What to do about ugly background?

[Tailgunner]

Yall are so good! I'm still learning how to use photoshop....

ndancona- Your edit is probably closest to what I had in mind to distract from the background. Can you tell me how you did it? How did you extend the background/fence? And how did you add so much blur to the background?

Thanks everyone!

The blur background technique is called Bokeh.

Bokeh

 

[AggieBecky]

I thought bokeh is lens driven. My question is how to add it in photoshop. Thanks!

 

[ndancona]

I thought bokeh is lens driven. My question is how to add it in photoshop. Thanks!

It's very easy. I will give you some simple steps, of course there are better methods but the easiest is as follows:
open image in photoshop. Duplicate image. Filter/Blur/Gaussian Blur entire image (on the duplicate image). Select entire image and copy. Paste image as new layer onto your original image. Select eraser tool on a soft brush and erase blur over the areas you want visible.

I did not recreate anything in the image. I moved your subjects with the clone tool. Experiment with the clone tool it's very useful. What I basically did is duplicate the background to extend it. If you do it right you can blend the background in and you will never notice the difference.

 

[amolitor]

First I am going to suggest using some sort of Lens or Focus blur instead of a Gaussian blur. Secondly, I will emphasize that whatever technique you use to blend, you want to be able to feather the effect fairly delicately.

This was done by:

- duplicate layer
- partially desaturate, and then apply a modest focus blur to that layer
- blend the two layers, leaving the kid, the dog, and the foreground material pretty much alone, and feathering back to increase the effect as you proceed further back along the lawn and the fence
- one more layer to burn some stuff and make it darker



ETA: also opened up the darkest tones a bit so the kid's eyes don't look so much like little black coals

 

[ndancona]

it's a good method but OP is new to photoshop so it might be a bit technical for her.

 

[Buckster]

Buck- I don't know if your edit is what I had in mind but it is so much fun-- I love it!

Thanks. It's just another possible tool that can be used.

Where do you get fun backgrounds like that?

I shoot a lot of backgrounds and objects that I think I might be able to use later, and have a fairly large library of them. However, I got that particular one at www.Fotolia.com, which is the main resource I use if I'm looking for something in particular and don't have it in my library already. I got it a year or two ago to use in a composite of my granddaughter at Easter, and now I have the license to use it for anything, so it's part of my backgrounds library.

 

[unpopular]

find a better background.

IMO plopping in a fake background or adding fauxkeh is never a suitable option. Fake backgrounds can work in studio when you have this in mind, but otherwise it's better to focus on composition and camera control before learning how to do it in post.

 

[Buckster]

find a better background.

IMO plopping in a fake background or adding fauxkeh is never a suitable option. Fake backgrounds can work in studio when you have this in mind, but otherwise it's better to focus on composition and camera control before learning how to do it in post.

"Never". lol

 

[unpopular]

It can be a quick fix to deliver a substandard product which visually looks better than a bad photographic flub, but nonetheless, this isn't saying much. The images here are pretty good examples of tacky fake backgrounds and mushy fauxkeh.

Sure. We're all human, we make mistakes and we can't control every aspect, these techniques can deliver the goods. But 'suitable'? If so, only barely.

 

[Buckster]

It can be a quick fix to deliver a substandard product which visually looks better than a bad photographic flub, but nonetheless, this isn't saying much. The examples here are pretty good examples of tacky fake backgrounds and mushy fauxkeh.

Sure. We're all human, we make mistakes and we can't control every aspect, these techniques can deliver the goods. But 'suitable'? If so, only barely.

Like anything, it depends on how it's used, and how well. It's not all crap, as you seem to think. Great work can and is being produced with the technique - on purpose even - not just to fix mistakes.

"Never" is a statement of ridiculous and unfounded prejudice, as is the question of how "suitable" it is to use it, or to use any tool available for that matter.

 

[unpopular]

On purpose is kind of a different situation entirely, which I eluded to with the 'in studio' comment. This kind of gets into special effects photography or graphic design, though, which I think has a different set of rules.

I don't think it's ever suitable though to cover a mistake, at least not in the context of doing it right in the first place.

 

[Buckster]

I don't think it's ever suitable though to cover a mistake, at least not in the context of doing it right in the first place.

Whatever - difference of opinion, I suppose.

I think it's just fine to use any tool available for any purpose at all that works, and see no reason to put artificial limits on creativity. I don't personally have different sets of rules for this or that type of image made using photography in any part of the process, unless it's for journalism where boundaries of integrity are somewhat valid. Everything else is fair game to me, and the whole "purist" thing some folks ascribe to just comes off as pretentious to me.

 

[unpopular]

I wouldn't say I am a 'purist'. But I do think that a 'i'll just fix it in post' attitude doesn't make for good photography. Especially for people who are just learning.

 

[cgipson1]

I wouldn't say I am a 'purist'. But I do think that a 'i'll just fix it in post' attitude doesn't make for good photography. Especially for people who are just learning.

For Anyone!

Get it right in camera... and reshoot if you don't get it right the first time! Fake blur sucks!

 

[unpopular]

Fake blur does suck, PS fake blur especially. There are some decent options out there, but without a genuine depth map I don't think it's possible to accurately render it.