What to do about ugly background?

[unpopular]

I also am going with #2, though I'll admit - I fear I'm going to make an ass of myself... Here is the reasoning: the first has a swirl imperfection which isn't typically rendered. #2 looks too clean, the OOF region in the translucent plastic also may not be rendering properly, and the depth map appears inaccurate in the leaves in the upper right. There is also something off about the leaves in the foreground. My next guess would be #3, but this more looks like a lens with mushy bokeh at about f/4ish.

Either way, these are all examples of pretty ideal circumstances - objects far from their background with little middle ground.

If it's #1, I'll be impressed - even if the bokeh is less than pleasing.

 

[Buckster]

I also am going with #2

Noted.

I'll admit - I fear I'm going to make an ass of myself.

Really? Suddenly you lack confidence in your very strong opinions and near-guaranteed fake-spotting abilities on this subject? How could that possibly be? After all, "Fake blur does suck, PS fake blur especially". That's why a fake is so obvious and easy to spot, especially for a pro art director such as yourself (obviously), and why it should "never" be used - amirite?

I mean, this shouldn't even require a close look, let alone spur feelings of insecurity, given that "Fake blur does suck, PS fake blur especially", stated to let folks know that it quite obviously jumps out and screams "FAAAAAAAKE!!!", which is why they should "never" do it. I'm sure that whole jumping out and screaming thing is true for everyone who sees it since it "sucks" so bad, but it must be especially true whenever some expert PS "fauxkeh" fake-spotter like you or Charlie sees it, which is no doubt where your very strong opinions on it, concluding with the written-in-stone admonishment that it's "NEVER a suitable option", come from.

And golly, that should be double-especially true when it was thrown together by a mere hobbyist such as myself, rather than it being the work of an expert professional who does it for a living.

Well, maybe Charlie will show more confidence in his expert choice...

Here is the reasoning: the first has a swirl imperfection which isn't typically rendered. #2 looks too clean, the OOF region in the translucent plastic also may not be rendering properly, and the depth map appears inaccurate in the leaves in the upper right. There is also something off about the leaves in the foreground. My next guess would be #3, but this more looks like a lens with mushy bokeh at about f/4ish.

Reasoning noted. Looking forward to what others see and say about them, especially those with very strong opinions on the subject; Those who use words like "never" and "sucks" in association with the technique.

Either way, these are all examples of pretty ideal circumstances - objects far from their background with little middle ground.

You mean like the OP's photo? Not that it matters in any case, when we're going to use words like "never" and "sucks" to tell folks when it's acceptable to use it and why it's not ever acceptable to use it, of course.

If it's #1, I'll be impressed - even if the bokeh is less than pleasing.

Noted.

Btw, "find a better background (before shooting it)" as a suggestion to answer the question of how to improve an impromptu snapshot like this that's already made after the fact always seems a bit ridiculous to me - no offense intended. It amounts to, "go back in time and do it again, but better".

Or maybe you're trying to advise that this should just be thrown out because there obviously is no possible fix to be made, since "fixes" using PS suck and it has to come out of the camera right or it's just junk, so next time you see some nice unplanned interaction like this while visiting a cousin (or other friend/relative/acquaintance), go ahead and stop the interaction between the little kid and dog, position them somewhere else with a better background (probably not even in that yard, since the OP told us that the fence SURROUNDS the yard, so it's basically always a background there in the yard, other than the house itself - which would likely be less than a delightful background either) then, when you get to the park or wherever your better background sans-fence is, tell them to stay on the X you've made on the ground so that you have your better background perfectly positioned behind them, and tell them to strike that nice, playful, natural, interactive pose you liked that just needed a better background, now that you have that better background in place behind them. Be sure to tell them to make their playful interaction look natural again, as though it was unplanned and the change in venue didn't interrupt that natural flow at all.

Is that how you'd do it? Is that really the best advice someone who shoots photos of dirt and sticks on the ground can give to someone looking for ideas to improve a snapshot already taken of a kid and dog playing in their back yard - "go back in time and transport the kid and dog to someplace with a better background before shooting"?

There are ideal circumstances that require little or no post processing, and it's great when that happens naturally or when we can pre-plan it to happen. But for when that can't or simply doesn't happen to be the case, it's good to have post processing techniques to fall back on in a pinch.

I don't personally know anybody who routinely shoots with the attitude, "I'll just fix it in Photoshop". Unless they really realize at the time of shooting that there simply is no other way to pull it off, or are planning a composite or something from the outset, "fixing" a shot in Photoshop is usually an afterthought that comes to mind when viewing the shots long after the shoot's over and something jumps out as out of place that didn't jump out at the time the shot was made.

I think (and it's just my personal opinion, mind you) that the idea that there are droves of pro, semi-pro or serious-hobbyist level photographers out there who shoot willy-nilly and without a care at all to backgrounds or details or DOF or light or shadow or anything else of photographic consequence all day long while muttering to themselves, "I'll just fix it in Photoshop" is just a made-up persona created by "purists" who often have little to no ability with Photoshop (as an all-encompassing term for digital post-processing), and use that "purist" anti-Photoshop attitude as a justification for their own ignorance and lack of ability with modern digital post processing techniques.

People don't just pick up Photoshop one fine day and successfully start "fixing" problems with their photos, especially not big problems, any more than they bought all the stuff for a darkroom one day and successfully started "fixing" problems in that medium right off the bat. As has always been the case, there's a learning curve involved in processing and printing, just like there's a learning curve involved with using the camera itself. There's nothing new about that. Ansel wrote books titled, "The Camera", "The Negative" and "The Print" about a million years ago because it's NOT JUST all about getting it right in the camera and then you're done - and it never has been.

As a photographer hones their post-processing skills and acquires knowledge and experience with how to "fix" things in photos, they come to realize that it is indeed usually much easier to get it in the camera in the first place, rather than have to put in the work required in post to "fix" it, so they do. Without the PS skills yet to "fix it" Photoshop, they don't have the mindset, "I'll just fix this in Photoshop" while they're shooting because they don't have the skill to do so yet. That's why they come on here and ask us how to do it - to learn the techniques and acquire the skills. And in a pinch those skills and abilities will be able to help them.

But that doesn't mean they'll use those acquired PS skills and techniques as a matter of conscious choice at the time of shooting, rather than just take a step to the left for a better background or dial their aperture to get a more appropriate DOF while shooting, while saying to themselves, "I'll just fix it in Photoshop".

The whole idea smacks of baloney piled high on a purist's inferior-PS-skills sandwich to me.

 

[o hey tyler]

YEAH INTERNET ARGUMENT LETS GO! WOOHOOOOO!

Fwiw Buckster your edit is very clearly shooped IMO. Not saying it to be rude, I didn't know you had done the edit as I scrolled through the photos on my phone.

Please forgive me in advance for having an opinion in the same way unpopular does. PLZ. THX. K.

 

[ShooterJ]

Buckster, that was an incredibly well thought out and presented response. I'm only jumping in on this because I've spent quite a bit of time learning Photoshop and a few other alternatives to add to my photography. I believe they're powerful tools and quite useful, but I've encountered a lot of people who just brush it off and tell me "get it right in camera, so you don't have to worry about it."

You've very clearly and intelligently put into words what I always think when I'm told that. I naturally try to do as much as I can when shooting to get a shot right, but sometimes you just have to take the shot when you have it... whether conditions are "perfect" or not.

Anyway, an awesome and educating response!

 

[Buckster]

YEAH INTERNET ARGUMENT LETS GO! WOOHOOOOO!

I prefer to think of it as a learning opportunity.

Fwiw Buckster your edit is very clearly shooped IMO. Not saying it to be rude, I didn't know you had done the edit as I scrolled through the photos on my phone.

Please forgive me in advance for having an opinion in the same way unpopular does. PLZ. THX. K.

No problem. It wasn't meant to be a final edit done to print quality, just a quickie to show possibilities.

 

[unpopular]

I'll admit - I fear I'm going to make an ass of myself.

Really? Suddenly you lack confidence in your very strong opinions and near-guaranteed fake-spotting abilities on this subject? How could that possibly be? After all, "Fake blur does suck, PS fake blur especially". That's why a fake is so obvious and easy to spot, especially for a pro art director such as yourself (obviously), and why it should "never" be used - amirite?

Obviously my confidence is a bit out-dated. I haven't worked as an art director in several years. Adobe's fauxkeh has improved. But nonetheless, I have always felt that accurate depth-mapping is more of an issue.

Btw, "find a better background (before shooting it)" as a suggestion to answer the question of how to improve an impromptu snapshot like this that's already made after the fact always seems a bit ridiculous to me - no offense intended. It amounts to, "go back in time and do it again, but better".

There is no excuse for bad photography. If it were just a snapshot and intended to be just a snapshot, then the background wouldn't matter.

Or maybe you're trying to advise that this should just be thrown out because there obviously is no possible fix to be made, since "fixes" using PS suck and it has to come out of the camera right or it's just junk

I am hardly an SOOC advocate. The nature of my workflow involves very heavy-handed post production.

Is that how you'd do it? Is that really the best advice someone who shoots photos of dirt and sticks on the ground can give

I am sorry that you do not like the subject matter which interests me, but that is not really my problem, and hardly pertinent to the topic.

There are ideal circumstances that require little or no post processing, and it's great when that happens naturally or when we can pre-plan it to happen. But for when that can't or simply doesn't happen to be the case, it's good to have post processing techniques to fall back on in a pinch.

How much planning is involved by opening the iris? I mean seriously.

I think (and it's just my personal opinion, mind you) that the idea that there are droves of pro, semi-pro or serious-hobbyist level photographers out there who shoot willy-nilly and without a care at all to backgrounds or details or DOF or light or shadow or anything else of photographic consequence all day long while muttering to themselves, "I'll just fix it in Photoshop" is just a made-up persona created by "purists" who often have little to no ability with Photoshop (as an all-encompassing term for digital post-processing), and use that "purist" anti-Photoshop attitude as a justification for their own ignorance and lack of ability with modern digital post processing techniques.

Trust me. You have me entirely wrong. I shoot nothing SOOC, literally nothing.

Ansel wrote books titled, "The Camera", "The Negative" and "The Print" about a million years ago because it's NOT JUST all about getting it right in the camera and then you're done - and it never has been.

It sounds like you got this sentiment from me. I've posted about this adamantly many, many times in the past, that SOOC minimizes the ability of technology and is an attitude that limit subjective interpretation, using Adams as my example. But Adams also saw a continuum between camera, negative, darkroom and print. Post is not about 'fixing problems', it's the same continuum - from camera to raw to working file to print. Post shouldn't be seen as an inconvenient step to fix shortcomings in skill or technology, or a nuisance necessary only to get to a tangible print. Post IS Photography. Sometimes fixes are necessary, but that shouldn't be the extent of how we see post.

My point is though that photographs start in your head, not in the camera. Adams called this previsualization, and it's a skill that people should focus in on if they want to improve photography beyond snapshots - which is after all the point of this entire forum!

But that doesn't mean they'll use those acquired PS skills and techniques as a matter of conscious choice at the time of shooting, rather than just take a step to the left for a better background or dial their aperture to get a more appropriate DOF while shooting, while saying to themselves, "I'll just fix it in Photoshop".

It is not a conscious choice, but bad habits do develop quickly. I don't think any of us learned in Intro to Photography that if you miss an exposure that it's OK, just push and pull development or bleach or intensify away and it'll be fine - and in many cases, it would be. But it seems that there was once an emphasis on camera control that seems to be lost. When I was in college, if we missed the exposure it was pretty much "next time decrease shutter speed", it wasn't "go mix up a batch of farmer's". Certainly we could.

 

[ShooterJ]

Just to interject a quick question into this (for my own learning experience)... let's say I'm shooting and my goal is candid shots. Or as was in the case of the OP, it just kind of presented itself whether I planned to be doing a photo shoot or not... a candid moment that you want to capture is there one second and gone the next. One of my instructors in school always tell us, "Take the shot... do what you can to adjust for it on the fly, but take the shot. Don't sacrifice a good moment on camera, because you can always do some post-editing later to fine tune what you capture."

So my question is, if this is the case and I need to get that shot rapidly, why would I not want to? Why would I want to miss my chance at it trying to get everything absolutely right in camera? I could make a few adjustments, get the shot and then work with it later.. as I understand it? Planned shoots are one thing, where you know what you're after well ahead of time.. be it location or studio. You're going to be prepared.

Is my instructor correct? (I believe he is, just curious about other views on this.)

 

[unpopular]

I think yes and no. There are certainly situations where you cannot afford to miss the shot, you were perhaps shooting a subject suitable at f/11 when suddenly there is something that comes across at f/1.4. Shoot it, sure - there's no reason not to shoot it, i'm not really saying that. But this doesn't mean that the end result will be successful.

But i think "fine tune" is an important thing here. It's one thing to try to recover some hilights or crop, it's another to replace the sky or fauxkeh the background.

 

[ShooterJ]

I think yes and no. There are certainly situations where you cannot afford to miss the shot, you were perhaps shooting a subject suitable at f/11 when suddenly there is something that comes across at f/1.4. Shoot it, sure - there's no reason not to shoot it, i'm not really saying that. But this doesn't mean that the end result will be successful.

But i think "fine tune" is an important thing here. It's one thing to try to recover some hilights or crop, it's another to replace the sky or fauxkeh the background.

Sure, I understand what you're saying. Probably the same thing my instructor talked about when he covered the idea of avoiding "plastic" or "overdone" edits. I've played around with a bit of HDR and although that's fun too, it's easy to go too far and end up with an image that might have what people think is a cool effect, but is a bit over the top.

By the way, I'm not picking sides in here.. there are a great many people on this forum with vastly more experience than myself. I'm just learning what I can.. so thanks for the reply.

EDIT: An after thought.. my instructor is big on the idea of "compose with your feet".. which can relate to the background you get with an aperture. I shot a bunch of photos for some friends of mine this past Easter, and had a general idea that I wanted a shallow DOF, so I stuck with that and moved around as I needed to get the shots I wanted of the kids. That seemed to work pretty well for me.

 

[Buckster]

How much planning is involved by opening the iris? I mean seriously.

The point I was making was in response to your statement about people shooting with the attitude, "I'll just fix that in Photoshop". I contend that people don't think to themselves, "well, let's see... I can either open up my aperture here to blur the background, or I can just fix that in Photoshop... Ummm... I'll just shoot at f/22 and blur it in Photoshop. Yeah, that's the ticket."

Ansel wrote books titled, "The Camera", "The Negative" and "The Print" about a million years ago because it's NOT JUST all about getting it right in the camera and then you're done - and it never has been.

I think you got this sentiment from me. I've posted about this many, many times in the past.

No, it's definitely not something I got from you, no matter how many times you've posted it (Frankly, I haven't seen much at all from you since right after you arrived here at TPF. No offense intended, but the truth is that I put you on ignore early on because the vast majority of your posts seemed irritatingly immature and faux-expert-full-of-bull to me. I recently removed you from that list, thinking you might have grown up a little and I'd enjoy seeing what you have to say, and I'm hoping for the best on that. So I'm afraid I missed those "many, many times in the past" that you posted about it). So, no, rather than get it from you, it's something I got before you were actually born, assuming the age you posted in another thread really is 31 or 32 (you can't quite remember).

But here's the catch, Adams also saw a continuum between camera, negative, darkroom and print. Post is not about 'fixing problems'

Then maybe you should stop talking about how others use it as though it is, or accept that Adams' burning and dodging was "fixing problems" from his POV.

Or are you trying to say that while pre-visualizing his shooting, Adams was saying to himself, "I'll just fix that in the darkroom", whereas modern photographers who are pre-visualizing their shooting and saying, "I'll just fix that in Photoshop" are far, far different somehow?

But that doesn't mean they'll use those acquired PS skills and techniques as a matter of conscious choice at the time of shooting, rather than just take a step to the left for a better background or dial their aperture to get a more appropriate DOF while shooting, while saying to themselves, "I'll just fix it in Photoshop".

It is not a conscious choice.

Then perhaps you should stop saying people have an "'i'll just fix it in post' attitude".

 

[unpopular]

In this particular photo, it really is a case of not paying attention, and that is what it boils down to. Looking at the whole image is something we all have to learn, and is one of the hardest things in photography to master. I certainly haven't.

 

[unpopular]

No, it's definitely not something I got from you, no matter how many times you've posted it (Frankly, I haven't seen much at all from you since right after you arrived here at TPF. No offense intended, but the truth is that I put you on ignore early on because the vast majority of your posts seemed irritatingly immature and faux-expert-full-of-bull to me. I recently removed you from that list, thinking you might have grown up a little and I'd enjoy seeing what you have to say, and I'm hoping for the best on that.

By all means go right ahead and put me back onto that ignore list. I don't need to be privileged by your misinterpretations of what I'm saying and passive aggressive stabs at subject matter and my age.

 

[Buckster]

In this particular photo, it really is a case of not paying attention,

The OP already admitted that was the case in their opening post. They were already aware of it. You offer them nothing new or helpful or of value with that statement, so what's your point? To rub it in?

and that is what it boils down to.

I disagree. I think what it boils down to in this case is answering the OP's actual question: Is there anything I can do to improve THIS PHOTO that's ALREADY SHOT? I view that as an opportunity to help the OP learn about some techniques in post-processing to deal with situations that may arise in the course of their photographic journeys to come, and that's not all bad.

Looking at the whole image is something we all have to learn, and is one of the hardest things in photography to master. I certainly haven't.

Agreed.

I think it's worth noting that today's cameras differ significantly from those many of us cut our teeth on in one very significant way, and that's what you see in the viewfinder. Back when aperture was adjusted by manually rotating a collar for it on the lens itself, you could see the results in the viewfinder as you made that mechanical adjustment. These days, the view doesn't change as it always looks wide open unless you press the DOF button. So, while looking through the viewfinder and a wide open lens that's showing a really nice OOF background, it can be easy to forget that you're set to f/22 and what you see is NOT what you'll get UNLESS you press that DOF button.

 

[Buckster]

No, it's definitely not something I got from you, no matter how many times you've posted it (Frankly, I haven't seen much at all from you since right after you arrived here at TPF. No offense intended, but the truth is that I put you on ignore early on because the vast majority of your posts seemed irritatingly immature and faux-expert-full-of-bull to me. I recently removed you from that list, thinking you might have grown up a little and I'd enjoy seeing what you have to say, and I'm hoping for the best on that.

By all means go right ahead and put me back onto that ignore list.

I'd like to give it a little more time, and see what happens, rather than just write you off again so soon. But thanks for the suggestion.

I don't need to be privileged by your misinterpretations of what I'm saying

I'm sorry. Truly. I thought the things you said were pretty straightforward, and I was careful to use actual quotes. What did I misinterpret?

and passive aggressive stabs at subject matter and my age.

I think perhaps we're just on different wavelengths or something like that. You just don't seem to really be a "kids and dogs in the back yard spontaneous snapshot" type of guy. Your usual subject matter doesn't lend itself to jumping up and running around and showing emotions and giving you trouble as you try to get a fix on a good background for it while watching for good timing. So it strikes me that perhaps you're just not very tuned in to that kind of shooting when you say something like, "find a different background" as a response to, "is there anything I can do in post-production to fix this photo that's already shot?" That's all I meant by it.

As for your age, I was just telling the truth about when I learned that bit of photographic knowledge. I can't help it that you weren't born yet when that happened, and I'm sorry that it didn't occur to me that it might burst your self-importance bubble to find out that I didn't learn it from you. It's not like I said your short career as an "Art Director" was probably a stint in your early 20's working with the large format photo printer at Kinko's or something like that.

Chalk it up as simple crossed signals, I think.

 

[amolitor]

So which one is it?