Two photos, two different places made into one new photo.

[jenrettl1]

Picture of my 3 kids at Pet Park in Kenosha, WI


Picture of wagon taken at Deep River County Park in IN.


Put the two together and this is what I got.

 

[Buckster]

My brain says, "STOP! There's something wrong with this! Look carefully and figure out why!" So I do, and here's what I see:

The people are in focus, but in the wagon photo, the focus is well behind them, in the background trees. It should be on the boards of the wagon directly in front of where you've shopped them in.

Seems like perhaps the color balance between the two is mismatched as well. I think they need to be a bit warmer, or the scene you've put them in needs to be a bit cooler.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

It really does look like a botched photoshop job, for all the reasons Buckster mentioned.

The human eye is very trained to pick up on things that just register "wrong" when it comes to composites like this, or any photo pushed "too far" with digital manipulation. That line is different for different people. A lot of people on this forum have seen a wide spectrum of good digital manipulation, and bad.

This definitely registers as "wrong", I'll just parrot the things Buckster has said.

 

[Buckster]

Here's something else I notice when taking an even closer look: We can see through between the slats of the front boards, but instead of seeing those people, we see the back and sides of the inside of the wagon. There's also some sort of scallop pattern along the top of the top board where you placed the people now, where it was just a straight board before.

 

[Animaniac888]

Another problem is the lighting. If your kids were actually sitting in the wagon, there would be light that is the color of the wagon as well as the surrounding area reflecting onto them. In addition, the lighting does not match. Shadows aren't where they're supposed to be. It's a good effort, but it doesn't look convincing at all.

 

[jenrettl1]

My brain says, "STOP! There's something wrong with this! Look carefully and figure out why!" So I do, and here's what I see:

The people are in focus, but in the wagon photo, the focus is well behind them, in the background trees. It should be on the boards of the wagon directly in front of where you've shopped them in.

Seems like perhaps the color balance between the two is mismatched as well. I think they need to be a bit warmer, or the scene you've put them in needs to be a bit cooler.

So, if I am understanding you correctly I had my main focus on the trees instead of the wagon? I also was wondering if it just looked flat. I have been taking photos for a while but more of a personal side. I want to go further with my photography but if I'm not good at it I might as well stop while I'm ahead.

 

[jenrettl1]

Another problem is the lighting. If your kids were actually sitting in the wagon, there would be light that is the color of the wagon as well as the surrounding area reflecting onto them. In addition, the lighting does not match. Shadows aren't where they're supposed to be. It's a good effort, but it doesn't look convincing at all.

I do see what you are saying. I did see the difference but wasn't sure if it was me or what. Thank you very much for your feedback.

 

[HughGuessWho]

I want to go further with my photography but if I'm not good at it I might as well stop while I'm ahead.

Dont give in that easy. There is a lot of talent on this forum that is more than willing to help you learn.
Keep shootin', postin' and learnin'.

 

[Buckster]

My brain says, "STOP! There's something wrong with this! Look carefully and figure out why!" So I do, and here's what I see:

The people are in focus, but in the wagon photo, the focus is well behind them, in the background trees. It should be on the boards of the wagon directly in front of where you've shopped them in.

Seems like perhaps the color balance between the two is mismatched as well. I think they need to be a bit warmer, or the scene you've put them in needs to be a bit cooler.

So, if I am understanding you correctly I had my main focus on the trees instead of the wagon?

Yes, that's what I'm seeing.

Besides the mismatched focus areas, it's also important to note that backgrounds like that are tough enough when they're well-blurred into the background with a short DOF concentrated up front on the subject(s). We see things like "trees and branches sticking out of their heads" and so on if they're composed that way. But it's even more of a problem when that background is in focus with the subject.

It doesn't look "flat" to me, per se, but the lighting could certainly be better taken advantage of. That's the real trick to successful photography: Learning to read and control light, shadow, highlight, specularity, diffused areas, color temperatures, etc.

That's particularly true when making composites, because lighting/shadow mistakes cause our brains to reject the image as believable, even when we don't know exactly why.

Don't give up though. Everybody goes through a learning curve to get a better understanding of light, and most of us will admit we're still learning it after many many years. (Well, except those few around here who know that any monkey with expensive gear can make photos just as well as any "pro" )

 

[jenrettl1]

Thank you everyone for your help. I really appreciate it.

 

[Tee]

I want to go further with my photography but if I'm not good at it I might as well stop while I'm ahead.

Please don't think that way. Keep rocking out the camera, post a few at a time for critique and then take what you learned and apply it. The best part of photography is you'll never stop learning and it takes time. In the meantime, keep capturing those moments of your family.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

So, if I am understanding you correctly I had my main focus on the trees instead of the wagon? I also was wondering if it just looked flat. I have been taking photos for a while but more of a personal side. I want to go further with my photography but if I'm not good at it I might as well stop while I'm ahead.

But what you've shown us here isn't really photography. It's the making of a composite through heavy pixel-level editing. This type of editing often requires advanced knowledge and understanding. It's much easier to take pictures with your kids in them, so don't be discouraged.

 

[Buckster]

So, if I am understanding you correctly I had my main focus on the trees instead of the wagon? I also was wondering if it just looked flat. I have been taking photos for a while but more of a personal side. I want to go further with my photography but if I'm not good at it I might as well stop while I'm ahead.

But what you've shown us here isn't really photography. It's the making of a composite through heavy pixel-level editing.

Don't start. Yes, it really is both photography and compositing.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Don't start. Yes, it really is both photography and compositing.

Don't start what? My response was warranted and based on:

I want to go further with my photography but if I'm not good at it I might as well stop while I'm ahead.

It is not just photography. What she's done here is both photography and creation of a composite image in software. I'm suggesting she ditch the pixel-level editing and work on the photography aspect.

 

[Buckster]

Don't start. Yes, it really is both photography and compositing.

Don't start what?

Don't start another typical TPF argument by trying to tell people what IS photography and what ISN'T photography with subjective opinions disguised as objective statements like this:

But what you've shown us here isn't really photography.

Who are you to claim this? Who made you the authority on what IS and what IS NOT photography?