Alt- function to deselect the extra background area.

Picture 1: Image before adjustments

Enhancement

Digital image enhancement has received a lot of negative publicity over the last few years. It seems that after the initial period of fascination and excitement about almost limitless possibilities of the modern digital editing software, general public started getting weary of the unnatural looking images that flooded the marketing scene. Reading people’s letters and comments posted online and in magazines, it’s easy to pick up a sense of a backlash against the spotless and perfect –looking images that are often used in advertising and fashion photography.

However, not all images that look realistic can claim to be untouched by the ‘brush’ of a photo editing software (remember, some adjustments actually take place inside the photographic camera and well before the image is transferred to a computer). Also, sometimes it’s hard to distinguish the images that are real and are presented without any enhancement from those that have been enhanced. Obviously, there is only so far one can take an image before it starts looking unreal. Hence, there is even some terminology (often used in derogatory way) that emerged around the photo editing process: people talk about imaged being ‘airbrushed’, ‘manipulated’ and appear ‘artificial’.  

The question is: where is the borderline?

I’ve selected this head and shoulder portrait for this exercise and I am setting out to explore this borderline and to find answers.

How much is too much and what level of enhancement is legitimate and natural? Let’s find out!  

Improvement or interpretation?

Continued....The modern editing software makes it remarkably easy to adjust and alter photographic images. But how legitimate and valid are these adjustments?

Picture 4: Adjusting the image using the Curves tool

I then made adjustments using the Curves tool. The key focus for this work was on the face of the young man which happened to be in the shadow area. I wanted to bring back to light his face expression which I noticed whilst taking this picture.

Improvement or interpretation?

The modern editing software makes it remarkably easy to adjust and alter photographic images. But how legitimate and valid are these adjustments?

This exercise was not only a helpful opportunity to practice the range of selection and adjustment tools available in Photoshop, but it also raised questions on the limits of a legitimate digital adjustment. What kind of adjustment could be considered legitimate and when does it reach the limit of a true representation of the image? What is the difference between an improvement and interpretation?  And how far is photographer able to go when adjusting a photographic image?  

For the exercise I selected an image of a young man photographed in Marrakesh.  The strong shadows surrounding the young man attracted me to this street scene. The downside of this particular angle was that the face of the man was also in the shadow area. I set myself a task of making the adjustments to the image without compromising the truthfulness of the scene.  

I started by selecting the image of the young man using a Quick selection tool (Adobe Photoshop). This was relatively easy as the image of the young man was quite consistent in terms of shadows and highlights.

Picture 1: Image before adjustments

Exercise: Corrections

Removing dust specks: image 3

This image shows two objects in the sky area that might represent a distraction: a hair that was probably on the camera lens and a plane in the sky.

This raises an interesting ethical dilemma - whilst it seems right to remove the hair (as an object that was not part of the image), is it ethical to remove the plane that was at the time part of the image. My view is that the answer might depend on the circumstances and the use of the image. I generally think that image adjustments and corrections should be kept to the minimum; however, in some circumstances it might be necessary to make changes to the image.

The plane in this instance is not a permanent feature of the image: it would have been possible to wait for the plane to reach the edge of the image before taking the picture.   

Pictures 7 and 8: Image 3 showing a hair on the lens and a plane

Exercise: Corrections

Picture 4: Final image after adjustment

Image 2 represents more of a challenge in terms of corrections: the hair is still clearly visible and is now superimposed on the tower. The intricate detail of the tower’s brickwork makes it harder to make adjustments. For this correction I considered using a healing brush and a clone stamp tool. Comparing these two tools, I decided in favour of the clone stamp tool.

Exercise: Corrections

Second set of images: Dust specks  

Picture 1: Image 1 before adjustments

 

This picture has some smaller specks of dust as well as a large, clearly visible, curled hair in the area of the sky, to the left of the tower.

Exercise: Corrections

 

Picture 5: Final image after the adjustments

The final image shows no visible traces of flare and, for this particular picture, the final image without the flare is defintely an improvement. I really liked the approach recommended in the assignment manual and found it easy to use. I will definitely use it in the future. I’ve learnt more about the clone tool and I am going to explore it more in the coming months.

Exercise: Corrections

Whilst flare could be a nusance in some images, it can also be used creatively in others. Flare could be very helpful in recreating the ‘whole experience’

Exercise: Corrections

This exercise looks at the corrections applied to digital images, in particular removing dust shadows and lens flare. It also brings up questions about the validity and ‘truthfulness’ of an image that has been altered.