Image Edit Request! (free) For my stepbrothers birthday.

[heathr]

Hi!

I read the guidelines for requesting a free image edit request but please excuse me if this is the wrong forum (?).

I have a photo I'd love to photoshop a pair of strangers OUT of. My stepbrother and I just did an incredible hike at Zion National Park, and I'd love to blow up the picture and frame it for his birthday. The problem is the strangers in the pic are very distracting (in my opinion) and take away from the main focus of the image. Therefore I'd like to request help in removing the strangers (the 2 people on the left, in the orange and blue shirt).


Typically I would love instructions on how to do this myself, but unfortunately I don't have Adobe Photoshop and my image editing skills are very limited (to Picasa, hehe). Therefore if anybody would like to help me photoshop this image, it would be GREATLY appreciated!

I understand a request like this can take a lot of time and effort so I will completely understand if I receive no offers. I thought I would try! This image is originally in RAW format and I had to compress it for this post, but please let me know if/how I can send the original file (I have a flickr account too). If you need any other images (I have quite a few of the same shot from a slightly different angle) please let me know.

Thanks and hope to hear from some of you soon!

Kind regards!

 

[MrToM]

Happy birthday...



FULL Size version... View attachment stepbrothers-birthday-img_9115.zip

Regards.
MrTom.

 

[heathr]

WOW thank you so much MrTom!

May I ask what program you used, and how long it took you?
I'm so amazed! I can't wait to learn how to edit like this; I have countless photos I'd be much happier with if random strangers didn't get in the way.

Again, thank you!!

 

[dv8_fx]

WOW thank you so much MrTom!

May I ask what program you used, and how long it took you?
I'm so amazed! I can't wait to learn how to edit like this; I have countless photos I'd be much happier with if random strangers didn't get in the way.

Again, thank you!!

As you are in a Photoshop Forum, members here like MrTom use Photoshop .... http://www.adobe.com/downloads.html .

Download the trial and give it a try.


...... ... but again, LiZad says... why do I have the feeling the original photo was already shopped?

 

[heathr]

...... ... but again, LiZad says... why do I have the feeling the original photo was already shopped?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this question? Are you talking about my original photo I posted?

I thought "Photoshop" was a general term and could belong to multiple photo-editing programs (i.e. not just Adobe). Sorry for that silly question then. :redface:

 

[dv8_fx]

Tho it's roots came from the photography world, the term "Photoshop" made its way into everyday jargon. ie.. That image was "Photoshopped" . "I'll photoshop that image".

The one and only PHOTOSHOP we speak of and used by members here is the image editing program.


As for the image, I was just saying ... coz the 2 individuals on the left look kind of distorted (maybe caused by camera lens?) and the shadow angle doesn't match those cast by the couple on the right. ..... just a passing comment, no biggie.

 

[heathr]

Oh ok, I understand. I assume Adobe Photoshop is the best image-editing software that's out there?

Ah yes, I agree they do look distorted. This was taken by a 10-18mm Canon wide-angle lens so any people in the corners and/or sides are usually distorted.
The original photo hasn't been photoshopped (yet!) but now that MrTom helped me remove those strangers, I'll try and enhance the photo a little more with colors/sharpness (I'm definitely not good enough though to move around shadows, hehe).

I appreciate you explaining your comment though because I find expert photo observations interesting. I love this kind of stuff! I've just began picking up photography as a hobby recently and am excited to learn!

 

[dv8_fx]

Stick around and check out our Photography Forum section.

Post your queries and I'm sure TomMann (Photography Section Moderator) will be glad to help you out.

 

[MrToM]

WOW thank you so much MrTom!

May I ask what program you used, and how long it took you?
I'm so amazed! I can't wait to learn how to edit like this; I have countless photos I'd be much happier with if random strangers didn't get in the way.

Again, thank you!!

Your Welcome.

dv8_fx has covered virtually everything anyway but yeah, Photoshop and about an hour....which included going to the toilet.....at least once.

Think yourself as my good deed for the month, freebies are few and far between.

Without making it sound 'too' easy it was pretty easy.....rocks and trees clone really easy owing to their random nature, this image was basically rocks with a few trees thrown in for good measure so it wasn't that taxing on the small brain I have at my disposal.

I'd say 95% of it was pure 'Clone Stamp' tool, the rest 'Healing Brush'. I had to go 'Old School' as I don't have the 'Random Stranger Removal' tool extension plug-in.

Glad you like it, it was fun to do.

Regards.
MrTom.

 

[Tom Mann]

Hi Everyone -

As Heather said, the image from her Rebel T4i seems to have been run through Canon's relatively simple DPP program, but not Photoshop. The directions of the shadows do diverge...



... but that can come from either or both of two causes:

(a) an exaggerated perspective caused by a wide angle lens. Hers was set to 10 mm FL on a crop frame sensor body. That's equivalent to about 17 mm in standard, full frame / 35 mm terms. That's really wide.

(b) the source of light is only a short distance behind the subjects. This is obviously not the case in her outdoor shot, LOL.

Here's a first-dance shot at a wedding I covered a couple of years ago. In it, the diverging shadows are due to both of the above effects.



=============

Heather: "...The original photo hasn't been photoshopped (yet!) but now that MrTom helped me remove those strangers, I'll try and enhance the photo a little more with colors/sharpness (I'm definitely not good enough though to move around shadows, hehe)..."

Your photo is essentially perfect with respect to brightness, color, sharpness, etc. Unless you want to intentionally add some crazy effect, my advice would be not to touch it in any way. Unless you have a color calibrated monitor and graphics card and a lot of experience, you are more likely to muck it up rather than improve it. This is a common error almost every PS newbie makes: They think they can improve a photo, whereas it's already just fine.

Just my $0.02,

Tom M

 

[Tom Mann]

BTW, Heather, one short elaboration of my previous comment: The reason behind the necessity for having a accurately calibrated display is that even if you have the best eye in the world for color and tone, and you are a world class expert in Photoshop, if your display is inaccurate, you'll adjust things to make your images look good on your display, but there is a good chance that they will look somewhere between "bad", and "absolutely horrible" to pros, photo editors, contest judges, etc. who are using displays which have been calibrated to the international standards. In fact, we regularly get visitors who become utterly incensed when, after asking for a critique, are told that their images are too dark, too bright, too saturated, too red, ... whatever. They simply can't believe that their display is lying to them.

So, w.r.t. the image of Zion NP that you posted, the bottom line is that if you think that it needs to be tweaked (ie, when viewed on your system), there's a 99% chance your monitor is misleading you. Technically, it's a really nice image, exactly as is, and I'm not known for readily giving out high complements on technical aspects of photos, LOL.

Tom

PS - FYI, my comments are based on looking at your image on a monitor which costs $1500 because of its superb color and tonal accuracy. This monitor also comes with its own hardware calibrator (which I use every couple of weeks).

 

[dv8_fx]

PS - FYI, my comments are based on looking at your image on a monitor which costs $1500 because of its superb color and tonal accuracy. This monitor also comes with its own hardware calibrator (which I use every couple of weeks).

Which monitor model is this Tom?

 

[Tom Mann]

Hi V - It's the NEC 27" LED wide gamut 2 with the Spectraview2 hardware calibrator, and yes, don't rub it in that that B&W in NYC recently dropped the price by about $150 from around $1550 (USD) when I bought it about half a year ago, to just under $1300. I initially got the 24" version and quickly realized that a few more inches would be a lot more acceptable on the home front than putting my old monitor next to it as a 2nd screen, essentially for just one purpose: just to display the palettes, menus and tool bars in PS.

I absolutely LOVE it. For example, I always used to be nervous about the calibration on my old LCD monitor drifting and was constantly checking it with my Color Munki, but this thing is LED based, and has been rock solid -- it just doesn't change.

The wide gamut is also very, very nice to have. As u know, I love bright saturated colors and often walk on the edge of some areas being out of gamut, but with this wide gamut monitor it's easy to spot this by eye without having to turn on PS's gamut warning. Another absolutely wonderful thing about it is that if I dim the room lights, I can see the differences in darks under (5,5,5), and brights above (250, 250, 250). With my old monitor, this was an iffy proposition.

Having this monitor has actually saved me time when I'm preparing images for publication because I have more confidence that my color and tonal decisions will be correct, whereas before, I always was double checking myself by viewing images that I was about to submit on other (calibrated) systems at work.

If you are in the market, I can heartily recommend both the 24 and 27 inch versions of it.

Cheers,

Tom

 

[Tom Mann]

PS - The one problem with this monitor is that whenever I'm rushing to get something done, and just don't have the time to spend really tweaking the image, this monitor lets me know that it isn't my best work, and I'm always tempted to spend more time on an image that just doesn't deserve that much TLC, LOL.

For example, one of the reasons the "first dance" shot that I posted above was in the reject pile was because of deep shadows on the floor and the blown highlights near the strobe providing the rim lighting. My assistant was holding that strobe. The line of guests in the background inched forward, but she didn't move with them, hence, the spill from the strobe lit them up. On my old monitor, the resulting shadows and blown highlights wouldn't have jumped out at me as emphatically.

T

 

[heathr]

Interesting, I didn't even notice that the shadows diverged and that that may be suspect. Very fun to read reasons why though! Thanks for sharing Tom Mann.

Your photo is essentially perfect with respect to brightness, color, sharpness, etc. Unless you want to intentionally add some crazy effect, my advice would be not to touch it in any way. Unless you have a color calibrated monitor and graphics card and a lot of experience, you are more likely to muck it up rather than improve it. This is a common error almost every PS newbie makes: They think they can improve a photo, whereas it's already just fine.

Thank you for the tip! I will admit I probably fall for this error ALL the time. For example, I thought the distant mountains (in my photo) looked too washed out so I was going to try and do something to perhaps darken them (contrast or shadows? I'm not even sure. I'm such a n00b to photoshopping so I just tinker with the options). But I trust your advice and will leave it untouched, especially since you think the photo is good!

BTW, Heather, one short elaboration of my previous comment: The reason behind the necessity for having a accurately calibrated display is that even if you have the best eye in the world for color and tone, and you are a world class expert in Photoshop, if your display is inaccurate, you'll adjust things to make your images look good on your display, but there is a good chance that they will look somewhere between "bad", and "absolutely horrible" to pros, photo editors, contest judges, etc. who are using displays which have been calibrated to the international standards.

Thanks for the explanation. I have noticed that with multiple sources the colors/photo quality can vary greatly. Even at work, using both my monitors, the colors will drastically differ. It's crazy.

Technically, it's a really nice image, exactly as is, and I'm not known for readily giving out high complements on technical aspects of photos, LOL.

I'm so gracious for this compliment! Especially knowing you're using such an accurate monitor. Thank you!

 

[Tom Mann]

Heather: "...For example, I thought the distant mountains (in my photo) looked too washed out so I was going to try and do something to perhaps darken them (contrast or shadows?..."

Atmospheric haze between you and the distant mountains is what is causing the loss of contrast. Leaving it in, is more realistic - no question about it.

In fact, in the old days, people didn't like it either, and its effects were reduced by using a glass polarizing filter in front of the camera lens. These days, one can do more or less the same thing in PS. I would regard a change like that as a creative decision, not a purely technical one. Compared to the major negative changes that can be inadvertently introduced by a bad monitor, this is a relatively small, safe tweak.

Probably the easiest way to move the image in this direction is to bring it into ACR and:

a) move the "clarity" slider to the right by a couple of points;

b) move the contrast slider to the right slightly; and,

c) go into the HSL/grayscale tab, and slightly increase the saturation of the blues, and slightly decrease their luminosity.

Now, to come clean ... ... I felt exactly the same way as you about it, and if you look carefully at the image I posted yesterday with the arrows, and compare it to your original, you'll see that I couldn't resist the call of saturated colors and already made the changes I just described to get a more vibrant look.

Great minds think alike -- Ya caught me!!!

Tom

 

[Tom Mann]

H: "...Even at work, using both my monitors, the colors will drastically differ. It's crazy...."

If you think this drives you crazy, you should have seen the furor this and related problems caused back in the 1990s, and then the subsequent furor when Adobe introduced hardware color profiles to improve the situation, LOL.

T