Replacing a sky around poorly defined detail in Photoshop

[CThomas817]

On a recent outdoor portrait session, the sky was overcast and completely blown out. It's boring and distracting at the same time. I chose a different sky, of a different color, to replace it with. I have replaced sky before, but the issue I am having with these particular images is that the treelines are quite out of focus - I'm having difficulty refining the edges of the leaves and branches. I have tried "Blend If", multiply blend mode, and choosing the blue channel to make a selection to replace behind. None of these techniques are giving me the refinement that I want. Please see the image below. The treeline in the far back is "ok" but the tree closest to the subjects is just awful. I know I have to tone my sky down too before you say it!

Any ideas to get the refinement I want?

 

[JonA_CT]

I'd just get rid of the tree.

 

[tirediron]

You're over-thinking it. The clients aren't going to notice that. You've captured a wonderful moment and that's what counts in this type of photography. Honestly? I'd probably just run around the obvious rough selection areas with the blur tool and call it a day. I' will respectfully disagree with Jona however; I think the tree is an important compositional element and the image would be weaker without it.

 

[JonA_CT]

You're over-thinking it. The clients aren't going to notice that. You've captured a wonderful moment and that's what counts in this type of photography. Honestly? I'd probably just run around the obvious rough selection areas with the blur tool and call it a day. I' will respectfully disagree with Jona however; I think the tree is an important compositional element and the image would be weaker without it.

I think it would work both ways -- but to your first point, that's why I said just take the thing out. If she hadn't pointed out the trees in the background, I wouldn't have noticed it right away. The client will definitely love the photo either way.

 

[CThomas817]

You're over-thinking it. The clients aren't going to notice that. You've captured a wonderful moment and that's what counts in this type of photography. Honestly? I'd probably just run around the obvious rough selection areas with the blur tool and call it a day. I' will respectfully disagree with Jona however; I think the tree is an important compositional element and the image would be weaker without it.

I totally agree. I feel that the tree balances the image. I'll try using the blur tool. I tried running the lens blur filter over the tree when I blurred the sky but it just didn't look right. It was too blurred for it's depth in the image.

Thanks for the advice

 

[CThomas817]

You're over-thinking it. The clients aren't going to notice that. You've captured a wonderful moment and that's what counts in this type of photography. Honestly? I'd probably just run around the obvious rough selection areas with the blur tool and call it a day. I' will respectfully disagree with Jona however; I think the tree is an important compositional element and the image would be weaker without it.

I think it would work both ways -- but to your first point, that's why I said just take the thing out. If he hadn't pointed out the trees in the background, I wouldn't have noticed it right away. The client will definitely love the photo either way.

Thank you! I think I want to keep the tree in this one, but I will definitley consider removal of difficult elements in mind for future images

 

[Fujidave]

Or if you just want the main focus on the children, see you let folk edit so just a quick try.

 

[dennybeall]

I'd replace the sky and remove the limbs of the tree that are sticking out but leave the main part.

 

[CThomas817]

I'd replace the sky and remove the limbs of the tree that are sticking out but leave the main part.

Didn't think of that!