Wed, Feb 19, 12:07 AM CST

Renderosity Forums / Photography



Welcome to the Photography Forum

Forum Moderators: wheatpenny

Photography F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2025 Feb 18 8:03 am)



Subject: Backgrounds lost


promiselamb ( ) posted Sat, 18 March 2006 at 11:25 PM · edited Sun, 26 January 2025 at 1:04 AM

file_334750.jpg

I shot this image in mexico at rocky point.. and for some reason the clouds did not show up in the shot... so I am thinking the image is kind of dull... is there any way to add the clouds back in? Thanks :-)


KiwiMiss ( ) posted Sat, 18 March 2006 at 11:58 PM

Beautiful statue! Through postwork you should be able to add the clouds back in but I'm not the right person to explain why ... sorry :) Noeline

Noeline :D
 
~Predictably Unpredictable~


FuzzyShadows ( ) posted Sun, 19 March 2006 at 1:04 AM

file_334751.jpg

Hi P, long time no see. I actually love the background. It makes the statue stand out wonderfully. It looks to me like the clouds have lost most of their detail from the overexposure though. Once you've lost the detail, it can't be gained back. You could try selecting the white background with your editing software, then darkening it. However, the best thing about overexposing your sky, is it makes for a perfect time to try out new backgrounds! Here's a quick one, with one my skies that sort of reminded me of a nautical backdrop. Also, next time you have a sky that you know will be over exposed, take two pictures. One with the subject (example statue) properly exposed, as above. For the second picture, meter for your clouds so that they aren't overexposed (your subject will be under exposed). You then combine your first pict's subject with your second pict's sky. Depending on how good your editing software is, you can get away with just taking one picture with the sky exposed properly. You then select the subject (mask out the sky) and increase the exposure for the subject only. Have I rambled long enough?


KiwiMiss ( ) posted Sun, 19 March 2006 at 1:51 AM

Hmmm I meant how... not why, lol

Noeline :D
 
~Predictably Unpredictable~


DJB ( ) posted Sun, 19 March 2006 at 3:48 AM

file_334752.jpg

We had this conversation on one of my eagle shots. Will find the thread. But if you shot this in RAW you can always change settings to bring out those clouds. All I could get out of the jpg is this. Pixelated though because i went from 400kb to less than 200

"The happiness of a man in this life does not consist in the absence but in the mastery of his passions."



danob ( ) posted Sun, 19 March 2006 at 9:29 AM

file_334753.jpg

Yes there is a lot of detail there and jpeg compression distortions just a quick tweek in photoshop if you have Raw this will allow you to regain any lost detail

Danny O'Byrne  http://www.digitalartzone.co.uk/

"All the technique in the world doesn't compensate for the inability to notice" Eliott Erwitt


danob ( ) posted Sun, 19 March 2006 at 9:32 AM

file_334754.jpg

The same image but with jpeg repair

Danny O'Byrne  http://www.digitalartzone.co.uk/

"All the technique in the world doesn't compensate for the inability to notice" Eliott Erwitt


Onslow ( ) posted Sun, 19 March 2006 at 10:10 AM

If it is in RAW and you have PS CS2 if you embed another copy as a smart object you can then access the RAW exposure compensation and blend the 2 together with a mask.

And every one said, 'If we only live,
We too will go to sea in a Sieve,---
To the hills of the Chankly Bore!'
Far and few, far and few, Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue, And they went to sea in a Sieve.

Edward Lear
http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/ns/jumblies.html


girsempa ( ) posted Sun, 19 March 2006 at 10:14 AM

Another, different way to compensate for the washed-out sky, without manipulation afterwards, is to take the image with a 'forced' fill-in flash. Of course the lighting of the subject will be a bit different then (maybe better, who knows), but you'll probably have your clouds there right on the spot ;-) Worth trying!


We do not see things as they are. ǝɹɐ ǝʍ sɐ sƃuıɥʇ ǝǝs ǝʍ
 


TomDart ( ) posted Sun, 19 March 2006 at 12:31 PM · edited Sun, 19 March 2006 at 12:33 PM

The fill flash should work just fine in many cases. If the camera or flash allows compensation on the flash output, that may be balanced with the bg to get what you want and still look pretty natural. If the statue had just shadow when the sky is properly exposed(for sky), the flash can fill that in just enough without looking artificial. Too much "straight on" flash and you will likely loose some of the neat depth of the statue. Sometimes a large white reflector will do fill light just fine but who carries that around with them! Good luck!

Sometimes I will let the cam expose for the sky, read the setting(if digital, just shoot a shot of the sky), then shoot another with the statue as the point of exposure. Then using manual settings somewhere inbetween those two "experiments" might work..sorta depends on the real difference in light and dark in the bg and object.

Once detail is lost in highlights recovery is not a simple process if at all. My 1/2 cent worth. The other folks can give more cents worth than can I.

Message edited on: 03/19/2006 12:33


LostPatrol ( ) posted Sun, 19 March 2006 at 2:51 PM

Using RAW some lost detail is possible to recover, however even with RAW there are limits to this. Toms explanation for using fill flash is good, ok it wont help here but it will help you in the future. If you have a suitable background it is fairly easy to put one in, especially as there is a large difference in contrast between the statue and the sky. Using quick mask or the extract feature of Photoshop are good ways to remove a background, in this case even the magic wand or magic eraser may work to remove the background.

The Truth is Out There


promiselamb ( ) posted Sun, 19 March 2006 at 5:12 PM

Thank you very much all I see the forum can be a great place to learn new things... I will for sure give some of these a try :-)


TomDart ( ) posted Sun, 19 March 2006 at 7:17 PM

Promiselamb, I posted on "preventive" rather than corrective actions. There are many here with much more refined digital experience than me. You already have some really good advice! This is one reason I like 'rosity so much...good folks overall on the forum and willing to share. We all want to do our best and then do better. This IS a good place to get started in that. Best wishes. TomDart.


bentchick ( ) posted Sun, 19 March 2006 at 9:12 PM

file_334755.jpg

I just had the same problem with a picture I posted yesterday! Cloudy day, overcast, and generaly not a good day to shoot, but there are several ways you can fix your image in PS. The easiest for me is to just mask the sky and pick a color that looks natural and just fill with that color! There is also a filter called Render-clouds. You mask the sky area and use this filter and then you can enhance the color to whatever looks best. In my example I removed the color completely and then enhanced the statue itself to bring out it's beauty.


Kim Hawkins

 

Kim Hawkins Eastern Sierra Gallery

 

 


Privacy Notice

This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.