Edited Photo

# 1 08-08-2003 , 06:40 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002

Location: Ohio, USA

Posts: 202

A couple of days ago, I got a new photo printer. I found some old family ski vacation pictures on decided to print a couple to test the quality. Looked as good as a regular photo. My mom came up to me and asked me if i could change one of our family photos. So I took it into photoshop and messed around with it to her and mine likings. Printed it off and people have been stunded by the orginal and new picture. None of those people had any background in graphics so I was sure if everything was all right.

So I attached the edited photo and would like any one to comment on it and see was looks wrong or what you think changed about it.

By the way it was taken in Whistler, BC, Canada. Beautiful place!

Attached Thumbnails

Click image for larger version

Name: famedit.jpg
Views: 378
Size: 286.0 KB
ID: 9787

mahalo,

Myk

<a href="https://www.metic.net" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" class="giveMeEllipsisa" target="_blank">www.metic.net</a><br />

Quote

# 2 08-08-2003 , 07:00 PM

Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2002

Location: London, UK

Posts: 2,800

it looks ok, there's no shadows on the snow from the trees, the background looks like a painting. There's no detail in between the group of people and the trees in the background. I know it's snow but there would be subtle differences in it and it would show. It's just too pure white. I could be 100% wrong and it's a real background but it just doesnt look quite right

Can you show us the original photo?

Alan

Technical Director - Framestore

Currently working on: Your Highness

IMDB

Quote

# 3 08-08-2003 , 09:19 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002

Location: Ohio, USA

Posts: 202

I was gonna wait to reveal the orginal but I guess it is hard to judge the editted without seeing it so here it is.

Attached Thumbnails

Click image for larger version

Name: editedfamoriginal.jpg
Views: 370
Size: 318.7 KB
ID: 9793

mahalo,

Myk

<a href="https://www.metic.net" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" class="giveMeEllipsisa" target="_blank">www.metic.net</a><br />

Quote

# 4 08-08-2003 , 09:21 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002

Location: Ohio, USA

Posts: 202

The poor quality is do to the camera. It was one of those disposable digitals. I'm still working on a good digital camera.

mahalo,

Myk

<a href="https://www.metic.net" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" class="giveMeEllipsisa" target="_blank">www.metic.net</a><br />

Quote

# 5 08-08-2003 , 09:25 PM

The Maya Mountain
Join Date: Aug 2002

Location: Seattle, WA

Posts: 8,245

the part that jumps the most at me is the area between the two in the back right. You can see the repeated pattern pretty evident there.

-Mike
The Maya Toolbelt

Quote

# 6 09-08-2003 , 05:04 AM

Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 51

what catches my eye the most is that the background seems so umm desaturated and the people in foreground are so vivid... I realize that the background is very snowy but still I believe it would have more color to it regardless of the snow... in the trees atleast...... especially the hanging limb in upper left foreground.

so Id either desaturate the people or play with the levels of the background.

Last edited by Harvezter; 09-08-2003 at 05:06 AM.

Quote

# 7 09-08-2003 , 05:41 AM

Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003

Location: union city, ca

Posts: 390

What catches my eye are the repeated white patterns all over the place (not blended in enough) and the person on the right. He doesnt seem to be on the right Z coordinate or ughh how can i say this...His depth doesnt match everyone elses and ill tell you why:

The guy on the right, take a look at his legs and where his foot touches...Now slowly start looking up and the part that catches me is where his right arm meets with the person onto his right (purple sweater). Its like as if he's leaning backwards because his legs are forward and his arms is behind the person next to him. It looks weird because both their feet (the guy on the far right and the person to his right) are standing on the same level, but as it goes up, the guy on the right seems as if he is a little bit behind the person next to him but his body doesnt show it because he is standing straight up.

It wouldve looked alright if it showed that the person all the way on the right was adjusting his hand far back enough in order to be behind the person to his right.

Also another thing that gave it off to me was his ski-thingy (i dont know what you call it) that he is holding on his right hand. If you look at it closely, youll see that it goes behind the ski-thingy of the person on his right. But his arms arent positioned to be going on that direction for his ski-thingy to go behind the person next to him. Look at his left hand and that shows that his hand is curved and positioned in a way that his ski-thingy he is holding is slanted and compare it with the one on his right hand.

Bahh its the Z-depth of that guy.

My suggestions would be to make the guy seem as if he's really behind or in front depending on what you wanna do but scale him to make him match his real height relevant to the people next to him and add a bit of darker shade on the parts closer to the person on his right esp his arm glove area.
Also add a very light shadow to where he is standing at, just a little bit. Its very hard to notice by just looking at it (unless you have ultra laser eyes) so use the color grabber tool or something and match it with the other peoples shadows (preferrably the ones on the outer area as well like him)

<a href="https://forums.simplymaya.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16675">May/June 2005 Challenge Entry</a>

Last edited by orgeeizm; 09-08-2003 at 05:44 AM.

Quote

# 8 09-08-2003 , 03:21 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002

Location: Ohio, USA

Posts: 202

Thanks for all your critiques. The desaturation of the background is due to the disposable camera and the heavy snow at that moment. As of right now no one has mentioned anything about the guy all the way on the right's snow on his clothes. In his original picture it wasn't snowing so he had absolutely no snow on him. The problem I faced with is Z-depth was that his feet were cut off at the point seen and his arm had a large chunk taken out of it. So I guess I made a compremise and fixed the arm instead of the feet because more people would notice the chunk out of his arm.

mahalo,

Myk

<a href="https://www.metic.net" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" class="giveMeEllipsisa" target="_blank">www.metic.net</a><br />

Quote

# 9 09-08-2003 , 06:26 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 1,257

in addittion to saturation/contrast and background edits i would mess with composition (in the classic photographic/picture sense) and edit its "framing?" (dunno if thats the right word) so that it follows the "golden square" rule and their faces/bodies are in the picture natural attention spots...

and havin a closer framing also fixes great part of the "zdepth problem" (as long as you have enough resolution to print it ok after...)

Attached Thumbnails

Click image for larger version

Name: famedit.jpg
Views: 330
Size: 74.7 KB
ID: 9808

Quote

# 10 10-08-2003 , 03:44 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: Nov 2002

Location: USA

Posts: 1,170

Originally posted by dragonfx
so that it follows the "golden square" rule and their faces/bodies are in the picture natural attention spots...

Originally Posted by

just curious, but what golden square rule are you using? you reframed it into a 2:1 ratio. there is nothing wong with the normal picture ratios for small format films which is 1.5:1. it is actually a pity that most digicams dont have a 1.5:1 ratio, but usually the 4:3 like most computer screens have user added image

. if you try for an professional look, a ratio of 1.25:1 would be really eye catching - that is what big format cams use. but i doubt the image allows printing out on 8x10 paper (i would not even try with anything that has less than 4 megapixel). and if the picture is supposed to look a bit wider and not to narrow, a 1.6:1 ratio would be fine ...

just my $ 0.02

Quote

# 11 11-08-2003 , 10:01 AM

Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 1,257

well i didnt did it with a compass...nor did i used the photoshop´s tools was just by eye.
i was aiming for 16:9(1.7) wich is aprox the golden rule(1+square root of 5)/2... and resulted in 575:304 (1.8) so to be made by eye is not that wrong... actually the attention focus points are not exact and were putted by eye followin the "roughly at thirds of the image" wich is what you should use when looking trough camera...

I suppose he has a higher resolution version in his pc and this is just for posting... anyways you can double resolution by software and then sharpen in lab mode...

Attached Thumbnails

Click image for larger version

Name: ready to print in small size....jpg
Views: 287
Size: 675.8 KB
ID: 9847

Quote

# 12 11-08-2003 , 10:18 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: Nov 2002

Location: USA

Posts: 1,170

oh ok. i dont want to be picky, but 575:304 is 1.89. well, my guess that is was about 2:1 was not by counting the pixel on the screen. it just (to me) made it a lot more like 2:1 than 16:10 (wide screen tvs are usually 16:9, right, but the 16:10 comes closer to what you wanted to aim at). (1+sqrt(5))/2 is about 1.62.

and now please dont rip my head off for playing with them numbers :p

Quote