Specific questions on BG masking, newton rings, how to

[LinzRiverBalmer]

Please move this if its in the wrong forum. Please excuse typos, on iPad.

i have very good background in photo and color basics, had PS experience for web building in 2002.

lots of Mac experience but now mainly on a high res pc at home with Corel paintshop pro, Lightroom, and nik color effects.

im pretty novice when it comes to post processing, I'm pretty pure too. Meaning unless you really want it to look like a painting and market it that way just don't do it.

drives me crazy here to see completely post processed painter looking images in a bird category in a contest, separate the categories please.... This is a it issue here locally.

i do fine with color, some cloning, but haven't gotten into layers.

im self taught as my father just doesn't have time and by his admission a bad teacher, yup I agree.

so I have this hummingbird shot, it just won 3rd place in the amateur animal category in our state fair, almost 100 entries in the category so I'm happy.

however the critiques I got up front and behind the scenes later from a few judges I know and respect were in reference to the BG.

needed to be more muted less splotchy, I agree, though I'm just starting to agree with this method.

father does not and told me to leave it, I didn't, I did a heavy free handed Vignette to accomplish this.

was happy until seeing it up at th fair tonight and realized I had completely missed big Newton Rings. Biggest in dark green underneath hummingbird.

so can you all tell me, how o you obtain good BG, is it always masking??

my best example is the flying owl shot just posted in Avian, gorgeous BG.

please advise on how to do this correctly.

the first is my fixed post processed entered photo....

the 2nd is the original un cropped, unedited, nothing done to BG so you can see what I did do.

thanks for any help, I have many photos that I need to work on BG and just lost at best way to go about.

[arash_hazeghi]

Hi Linz,

Looking at your photo it was taken with a short lens.

The best way to get a smooth BG is using a long lens with fast aperture. Blurring the BG in photoshop cannot achieve this effect. The reason is the blur that results from aperture blades in not simple Gaussian blur that photoshop applies. Blurring the BG in the Photoshop will make it look unnatural and somewhat "fake" to the trained eye, like your example. you have to get it in the camera. if the BG has some noise you can reduce it by NR, but blurring it should be avoided if you want a natural-looking photo.



good luck

[Don Lacy]

Hi Linz, I agree with Arash I never blur my BG in post they are always achieved with the lens and shooting distance and the placement of the subject relative to the BG. The elements that you need to be aware of is your lens focal length, the aperture you are shooting at, your distance to the subject and the subjects distance to the bg. Once you understand how these all interact it becomes relatively simple to do in camera.

[gail bisson]

Hi Linz,
The time to get a good BG is at the time of the shot. I have learned that the BG is just as important as the bird. I rarely bother to take a shot unless I am fairly happy with the BG. ( or a lifer, documentary shot)
I never do a blur on my BG because they always end up looking fake and contrived.
If I have a cooperative bird and am not happy with the BG I will move to the left or right or up and down until I get a BG I am happy with. Often, when doing this the bird flies off but you will get keepers eventually. I read your intro post and realize that moving around quickly will be difficult for you so I would work on set-ups where you can control the BG. By setting a perch up far enough away from a pleasantly colored BG and using a long lens ( extenders really make for good soft BG's) you will get that lovely dreamy BG like Arash has on his awesome owl shot.
Getting to know areas that have good BG's is as important as finding the bird eg. Giant's Castle in South Africa, my pond with reeds in Cape Breton, fall foliage in the distance, a distant mountain or lake.
The thing about getting the best BG possible is, it pays huge dividends when you enter contests because you do not have to manipulate the image at all. 99% of contests do not allow you to change anything except basic things like contrast, levels and sharpening.
Gail

[Don Lacy]

Hi Linz, I just read your introductory post and I see that you are limited in your mobility and the equipment you can use.Your biggest challenge is going to be your equipment the small sensors and large apertures of PS cameras make it extremely difficult to achieve the shallow DOF you see in most bird images try to get as close to your subject as possible and use the cameras largest aperture and pay attention to your subjects BG. Your BG does not have to be completely OOF to produce a pleasing image try to find BG that are a single tonality and or color. For example the only real issue I have your Hummingbird BG are the bright areas which draw the viewers eye away from the subject not so much the fact it's not completely OOF.

[John Guastella]

Linz, I disagree with all of the above comments claiming that you can't get a naturally blurred background using post-processing tools. The lens blur filter in the latest version of Photoshop is very good. I suggest that you get one of the excellent books on Photoshop techniques -- Martin Evening's is the very best IMO -- and after learning some of his techniques, see what you can accomplish in PS.

Having said that, I do agree that it makes things easier if you can acquire the image with a nice BG in the first place. And by nice, I don't mean just a blurred BG, but one without many large distractions, which really seems to be the main problem with the BG in the images you've posted.

John

[LinzRiverBalmer]

Wow... Thank you all very much for all the insight, its all very helpful in regard to far off long range shots.


I should have added technical info about this picture in particular but was aiming more generally at improving BG all around for any image that does better with shallow DOF and blurred backdrop.


that being said, regarding this image of the hummer let me give you some technical info, and then I would like another opinion...lol


this hummer was 2 feet away from me, maybe 3... I sat on a wall for an hour and a half, all handheld whenever he landed.


was early afternoon, but it was under a tree canopy.


the BG is actually pure tree canopy, with foliage that made a big umbrella almost to the ground to Duck underneath.
the branch the hummer is on was eye level or less to me, maybe 4 feet up off the ground.


so the bright distracting blotches, are high sunlight outside the tree canopy.... The brights are really the only parts that bothered me, and even in the edited image, the bright spots top right corner are what got hammered on critique wise.


here is the technical camera info for this shot, again partial, iPad apps mess up exif data


exposure 1/500s
ISO 125
flash fired on
macro mode.


in general my pictures, including this one, have mostly been shot with a Sony CyberShot DSC HX 100/v with a Carl Zeiss lens.


specs for the camera...

Lens Type : Carl Zeiss® Vario-Sonnar T®.


Imaging Sensor : 1/2.3" (7.77mm) "Exmor R" CMOS Sensor
Processor : BIONZ®
Pixel Gross : 16.8MP
Effective Picture Resolution : 16.2MP
Color Filter System : RGB primary color filters


Exposure Compensation : Plus / Minus 2.0EV, 1 / 3EV step


ISO to 3200


Aperture (Max.) : F2.8 (W)-5.6 (T)
Optical Zoom : 30x


Focal Length (35mm equivalent) : Still 16:9: 29-870mm, Still 4:3: 27-810mm, Movie 16:9: 29-870mm (Standard mode), 30-900mm (Active mode), Movie 4:3: 36-1080mm (Standard mode), 37-1110mm (Active mode)




Flash Coverage : ISO Auto: Approx. 0.3-Approx. 12.7m (Approx. 0.984'-Approx. 41.7') (W) / Approx. 2.0-Approx. 5.9m (Approx. 6.56'-Approx. 19.4') (T), ISO3200: up to Approx. 18.0m (Approx. 59.1) (W) / Approx. 8.4m (Approx. 27.6') (T)

Thanks to family I just upgraded to the newest version of this same camera the DSC HX 300, Carl Zeiss lens, even better everything.


however, no I will never be able to manage, handle, or afford one of the huge cameras with extenders like I see birders using.


someone suggested one one of the cameras like a Nikon 1 or Sony alpha, however I've looked at and even tried them and don't have enough dexterity in my fingers hands to use them effectively they are too small and controls too small, I have neuropathy.


Pretty much I'm stuck with the high end bridge point and shoots.


my father lets me borrow his extras as needed, like tripods, if I have help around. I have used his camera a couple of times, but its mounted on a tripod and he gives me the little squeeze remote fire thingy...lol


i can't manage his camera with a lens on it, I think its a canon mark d 7 or similar.


thanks for any and all help, its all extremely appreciated

[arash_hazeghi]

Linz, I disagree with all of the above comments claiming that you can't get a naturally blurred background using post-processing tools. The lens blur filter in the latest version of Photoshop is very good. I suggest that you get one of the excellent books on Photoshop techniques -- Martin Evening's is the very best IMO -- and after learning some of his techniques, see what you can accomplish in PS.

John

I am not sure. Why don't you provide an example so we can see how this synthetic blur looks ?

Lens blur has been around for some time, it has the same issue.

[DickLudwig]

I agree with everyone; there is no doubt you can get a better background with a long lens and a near wide open aperture and a full frame camera but many can't afford a rig like this. What makes the background distracting are all the bright spots which pull your eye away from the hummer. But like John, I think you can certainly reduce to near eliminate these bright spots in LR 4 / 5 or PS depending on how much time you want to spend doing this.

If you're familiar with LR take the Adjustment Bush tool and size it a bit smaller than the average bright spot. Click on Auto Mask and reduce the Flow and Feather each to about 75. Now put the plus sign of the brush circle into the center of a bright spot. Left Click while moving it around but make sure the plus sign stays within the bright area and never touches any other color. If you accidently touch a green area hit undo and try again. Do this to 3-4 areas. Hit the letter O on the keyboard which will show a magenta color mask which indicates the areas you've selected (hit O again to remove mask). If the mask indicates only the white areas which you want to remove you are all set for the next step. Now with the mask turned off move the slider on the Exposure control to the left to reduce the exposure and darken the spots you have selected. In all likelihood the spots will turn a gray color. Move the slider until you get a light to medium gray color in the formerly white areas. Don't make it look too dark.

Now go down to the bottom of the brush menu and click on the wide rectangle with the X in it which is located to the right of where it says Color. When you click the X in the box a new box appears with an eye dropper (Color Picker). Click the Color Picker and hold down and continue to hold down the left mouse button and slide the Color Picker into the image. As the Color Picker moves over a color you will notice that the color in the bright spots change taking on the color that the picker is over. Move the picker over a green area that you think will blend well with the green leaves that surround the white spots you've selected. Once you find a good match, lift you finger off the left mouse button (that's right you've been holding down the left mouse button the whole time you're selecting the correct color). Now that color will stay in the selected areas. If the area looks too dark or light slide the exposure control until it looks right.

Once you are satisfied it's time to select a few more bright areas but first rather than continuing in the same Mask select a New mask which is located at the top at the top of the menu to the right of the word Mask. You start a new mask because LR will get overloaded with things to remember if you do everything within the same mask and will slow down, especially if you don't have a lot of RAM. Secondly and just as important everything within the same mask will have the same look. You want these changes to look real so like in Nature you want your changes to have many variations in color and tone. You now repeat the process again but make sure to use a slightly different exposure adjustment and a slightly different color.

Once all the bright white areas are done to your satisfaction you may want to tone down some of the brightest green areas. This is easier to do because there already is color in the area. Typically you can just select a few very bright areas in the same way you did the white areas, then try moving the Highlights slider to the left to reduce the brightness in the selected areas. For most of these areas this may be all you'd have to do. Again make a number of different masks.

Now go to some of the darkest background areas and do the same thing except instead of using the Highlight slider use the Shadows slider and move it to the right which will lighten the dark area. The large dark area under the hummer should definitely be lightened. Go slow and don't overdo an adjustment.

Also try adjusting the Saturation up or down to make the area less dominant.

If you try this post your results as I'm sure everyone would like to see how it comes out.

[LinzRiverBalmer]

DickLudwig, thank you for taking the time to write that out.

it will be the first thing I try step by step on LR when my computer is back.

sounds like a good technique and one I should know for other images.

many thanks to all replies