Printable View
It being winter up here in the Northeast lately I've gotten a lot of pictures like this one:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-f...4/untitled.jpg
That is, a perfectly fine, in-focus songbird with a tremendous amount of out-of-focus clutter in the background. It's way beyond what can be removed with a little judicious cloning.
Does anyone have a good workflow for replacing pretty much the entire background, while keeping the foreground (bird and twig it's perched on) intact?
Could get a free trial of Topaz Remask 3 from Topaz Labs.
I know what ya mean winter can be a tuff "bird in the sticks" time of year.
Another Idea is to get creative with the photography rather then photoshop. For songbirds it's easy & even fun to set up feeders and perches allowing you more control for nice cleaner backgrounds.
This time of year I like to use suet along with various seed to attract woodpeckers, nuthatches and chikadees. My wife and I both enjoy backyard bird feeding and I like to take advantage of the photo opps.
As far as the Photoshop tips, I don't like to do complete overhauls of images, and replacing entire backgrounds.
By the way Alan Murphy's Guide to Songbird set-up is a great book full of insight for Songbird Set-up.
If you blur the BG here it will look fake and is easily spotted you could cut and paste the bird onto a different image with a clean bg but again depending on your PS skills could also be spotted
I never blur my BG in post I always pay attention to the BG in the field to make sure it's not a distraction
That is just too much to take away and it will most likely look altered once done IMO. For me winter is a great time for feeder setup photography with the winter residents as well as some of the visiting northern finches when they show up. That's what I would do (feeder setup), and in the meantime just accept this particular image as what it is...a nice sparrow image in cluttered habitat...
I will respectfully disagree, I have replaced busy backgrounds like this with successfully, however it involve a tedious selection process. Here is my take on the keys to having a good chance of having the final image looking good when taking this on:
- First, need to be able to make a good selection on the main in-focus subject(s) and mask accordingly. In the above image, I believe this is the case.
- Second, you need a good background. I have had success using backgrounds from images of foliage taken out of focus and then further blurred in PS using the gaussian blur. Because it starts as a real-out-of-focus-due-to-DOF the further gaussian blur still looks natural, at least to me.
- Third, when laying the new background in place, separately tweaking the brightness of the subject and background will likely be necessary so it looks correct rather than one looking over/under exposed compared to the other.
- Fourth, I've found the edges (such as where there is hair or feathers) of the subject often need to be color adjusted a bit in order to create a nice blending with the new background. I go to pixel levels, select the color from the subject near the part of the edge I'm working on, and brush on at reduced opacity (30%-50%) on where it I need to subdue the 'glow' that can be present. This is tedious work and requires constant re-selction of the color as you move around a bird or branch. But by doing so the edges blend much better and don't look like a cutout any longer.
Again, this is rather tedious, but I have saved or improved images that otherwise are overwhelmed by a busy and unattractive background.
Barry
Barry, I did not say it could not be done but that it is not worth the effort it is far easier to use a set up or work a subject to you get a nice BG. You are talking about an hour or more of PS work for a single Sparrow image while a set up would produce hundreds of images with less effort getting it right at the time of capture will save you a ton of time in post in will almost always produce a better finished image.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Ekstrand
Don,
Fair enough, I was just trying to say that the outcome can look good and not be obviously altered if you put in the time and effort. Whether or not it is worth the effort to is an individual decision, it certainly is slow and tedious as I indicated before and it isn't going to be something to commonly apply to a batch of images. For myself, I still look at these things as a learning exercise as much as anything else, so I find it worthwhile to take on a challenge like this periodically just to try to improve my PS skills.
Barry
No problem Barry coming from film I am so used to getting the BG right before pushing the shutter button I have never spent much time practicing composite skills in PS
I also live in an area where winter bird photography often consists of a bird surrounded by sticks and twigs. I must be one of the least expert at post-processing in BPN, but here is a way I have devised as an attempt to improve things using PS Elements. It's not by any means ideal but it can sometimes produce more pleasing images when used judiciously.
1. Duplicate the base layer.
2. Decide what needs to remain in focus, i.e. in the focal plane of the bird and any perch it may be on.
3. This is the hardest part. Select it using the Quick Selection tool, and carefully trim the selection so there are no selected or unselected bits where they're not wanted.
4. Invert the selection.
5. Apply Filter -> Blur -> Average, and the part now selected will go completely oof.
6. Pull back the opacity of the duplicated layer till it looks right (and that can be a matter of opinion and difficult too).
7. Merge the layers.
Here's an example that took me about 15 minutes with your picture. Many people may feel that it looks artificial or odd, but it's a possible solution in this situation. If anyone can come up with a better or easier variation of this I'd be very grateful.
Richard
I like this! But why merge the layers? There is rarely a need to do that or to flatten an image. Certainly not on your master file. What if you change your mind later about the opacity, or spot a glitch in your masking after you do an output JPEG or make a print? No need to burn bridges.
The only problem with this method is the OOF focus areas do not resemble what A lens would produce, the blur or bokeh of a lens has a certain look produce by the amount and type of aperture blades used in its design PS does a poor job of replicating that. Also the OOF areas created by a lens have a gradual transition from in focus to out of focus if this was done in camera the sparrow would also be a little softer towards the tail as is it looks slightly pasted. Now not everyone will pick this up and this is one of the better methods I have seen for blurring the BG.
