First ever composite attempt - Feedback & suggestions?

[ElChapo]

Hi everyone,

I've just done my first ever composite attempt in Photoshop.

As a beginner it's pretty hard to tell where exactly I need to improve it, but I can see as a whole it isn't on the level it should be to blend perfectly.

Any suggestions on improvements would be great - the more detailed the better!

I used a pen tool to cut the outline of the body, blending the edges, colour altering of the skin and general colour blending on the clothing.

Please excuse the low resolution of the background and the writing - it's taken as a sample from a stock image site (just want to practice with these before purchasing them when i get good enough).

Please do not post images to which you do not hold rights. You may post links.

 

[ElChapo]

Anyone?

 

[beagle100]

Anyone?

I'm thinking ... what happened to the poor guy's head?

 

[ElChapo]

Anyone?

I'm thinking ... what happened to the poor guy's head?

Lol... a genuine concern. Mostly a test shot on myself (spot the remote in my right hand) so I didn't want my face in there.

 

[tirediron]

When you say, "from a stock image 'site", do you mean used with permission?

 

[KmH]

I would think that if the background was used with permission it would not have the watermark.

it's taken as a sample from a stock image site

That it is a sample also seems to indicate a lack of permission.

I would bet the OP isn't aware that they have to have permission to use the background.

 

[ElChapo]

Yes, as stated in the OP it was downloaded as a sample, as is offered as a feature by the stock website.

I am fairly confident that the owner of the background photo will not be launching any multi-billion lawsuits over their pride & joy picture of a blank wall, which I have only used to test out compositing and post on a photography forum asking for feedback on said photo (ironically not receiving a single ounce of feedback from any of the replies), not using the photo for profitable endeavours or anything along those lines.

Forgive me for I am only trying to learn and practice photoshopping. I understand it may have been against the fine print 'rules' to post it on a forum etc., however it is also fairly easy on your part to ignore it as it is causing absolutely no harm and instead actually provide some helpful contribution or input to a beginner's thread which is only asking for advice and feedback on compositing.

 

[tirediron]

Yes, as stated in the OP it was downloaded as a sample, as is offered as a feature by the stock website.

I am fairly confident that the owner of the background photo will not be launching any multi-billion lawsuits over their pride & joy picture of a blank wall, which I have only used to test out compositing and post on a photography forum asking for feedback on said photo (ironically not receiving a single ounce of feedback from any of the replies), not using the photo for profitable endeavours or anything along those lines.

Forgive me for I am only trying to learn and practice photoshopping. I understand it may have been against the fine print 'rules' to post it on a forum etc., however it is also fairly easy on your part to ignore it as it is causing absolutely no harm and instead actually provide some helpful contribution or input to a beginner's thread which is only asking for advice and feedback on compositing.

You're right, it would have been very easy to ignore, however removing it only took two mouse-clicks, so I think I can live with that too. Using someone else's work in this way isn't against any fine art print "rules", it's plain and simply illegal. What many people don't understand is that copyright is actually an article of ownership. Someone else owned that background image, and was offering it for use, subject to a specific set of conditions; mostly likely for payment. As a community of photographers, TPF takes the issue of copyright very seriously. While you might not object to someone profiting from your work, many photographers do, and the law is on their side. I'm sure that it seems trivial and silly to you, but at the end of the day, the law is the law, and ethics are ethics! (Oh and yes, I drive the posted speed limit and "Photoshop" isn't a verb! ).

 

[OGsPhotography]

Good job on the comp.

Perhaps some shadows is the common advice you'd see on an image like this, to " sell" the composition.

Direction if light is the other main concern, once you know how to cut and paste parts if images and scale them. The transform function in Ps is amazing.
I've been studying Ps from Creativelives complete class by Ben Willmore. Love this stuff but it is soooo hard sometimes! I find the new select and mask to be awesome, easier and hard to use at the same time.

A more interesting photo(s) are going to illicit more of a response.

The forum police go away if you dont " say" where the photos came from, of a blank wall lol. Im not advocating stealing and I dont think you did, but just dont say you used a stock....


By the way you get 10 free stock images from Ps Stock. Not sure if they are postable as they're free;technically in my jurisdiction they could probably reverse the rights because you didnt trade anything for them, who knows?! Im not a dang lawyer.

Ive quit this forum a few times for such censorship/( copyright) issues. But I keep coming back because some of the advice is valuable and I have too much time on my hands.

 

[ElChapo]

You're right, it would have been very easy to ignore, however removing it only took two mouse-clicks, so I think I can live with that too. Using someone else's work in this way isn't against any fine art print "rules", it's plain and simply illegal. What many people don't understand is that copyright is actually an article of ownership. Someone else owned that background image, and was offering it for use, subject to a specific set of conditions; mostly likely for payment. As a community of photographers, TPF takes the issue of copyright very seriously. While you might not object to someone profiting from your work, many photographers do, and the law is on their side. I'm sure that it seems trivial and silly to you, but at the end of the day, the law is the law, and ethics are ethics! (Oh and yes, I drive the posted speed limit and "Photoshop" isn't a verb! ).

Noted. Not really too sure how I was 'profiting' from the image like you say as it was only posted here and here only, and I don't think anyone would be willing to pay for my first composite attempt lol. But from your perspective rules are rules and allowing my harmless post to slip could lead to it creeping into the forum in more harmful ways, which is understandable. Next time I'll only post composites using paid-for backgrounds.

 

[tirediron]

You're right, it would have been very easy to ignore, however removing it only took two mouse-clicks, so I think I can live with that too. Using someone else's work in this way isn't against any fine art print "rules", it's plain and simply illegal. What many people don't understand is that copyright is actually an article of ownership. Someone else owned that background image, and was offering it for use, subject to a specific set of conditions; mostly likely for payment. As a community of photographers, TPF takes the issue of copyright very seriously. While you might not object to someone profiting from your work, many photographers do, and the law is on their side. I'm sure that it seems trivial and silly to you, but at the end of the day, the law is the law, and ethics are ethics! (Oh and yes, I drive the posted speed limit and "Photoshop" isn't a verb! ).

Noted. Not really too sure how I was 'profiting' from the image like you say as it was only posted here and here only, and I don't think anyone would be willing to pay for my first composite attempt lol. But from your perspective rules are rules and allowing my harmless post to slip could lead to it creeping into the forum in more harmful ways, which is understandable. Next time I'll only post composites using paid-for backgrounds.

Thank-you!

 

[ElChapo]

Good job on the comp.

Perhaps some shadows is the common advice you'd see on an image like this, to " sell" the composition.

Direction if light is the other main concern, once you know how to cut and paste parts if images and scale them. The transform function in Ps is amazing.
I've been studying Ps from Creativelives complete class by Ben Willmore. Love this stuff but it is soooo hard sometimes! I find the new select and mask to be awesome, easier and hard to use at the same time.

A more interesting photo(s) are going to illicit more of a response.

The forum police go away if you dont " say" where the photos came from, of a blank wall lol. Im not advocating stealing and I dont think you did, but just dont say you used a stock....


By the way you get 10 free stock images from Ps Stock. Not sure if they are postable as they're free;technically in my jurisdiction they could probably reverse the rights because you didnt trade anything for them, who knows?! Im not a dang lawyer.

Ive quit this forum a few times for such censorship/( copyright) issues. But I keep coming back because some of the advice is valuable and I have too much time on my hands.

Hallelujah. This was all I was asking for, some feedback!

I'll definitely look into the lighting and shadowing a bit more - I took my image outside in similar lighting conditions to try and mirror the effects but it's something that will take a bit more practice.

I'll also have a look into that class - I purchased the PHLearn course on compositing to get me started on this attempt which was around £25 and had a great tutorial of 3 images.

Thanks for the feedback my friend. Much appreciated.

 

[OGsPhotography]

Your welcome, Phlearn is awesome too! I think he did a recent CreativeLive class too.

 

[Cody'sCaptures]

You're right, it would have been very easy to ignore, however removing it only took two mouse-clicks, so I think I can live with that too. Using someone else's work in this way isn't against any fine art print "rules", it's plain and simply illegal. What many people don't understand is that copyright is actually an article of ownership. Someone else owned that background image, and was offering it for use, subject to a specific set of conditions; mostly likely for payment. As a community of photographers, TPF takes the issue of copyright very seriously. While you might not object to someone profiting from your work, many photographers do, and the law is on their side. I'm sure that it seems trivial and silly to you, but at the end of the day, the law is the law, and ethics are ethics! (Oh and yes, I drive the posted speed limit and "Photoshop" isn't a verb! ).

Noted. Not really too sure how I was 'profiting' from the image like you say as it was only posted here and here only, and I don't think anyone would be willing to pay for my first composite attempt lol. But from your perspective rules are rules and allowing my harmless post to slip could lead to it creeping into the forum in more harmful ways, which is understandable. Next time I'll only post composites using paid-for backgrounds.

Are you not learning from using this person's photo? So in some way you are profiting.. Correct? I frankly don't like my work to be stolen and used and, I don't believe you would either. Not saying this wasn't a trivial use of this image but it's a matter of principle and ethics. Fact is it's not your property and you shouldn't feel entitled to use it. Also bumping your own thread is super lame

 

[ElChapo]

You're right, it would have been very easy to ignore, however removing it only took two mouse-clicks, so I think I can live with that too. Using someone else's work in this way isn't against any fine art print "rules", it's plain and simply illegal. What many people don't understand is that copyright is actually an article of ownership. Someone else owned that background image, and was offering it for use, subject to a specific set of conditions; mostly likely for payment. As a community of photographers, TPF takes the issue of copyright very seriously. While you might not object to someone profiting from your work, many photographers do, and the law is on their side. I'm sure that it seems trivial and silly to you, but at the end of the day, the law is the law, and ethics are ethics! (Oh and yes, I drive the posted speed limit and "Photoshop" isn't a verb! ).

Noted. Not really too sure how I was 'profiting' from the image like you say as it was only posted here and here only, and I don't think anyone would be willing to pay for my first composite attempt lol. But from your perspective rules are rules and allowing my harmless post to slip could lead to it creeping into the forum in more harmful ways, which is understandable. Next time I'll only post composites using paid-for backgrounds.

Are you not learning from using this person's photo? So in some way you are profiting.. Correct? I frankly don't like my work to be stolen and used and, I don't believe you would either. Not saying this wasn't a trivial use of this image but it's a matter of principle and ethics. Fact is it's not your property and you shouldn't feel entitled to use it. Also bumping your own thread is super lame

Not sure what you're trying to achieve with this post as the issue has been dealt with and settled. You are entitled to your opinion, which once again has nothing to do with the topic of the thread: feedback & discussion on a composite attempt by a beginner photographer simply seeking advice on a photography advice forum, rather than an open debate on the morals of copyright infringement.

Moderators closing this thread would probably be best for forum users as it is now redundant with the photo having been removed. Keeping it active is simply disrupting other more important beginner threads from appearing as New Posts.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app