What's new
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Help make the sky better


Blakeall

Member
Messages
19
Likes
1
Can someone help to make the sky less boring?
and if possible use the wall and balcony in the second photo to add to the first?
Its a gift for my girlfriend who is moving out of this condo and is very sentimental about it... Thanks in Advance!!

DSC_0246-1.jpg
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0347-1.jpg
    DSC_0347-1.jpg
    218 KB · Views: 9

Argos

Guru
Messages
3,455
Likes
5,240
Hi i dont know if this is what you are looking for, but i wanna play a little so i try to made a kind of soft sunset backlightning style XD.

DSC_0246-13.jpg

Cheers!

Edit: by the way i know the bricks of the wall are not right, but to fix that is a lot of work or maybe i dont know the easy way to do it.
 
Last edited:

MrToM

Guru
Messages
3,595
Likes
3,321
...but i wanna play a little ... maybe i dont know the easy way to do it.
If you want to play a little more try out the 'Vanishing point' filter with 'Clone Stamp'....you should have fun with that. :thumbsup:

Regards.
MrToM.
 
Last edited:

Argos

Guru
Messages
3,455
Likes
5,240
thanks! i think i never used that tool for what i am seeing, let see how it works XD.

Cheers!
 

Blakeall

Member
Messages
19
Likes
1
Hi i dont know if this is what you are looking for, but i wanna play a little so i try to made a kind of soft sunset backlightning style XD.

View attachment 64681

Cheers!

Edit: by the way i know the bricks of the wall are not right, but to fix that is a lot of work or maybe i dont know the easy way to do it.


VERY COOL! is there a way to keep the sky that color and revert the buildings back to the original color of blueish.. ? (sorry if thats a dumb question!)
 

MrToM

Guru
Messages
3,595
Likes
3,321
No worries...

You've done a good job so far so it seems a shame to have that last bit unfinished.

The 'Vanishing point' filter has some pretty special tricks up its sleeve, too many to mention here but there are many tutorials about it.

It should be just what you need to finish this off.

BTW...the 'Clone Stamp' is part of the filter.....not the actual tool.

Good luck!

Regards.
MrToM.
 

Argos

Guru
Messages
3,455
Likes
5,240
No worries...

You've done a good job so far so it seems a shame to have that last bit unfinished.

The 'Vanishing point' filter has some pretty special tricks up its sleeve, too many to mention here but there are many tutorials about it.

It should be just what you need to finish this off.

BTW...the 'Clone Stamp' is part of the filter.....not the actual tool.

Good luck!

Regards.
MrToM.


I am going a little bit crazy, maybe it's because its the first time i used the tool, but i think the problem is that because i had to make some kind of collage with the windows and balconys of the first picture and both have two totally different perspectives to each other i cant get it right :banghead:.
 

Paul

Former Member
Messages
12,879
Likes
7,023
Tom likes yours Sam but not mine:sad:
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
For architectural photos, even casual viewers have come to expect that any geometric distortion present will be so small as to be invisible to the naked eye. Obviously, that's not the case here.

Unfortunately, the OP posted images that were problematic in several ways relevant to the reduction of geometric distortion:

a) He posted the images at quite a low resolution, far less than his camera is capable of, so he will never be able to get a decent sized print made from our results;

b) He stripped out all the meta-data so ACR or LR can't perform automatic lens distortion correction on his images;

c) His images were obviously taken using a lens with a huge amount of intrinsic distortion -- I suspect, a kit zoom.

That being said, I wanted to demonstrate how the image might look if the distortion was reduced. The problem is that every time one does something to correct geometric distortion in an image, it blurs the image by roughly a pixel or two. So, if one starts with a 900 pixel wide low resolution image, this blurring is much more obvious than if he started with a full resolution image, say 4000 px wide - the softening becomes intolerable. Nevertheless, I did want to demonstrate how his image might look, so, after correction, I downrez'ed my final result by about a factor of two to hide this softness.

Rather than completely starting over, I started with Sam's very nice tweaked version and spent a few minutes in PS's adaptive wide angle filter, followed by a pass with the ordinary warp tool. The result is shown below.

IMHO, buildings that don't have warped edges and that aren't leaning over look much better, but the result clearly is of too low a resolution to be suitable for even a medium size print, say, an 8" x 10" or an 8" x 12".

What I would suggest is that if the OP wants to make a nice gift, and if he still has access to that apartment, he should start over, put his camera on a tripod, set his lens to some medium telephoto zoom setting (to reduce its intrinsic distortion) and stitch together a dozen or so individual shots. This will increase the resolution tremendously, and the stitching program will fix much of the distortion, both geometric and lens-induced. If his camera is capable of storing images in RAW data files, I would strongly suggest that over having it simply produce JPGs.

The above is just my opinion, but I like architectural photography (& have have been published in architectural journals), and really would like to help you. If you are not familiar with stitching photos together, we can point you to tutorials on the subject and help you with that, as well.

Tom M
 

Attachments

  • SkyWithBuildings_sam01-tjm01-acr-ps02a-400px_wide-01.jpg
    SkyWithBuildings_sam01-tjm01-acr-ps02a-400px_wide-01.jpg
    147.2 KB · Views: 24

Blakeall

Member
Messages
19
Likes
1
Thanks Tom! That is AMAZING!!

These photos were actually from a "Photography Student" that I found on Craigslist. I paid $50 for him to come to the Apartment and take photos while she was out of town this weekend. I will say I was pretty disappointed with the results which led me to do some research and find you guys. I do have access to the apartment on a limited basis until the middle of July but I have zero experience with photography and I don't have a camera. He sent the photos to me via google drive. Would it help any if I sent you the files other way or gave you access to the google drive? Or is it the way that he took the photos?

Thanks for your help! I can't tell you enough how impressed I am
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
Hi Blake - I'm glad you liked the results of our joint efforts here on PSG. OK on who took the pix and that there is essentially no easy way to take better photos. With respect to moving forward, before I say anything, could you give me access to what he put on Google Drive. For security reasons, don't post passwords or anything like that publicly -- just send them in a PM. I really need to know what the originals look like before I can say anything.

Also, what size print are you thinking of for the gift? 8" X 10", something in the 20" range, movie poster sized, or even larger?

Cheers,

Tom M
 

Blakeall

Member
Messages
19
Likes
1
Tom I just sent you a PM with the link to the Google drive.
I was originally thinking of something in a pano style 13.5" x 40" but I'm not sure that these photos allow for that so maybe a 30"x40"
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
Hi Blake - I was able to download the three files without any problem. Thank you.

The good news is that the files are huge ... all are at least 10,000 pixels wide, so you should be able to make virtually any size print from that.

The bad news is:

a) Your photographer used a $100 zoom lens (and a $300 body) for an architecture photograph :-( ,

b) It appears that your photographers did not save the files in RAW format, just in JPG format.

c) The photographs he put in that folder are not straight out of the camera. They are larger (in pixels) than the largest native size the d3200 can produce.

d) Your photographer already did some sort of manipulation to the image because even the edges of the image are not straight lines ::eek:: Did he ever say to you that he was going to try making a composite exposure?

Let me sleep on this info and get back to you in the morning.

Tom
 
Last edited:

Blakeall

Member
Messages
19
Likes
1
Yes. If I am understanding the definition of composit exposure as multiple photos "stitched together" then yes. We did talk about him stitching multiple shots together to get the best detailed result. I asked him after he posted these three for a few changes and the conversation went as follows:
Me:
"Finally got home to my computer. I really like how the middle one shows the whole view with the neighbors balcony and how it's pano. Is there any way to make it look more "zoomed out" I love how the right side of the pic looks but I would like to see more of the pyramid between the two buildings and he park on the right. Is that even possible?"
Photog student:
"The way Photoshop works I wasn't able to get that many images to be stitched together. It maxed out around 22 for that middle image so that was the most detail I could get into it. Well to make it more like a wide panoramic would require 1 of two things. Cropping, either top or bottom. Or 2, a wider area to take pictures (more pictures to the left and right). All of these images are 20+ pictures that make them up. To get that height of the building, it makes the photo look like less of a panoramic, but trust me, by definition that's as panoramic as you can get"
I'll ask him for the raw photos. Hopefully he will not mind sharing what he has.
 

Blakeall

Member
Messages
19
Likes
1
Hi Blake - I was able to download the three files without any problem. Thank you.

The good news is that the files are huge ... all are at least 10,000 pixels wide, so you should be able to make virtually any size print from that.

The bad news is:

a) Your photographer used a $100 zoom lens (and a $300 body) for an architecture photograph :-( ,

b) It appears that your photographers did not save the files in RAW format, just in JPG format.

c) The photographs he put in that folder are not straight out of the camera. They are larger (in pixels) than the largest native size the d3200 can produce.

d) Your photographer already did some sort of manipulation to the image because even the edges of the image are not straight lines ::eek:: Did he ever say to you that he was going to try making a composite exposure?

Let me sleep on this info and get back to you in the morning.

Tom

The photographer posted what looks like all of the raw photos that he took onto the same google drive with the link that I PM'd you. I can't tell you enough how thankful and impressed I am with the work you guys are able to do. I'm anxious to see if you can do anything with the photos on the google drive!
 

Top