Dreamy background effects

amoringello
Posted 26/08/2008 - 15:35 Link
Yeah, the thing with GB is it takes all surrounding pixels, so your bride will blur into the brick wall (or if masked out, the blank area is still used in the calculations). There is a way to mask and not have masked pixels affect your image, but it can still create a bit of a halo.

I had a hard time getting GB to look right with these sorts of images, thus I use Lens Blur (which you wont have). Its not always the best but it seems to get around some of these issues.
You may want to cut out the bride, then smear the edges to create similar colors inside the mask, apply GB, then re-trim to the original mask. This might help eliminate the halo effect.
Hopefully someone with a little more PS knowledge can help how to mask out an area and still GB to look "correct".
Edited by amoringello: 26/08/2008 - 15:36
GaryMoffat
Posted 26/08/2008 - 15:36 Link
Here you go my attempt:-

1. Clone away the distractions.
2. Duplicate layer.
3. Blur the duplicated layer, create a mask.
4. Paint back in the details.

Comment Image


Some more work to clean up the "Pseudo" depth of field is required but its not bad I think.

Regards,

Gary.
gartmore
Posted 26/08/2008 - 16:26 Link
I'm using PSE5 and set GB to radius 10 pixels over the entire duplicate layer

Just seen Gary's after posting this, very good indeed

Ken
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Edited by gartmore: 26/08/2008 - 16:29
stevejcoe
Posted 26/08/2008 - 19:01 Link
Here is my attempt

Method
1. Create duplicate layer
2. Select the copied layer
3. Make a selection around the bride
4. Feather edges 5-10 radius
5. Inverse the selection
6. Apply Gaussian blur. I went all the way up to 25
7. Select Normal blending mode and move opacity slider to taste
8. Flatten layers
9. Adjust using levels to taste

[IMG]http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/stevejcoe/_IGP5034a.jpg[/IMG]
George Lazarette
Posted 26/08/2008 - 19:06 Link
This has been an interesting exercise. I have to say that I think Steve's effort is the best so far.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
johnriley
Posted 26/08/2008 - 19:17 Link
None are saleable yet, the effects are a bit "blunt" IMHO. There is no substitute at a wedding for getting things right in camera as there is just no time to mess about too much afterwards, at least not if you want to make a profit.

Given that many people don't really "see" a photograph though, you might get away with straightening, levels and burning in the unwanted figures to reduce their prominence.
Best regards, John
fatspider
Posted 26/08/2008 - 19:41 Link
Quote:
There is no substitute at a wedding for getting things right in camera
IMHO theres nothing like getting it right in camera for ANY image

As for the image been saleable....I WISH!!!! this is my Niece's wedding and I was roped into the photography under sufferance fortunately my family are easily pleased, and as John has rightfully pointed out they like most people are unable to see the faults in this or any of the other pics I took, my Niece would be quite happy with the pic the way it is, but me being me I just wanted to improve it for my own satisfaction.

I definately must have cocked up somewhere with my initial attempts with Gausian Blur, Garys image is very much similar to what I have achieved using Kens suggestion, but I also like Steves attempt with leaving the guests in, I think it balances the image somehow.

I'll probably end up doing one of each and letting her decide which she likes best, unfortunately I took three different snaps of this and she wants all three , looks like I might be busy with photoshop for a while longer

Thanks to all who have responded, I'll post the finished result/s when done.
My Names Alan, and I'm a lensaholic.
My PPG link
My Flckr link
Don
Posted 26/08/2008 - 20:28 Link
there is what really seperates the amatuers from the pros....
I'd set up similar shots in stacks, in aperture, (lightroom surely has a similar feature) and start by showing the ones I think she'll want.(hiding the others).
If I see disapointment, or hear a sigh, then I'll "FIND" another similar image to show her!
Believe me, with 1200 stills and five or six hours of editing, to sort at the end of a wedding, the last thing I need is a teary eyed bride, pouring over redundant shots, asking me to photoshop ten so she can choose one!

I was too busy to pitch in today, but saw you were in good hands! Did you find any how to's on creating ethereal glow effects to an image?
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Edited by Don: 26/08/2008 - 20:29
Bob and his Pentax
Posted 26/08/2008 - 21:49 Link
Hi all,

I've done something very similar to efforts above but tried to emulate Depth of field effect using lens blur...

First a bit a straightening up
Then make a selection around the bride using polygonal lasso, expand and feather selection copy to another layer.
Make a duplicate layer of whole picture, create mask for this layer, apply linear gradient from about the brides feet through to bottom of door then white in mask to top of picture (as this is all the same distance so should be the same amount out of focus)
On the duplicate layer apply LENS blur with the depth of field effect being controlled by the layer mask
Ensure layers are (top to bottom) bride, blurred copy, original and you have the following...

Comment Image


I think it would have been better to have cloned out the man with the light green shirt just to the right of the bride at the start as he still seem quite dominant

Good luck
Bob
Good luck

Bob

Pentax user since 1978, Digital since 1997.
Kit includes: K-7, K20D, K10D, *istDS, full set DA* lens, etc

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.



Proudly supporting Pentax User

Samsung Logo Asahi Pentax Logo