Photoshop Project

On 10/23/2015 04:14 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

I don't go back and re-edit photos very often, but this photo is one
I've re-edited several times. I use it as an exercise in using the
Photoshop tools, layer masks, and whatever's new in PS.

It's a good exercise since the power lines require quite a bit of
Photoshopping. The woman is from a different shot of the same scene.

This is my latest effort. I started from scratch with the original
.jpg (top) and produced the bottom version. This was shot back in
2008 in .jpg before I started shooting in RAW.

Did I miss anything?

https://tonycooper.smugmug.com/AUE-P...8-12-02-X3.jpg




You did a great job, if I ever needed to do something like that I'd have
to have my wife edit it for me, what you did goes beyond my ability.

On 10/23/2015 04:28 PM, philo wrote:
On 10/23/2015 04:14 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

I don't go back and re-edit photos very often, but this photo is one
I've re-edited several times. I use it as an exercise in using the
Photoshop tools, layer masks, and whatever's new in PS.

It's a good exercise since the power lines require quite a bit of
Photoshopping. The woman is from a different shot of the same scene.

This is my latest effort. I started from scratch with the original
.jpg (top) and produced the bottom version. This was shot back in
2008 in .jpg before I started shooting in RAW.

Did I miss anything?

https://tonycooper.smugmug.com/AUE-P...8-12-02-X3.jpg





You did a great job, if I ever needed to do something like that I'd have
to have my wife edit it for me, what you did goes beyond my ability.



Called in "the expert". "Eagle eyes" detected that the figure you put
in does not have the same light source as the building and also is
missing her shadow.


She told me, she'd just omit the figure entirely but I think it adds to
the image in a positive way.

On 2015-10-23 22:13:04 +0000, philo said:

On 10/23/2015 04:28 PM, philo wrote:
On 10/23/2015 04:14 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

I don't go back and re-edit photos very often, but this photo is one
I've re-edited several times. I use it as an exercise in using the
Photoshop tools, layer masks, and whatever's new in PS.

It's a good exercise since the power lines require quite a bit of
Photoshopping. The woman is from a different shot of the same scene.

This is my latest effort. I started from scratch with the original
.jpg (top) and produced the bottom version. This was shot back in
2008 in .jpg before I started shooting in RAW.

Did I miss anything?

https://tonycooper.smugmug.com/AUE-P...8-12-02-X3.jpg


You did a great job, if I ever needed to do something like that I'd have
to have my wife edit it for me, what you did goes beyond my ability.

Called in "the expert". "Eagle eyes" detected that the figure you put
in does not have the same light source as the building and also is
missing her shadow.

She told me, she'd just omit the figure entirely but I think it adds to
the image in a positive way.

I agree with your wife. The added figure is just "wrong" and if it is
going to be added it needs to be done right.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:13:04 -0500, philo wrote:

On 10/23/2015 04:28 PM, philo wrote:
On 10/23/2015 04:14 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

I don't go back and re-edit photos very often, but this photo is one
I've re-edited several times. I use it as an exercise in using the
Photoshop tools, layer masks, and whatever's new in PS.

It's a good exercise since the power lines require quite a bit of
Photoshopping. The woman is from a different shot of the same scene.

This is my latest effort. I started from scratch with the original
.jpg (top) and produced the bottom version. This was shot back in
2008 in .jpg before I started shooting in RAW.

Did I miss anything?

https://tonycooper.smugmug.com/AUE-P...8-12-02-X3.jpg





You did a great job, if I ever needed to do something like that I'd have
to have my wife edit it for me, what you did goes beyond my ability.



Called in "the expert". "Eagle eyes" detected that the figure you put
in does not have the same light source as the building and also is
missing her shadow.

I agree about her lighting, she should be in shadow, or at least he
back should be, even if she was standing in the sunlight. But, being
in shadow already she should not be casting a shadow of her own but,
if she did, it should be lying in the area which is already in shadow.


She told me, she'd just omit the figure entirely but I think it adds to
the image in a positive way.

Agreed.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:13:04 -0500, philo wrote:

Called in "the expert". "Eagle eyes" detected that the figure you put
in does not have the same light source as the building and also is
missing her shadow.

I'll add my amateur opinion, and agree. The figure looks dropped in,
and over sharpened. Either over sharpened, or her outline just needs
to be blurred a bit. I also agree with the shadow/lighting issues that
were mentioned by a few others. She is standing in the shadow of the
building, but appears to be brightly lit by the sun. That would seem
to be difficult to deal with while still making her noticed. The
bushes at the lower right used for fill are over blurred.

She told me, she'd just omit the figure entirely but I think it adds to
the image in a positive way.

Agreed, if he can get her to blend in. I also agree that without the
before photo, I probably wouldn't have noticed much at all.