| » Forum Index » Readers' gallery » Topic: Convincing enough? |
|
Posted on 12/01/05 1:21:10 PM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
Convincing enough?
There was a request for a photo in the iStockphoto forum for an image of a couple standing in front of a house under construction (theirs). I found a couple of suitable images and put them together - the result is this (high compression, so it couldn't be used as is). Does it look montaged? _________________ A happy-go-lucky chap, always dressed in black |
Posted on 12/01/05 1:36:47 PM |
|
maiden
Golden Gif Gagster Posts: 471 Reply  |
Re: Convincing enough?
It still does look a little montaged although it's a very fine job. Personally I would blur the edge of their jackets a tad more and perhaps some whisps of flyaway hair on the female as demonstrated in Chapter 6 (Heads & Bodies): The solution for flyaway hair, page 128-129 as nobody ever has perfectly flat hair. But it is a great job as it stands, the colour matching is spot on as is the ambient lighting and very close to photorealistic. _________________ mad as a badger and twice as furry |
Posted on 12/01/05 1:38:26 PM |
|
tabitha 1
Guest Reply |
Re: Convincing enough?
It looks really good david, but there was something nagging at me that was just not right. I actually sent the link to my Dad, whos been a professional photographer since year dot (hope you dont mind?), and he agreed with me about the Depth of Field. For the building to be that much our of focus, it would have to be much further away than it is. Does that make sense?? _________________ "There are only two things a child will share willingly; communicable diseases and its mother's age." Benjamin Spock. |
Posted on 12/01/05 1:46:59 PM |
|
Steve Caplin
Administrator Posts: 7023 Reply  |
Re: Convincing enough?
I don't think the building is out of focus, I think this is a compression issue - the fine detail has just got blurred. It's also hard to tell how the blending works with this amount of compression. Any chance of seeing a less compressed version, perhaps at a smaller size? Looking really convincing, though. If I were framing this as a photographer, I might move the couple a little to the left there. |
Posted on 12/01/05 2:05:53 PM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
Re: Convincing enough?
There is a little blurring on the building, here's an 800x600 low compression version. _________________ It must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays |
Posted on 12/01/05 2:11:44 PM |
|
tabitha 1
Guest Reply |
Re: Convincing enough?
Ok, now your talking compression issues, its way above my head. I dont understand, how the building could be blurred and yet the couple would be so clear, if it were a compression issue? Please enlighten me  _________________ "There are only two things a child will share willingly; communicable diseases and its mother's age." Benjamin Spock. |
Posted on 12/01/05 2:14:25 PM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
Re: Convincing enough?
I saved the original JPEG at 100% compression, this makes it impossible to use (in case the person who requested it decided to take it from my site). The focus looked more blurred because of it. _________________ It must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays |
Posted on 12/01/05 2:16:26 PM |
|
tabitha 1
Guest Reply |
Re: Convincing enough?
Ahhhhh, things were so much simpler in the day of enlargers, chemicals and red-lights  _________________ "There are only two things a child will share willingly; communicable diseases and its mother's age." Benjamin Spock. |
Posted on 12/01/05 2:19:44 PM |
|
maiden
Golden Gif Gagster Posts: 471 Reply |
Re: Convincing enough?
I think the jpeg compression creates artifacts that look worse around blurry objects than sharp ones thereby increasing the effect of blurriness of the building. Depth of field is hard to gauge in photomontaging as the way it looks is dependant on many factors, like the f-stop of the camera, the size of the lens and even the blade curvature of the lens iris. So it is possible to create this level of burriness in the building with an f-stop of perhaps f2-f4. I don't think there really is an issue with the level of blurriness of the building only the blending of the people into the picture which is done really well as it stands but to make it truly photo perfect a few imperfections in the hair and the clothing need to introduced. _________________ mad as a badger and twice as furry |
Posted on 12/01/05 2:29:10 PM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
Re: Convincing enough?
It's difficult to convey the image at this size, there are small flyaway strands of hair, although they have belended into the background. The original image of the couple is here _________________ It must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays |
Posted on 12/01/05 2:38:53 PM |
|
mj
Guest Reply |
Re: Convincing enough?
Ok, enlighten me more on the compression. At 100% compression you get artifacts? but not with lets say 60%? My understanding is that any JPEG loses quality because of compression each time you save the file regaurdless of the compression factor. Am I on the right track?? Is there a % really makes a difference in the visual quality? _________________ -Never met a PS'er I didn't like- Will Rogers |
Posted on 12/01/05 2:39:35 PM |
|
maiden
Golden Gif Gagster Posts: 471 Reply |
Re: Convincing enough?
Right - yes then the compression is at fault as the whisps of hair are bearly visible - which is always going to be a problem with the internet. The only thing I can suggest, which you've probably already done, is to work at high res getting all the detail in you can and then resizing for the internet and hopefully it will all look like one continuous photograph rather than a montage of two. But hey it's a very professional image, and perhaps we are all looking at this from a montager's point of view knowing it to be a montage. I doubt I would have noticed if I had come across the image on the internet and would have probably thought it to be a normal photograph. _________________ mad as a badger and twice as furry |
Posted on 12/01/05 2:51:23 PM |
|
maiden
Golden Gif Gagster Posts: 471 Reply |
Re: Convincing enough?
You get more artifacts with the increase in compression so 100% isn't relative to 100% compression but 100% image quality. 60% compression means that there has been a loss of 40% of image data (filesize) which will result in greater amounts of artifacts that are commonplace on heavily compressed jpegs. 40% compression means a loss of 60% of the original filesize and more artifacts. So the more you save a jpeg at lower than 100% quality you will incur more artifacts. Which is why if you copy a jpeg image from the internet which has already been compressed the image quality will suffer more if you compress that image further, than if you had taken a photo with your camera and worked upon that one. _________________ mad as a badger and twice as furry |
Posted on 12/01/05 2:54:42 PM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
Re: Convincing enough?
MJ, yes, 100% compression (or a setting of zero in PS) will make the image look like it was taken on a very bad webcam. Each time you save it, it will degrade - like Nth generation copies of videos. There are acceptable levels of compression but if the file is destined for print, it's best to use no compression at all or save in a different format, such as TIFF, which uses lossless compression, similar to ZIP files. _________________ It must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays |
Posted on 12/01/05 3:00:27 PM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
Re: Convincing enough?
As a benchmark, this image of my son is untouched, other than resizing. Taken at f5.6, the turret behind is somewhat closer than the house in the montage and is considerably more blurred.  _________________ A happy-go-lucky chap, always dressed in black |
Posted on 12/01/05 3:04:21 PM |
|
maiden
Golden Gif Gagster Posts: 471 Reply |
Re: Convincing enough?
It's a pity you don't have Photoshop CS, David, which has the Lens Blur option which allows for f-stops, lens size and blade curvature, to simulate Depth of Field. However I agree there is nothing wrong with the level of blurring on the building. _________________ mad as a badger and twice as furry |
Posted on 12/01/05 3:09:24 PM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
Re: Convincing enough?
I do have CS, I upgraded recently. _________________ A happy-go-lucky chap, always dressed in black |
Posted on 12/01/05 3:10:43 PM |
|
maiden
Golden Gif Gagster Posts: 471 Reply |
Re: Convincing enough?
Oh right, have you had a chance to play with the Lens Blur feature then? http://www.computer-darkroom.com/tutorials/tutorial_9.htm _________________ mad as a badger and twice as furry |
Posted on 12/01/05 3:19:50 PM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
Re: Convincing enough?
No, I haven't really played with it, lens blur seems a little too fiddly for montage work and I can create it for real with the camera. _________________ A happy-go-lucky chap, always dressed in black |
Posted on 12/01/05 3:20:34 PM |
|
maiden
Golden Gif Gagster Posts: 471 Reply |
Re: Convincing enough?
That's true Edit: let's hope Steve adds a section about Lens Blur in his next book _________________ mad as a badger and twice as furry |
| page: 1 2 last |