What to do about ugly background?

[unpopular]

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.

Well Buckster.

I'm not about to justify my experience to you or provide you with a resume, or explain what challenges got in my way that prevented that career from accelerating. But, I didn't actually think you got that from me, and I edited my post accordingly (take a look). But really, all you had to say was "no, I didn't get this from you", there was no need to bring your relatively advanced age into the equation, and when you learned it isn't really important.

I don't really know what I said in the past to make you think I don't know as much as I let on. I've always been pretty up front about what I don't know much about, things like studio lighting - and yes, portraiture. And I've been wrong on many occasion, and am willing to admit it, something you didn't seem to respect when I admitted I might be wrong about the quality of fauxkeh.

Chalk it up as simple crossed signals, I think.

I think that's it, and more than anything - we just don't get along well.

 

[IByte]

Im confused, I mean it just over my head and through the woods you know. So it's number #2 right?

 

[cgipson1]

Is it really worth getting this argumentative over what is basically a snapshot? The OP states she didn't pay attention to the background, etc... so it is basically a snapshot. Trying to edit and improve something like that is usually a waste of time... a reshoot would be a much better option (especially since there is no eye contact with the subject). Some photographers apparently do more photoshop than others... (some badly, some not) that is a given. But is it worth five pages? lol!

 

[ratssass]

....ahhhh,Sunday morn at the forum....:hugs:

 

[Buckster]

Is it really worth getting this argumentative over what is basically a snapshot?

I think the discussion has actually moved on to one about some advice given about fake blur, especially if it was made in Photoshop, and how some feel it should "never" be done because it "sucks". The implication made with those statements is that it always looks obviously fake, and we're now testing that theory. As one who had very strong things to say about it earlier in the thread, I was hoping you'd weigh in with your thoughts on the 3 examples posted.

The OP states she didn't pay attention to the background, etc... so it is basically a snapshot. Trying to edit and improve something like that is usually a waste of time...

I think from the standpoint of learning some post-processing techniques and using shots like that to try those kinds of techniques out on, it's not really a waste of time at all. Learning is never a waste of time, IMHO.

a reshoot would be a much better option (especially since there is no eye contact with the subject).

To get a great shot of that kid and that dog, yes - a pre-planned, well-arranged, light-controlled, background-managed photoshoot would deliver a much better result, or possibly help teach those aspects of photography to the OP.

But that's not what they asked for. To learn post-processing techniques that might help THIS SHOT, which is specifically what the OP asked for, recommending a reshoot is like recommending ordering a whole 'nuther pizza to someone who asks which toppings they should remove from the pizza with everything that was delivered by mistake in order to make it taste better.

Some photographers apparently do more photoshop than others... (some badly, some not) that is a given. But is it worth five pages? lol!

It's worth as many pages and threads as people care to write in order to chat and learn more about it, I think. After all, that's the purpose of this forum's very existence.

Do you have a limit in mind that should not be exceeded? Perhaps you could post it in the suggestions forum, where it will gain the full attention of the staff and, who knows, you may get your wish.

 

[Buckster]

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.

Well Buckster.

I'm not about to justify my experience to you or provide you with a resume, or explain what challenges got in my way that prevented that career from accelerating.

Ooookaaay... I don't recall asking for any of that, so... um... yeah... Maybe it's time to switch to decaf?

 

[tirediron]

:waiting:

 

[The_Traveler]

Perhaps this thread should be retitled 'what to do about ugly background chatter'?

 

[vintagesnaps]

Yeah. Maybe another thread could have been started about processing backgrounds since the OP might be long gone and never coming back... I don't think the OP was posting this as being an aspiring pro or even necessarily a hobbyist but like many people, maybe someone who likes taking pictures of friends and family etc. and just wanted some suggestions on a relatively simple edit/adjustment. (And as a number of us mentioned, the fence doesn't look bad at all, and it's a fun picture that I think the OP did a nice job getting that might just benefit from a basic crop or other minor adjustment).

ShooterJ, the information you got from your instructor is the type thing I do - moving your feet can be as good a tool in composing images as any sometimes. I think it's typical for the eye to be drawn to the subject and it takes some learning and practice to make your eye move around the entire rectangle of the viewfinder/screen and make sure everything there is what you want in your photo. I've done sports and events and I think it takes sheer practice to get good at efficiently framing and composing shots to capture a split second of time, and to learn how to get your camera and yourself ready for whatever might come next. I think too that a little can go a long way with post processing and it would be preferable for editing to be used to do something creative rather than to have to rely on it for a lot of corrections.

#1 - The best I can describe it is that the depth doesn't seem to look as I'd expect it would for the distance from the porch to the tree and sidewalk(?) in the background; that the blur makes it seem as if it's in the same plane when it actually isn't.

 

[Buckster]

#1 - The best I can describe it is that the depth doesn't seem to look as I'd expect it would for the distance from the porch to the tree and sidewalk(?) in the background; that the blur makes it seem as if it's in the same plane when it actually isn't.

Thanks for contributing your thoughts on this.

 

[ShooterJ]

ShooterJ, the information you got from your instructor is the type thing I do - moving your feet can be as good a tool in composing images as any sometimes. I think it's typical for the eye to be drawn to the subject and it takes some learning and practice to make your eye move around the entire rectangle of the viewfinder/screen and make sure everything there is what you want in your photo. I've done sports and events and I think it takes sheer practice to get good at efficiently framing and composing shots to capture a split second of time, and to learn how to get your camera and yourself ready for whatever might come next. I think too that a little can go a long way with post processing and it would be preferable for editing to be used to do something creative rather than to have to rely on it for a lot of corrections.

I agree. Photoshop can be a lot of fun and the possibilities for effects and/or composites are endless .. but generally, I'm trying to capture something "honest" when I shoot. So I use photoshop for the basic/subtle touchup and finishing .. I don't like to alter too much.

 

[pixmedic]

we just plain can't tell - you included.

I can pretty much guantee that I could tell, or at least confuse it for a crappy lens.

<unwarranted snarky condescension snipped>

I like how you left out "most of the time" from my quote, so as to better erect your strawman fallacy. Kudos.

This will be child's play for you and a couple other purists with the keen eyes of a hawk, no doubt, but it's worth others having a look to see if they can easily spot the fake. Since a fake blur (ESPECIALLY a fake blur made in PS) sucks SO horribly bad, it should be obvious to all. So, let's have some fun.

One of these is a fake blur. Not only that, but it was faked in PS, which makes it especially suck. Which is the obvious fake blur, and what makes it obvious?

I do not wish to pontificate on the skills debate here, but i DO want to try my luck at the "guess the Bokeh" game! (do i win a fish in a bowel if i guess right?)
I am certainly no PS expert, but i am going to go with #1. and I will even give a brief reason as to why I think its the fake one.
the background seems to be fairly consistent in 2 and 3, but in #1, if you use the tree as "center point", and you look at the "bokeh", it appears to radiate outwards, and a few inches on either side of the tree, it kinda looks to me like the pattern changes, almost as if the cloning tool brushstrokes changed ever so slightly. hopefully i am not just imagining this....anyway, that's my input. I cant wait to hear the official answer and see who was right!

 

[Buckster]

I do not wish to pontificate on the skills debate here, but i DO want to try my luck at the "guess the Bokeh" game! (do i win a fish in a bowel if i guess right?)
I am certainly no PS expert, but i am going to go with #1. and I will even give a brief reason as to why I think its the fake one.
the background seems to be fairly consistent in 2 and 3, but in #1, if you use the tree as "center point", and you look at the "bokeh", it appears to radiate outwards, and a few inches on either side of the tree, it kinda looks to me like the pattern changes, almost as if the cloning tool brushstrokes changed ever so slightly. hopefully i am not just imagining this....anyway, that's my input. I cant wait to hear the official answer and see who was right!

Thanks for playing!

Still hoping Charlie will share his thoughts on it.

 

[esselle]

Not sure about anyone else, but Buckster, I'm learning a lot from you --appreciate you taking the time to 'teach.'

 

[snowbear114 46]

How about a WAG from the other Charlie? I'm going to guess #1 is the fake.

My reason is different than Pixmedics.