This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Computer Graphics with Photoshop > July 2006 > How to get depth
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| I just came back from USA to UK and while there took some pics of the grand
Canyon although the pics are ok they do not capture the depth as experienced
while standing there. Unfortunately 2 days after arriving back home my wife
bought me a Nikon D50 SLR I am sure that would have helped!
Anyhow any techniques to try and add depth to a couple of the pics?
thanks
| |
| Rudy Benner 2006-07-10, 6:18 pm |
|
"S S" <nonsense@Hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Yfwng.477399$xt.84614@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>I just came back from USA to UK and while there took some pics of the grand
>Canyon although the pics are ok they do not capture the depth as
>experienced while standing there. Unfortunately 2 days after arriving back
>home my wife bought me a Nikon D50 SLR I am sure that would have helped!
> Anyhow any techniques to try and add depth to a couple of the pics?
>
> thanks
>
In my opinion, its not the camera that puts depth into a picture, its
composition. Its the brain that interprets what it sees into thinking there
is depth. It does this by comparing the elements of the scene, in
particular, foreground midrange and background objects, and variations in
the light due to distance.
R.
| |
|
| In article <Yfwng.477399$xt.84614@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
nonsense@Hotmail.co.uk says...
>
>I just came back from USA to UK and while there took some pics of the grand
>Canyon although the pics are ok they do not capture the depth as experienced
>while standing there. Unfortunately 2 days after arriving back home my wife
>bought me a Nikon D50 SLR I am sure that would have helped!
>Anyhow any techniques to try and add depth to a couple of the pics?
>
>thanks
One perception of depth in a two-dimensional depictation is often aided by
background atmospherics - the background elements are lower in contrast and
probably different in coloration also. Depending on the shot, try punching up
the middleground and blurring, lowering the contrast and making the background
a bit more blue.
One thing that helps one's depth perception is a definite foreground element:
rock outcrop, bush, tree... You might add something to the foreground, as a
framing element, but it's usually best to include such in the photograph on
site.
Hunt
| |
| Rudy Benner 2006-07-10, 6:18 pm |
|
"Hunt" <noone@hunt.com> wrote in message
news:e7mcep0f9d@news2.newsguy.com...
> In article <Yfwng.477399$xt.84614@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> nonsense@Hotmail.co.uk says...
>
> One perception of depth in a two-dimensional depictation is often aided by
> background atmospherics - the background elements are lower in contrast
> and
> probably different in coloration also. Depending on the shot, try punching
> up
> the middleground and blurring, lowering the contrast and making the
> background
> a bit more blue.
>
> One thing that helps one's depth perception is a definite foreground
> element:
> rock outcrop, bush, tree... You might add something to the foreground, as
> a
> framing element, but it's usually best to include such in the photograph
> on
> site.
>
> Hunt
>
You said it so much better than I did, I hate you for it.
There, I feel better now.
R.
| |
| JP Kabala 2006-07-10, 6:18 pm |
| I'd have to see the photos to give you a more specific answer,
but there is a painter's trick of decreasing the brightness and saturation
from objects that you want to recede...see an example at
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/.../640/coolit.jpg
This is done by creating 2 adjustment layers-- one to manipulate the
saturation
and another to manipulate the Luminance- and painting on the adjustment
mask with a black paintbrush, then radial zoom blurring the masks. (2
separate
masks allows you to manipulate the intensity of each part of the effect
separately
by adjusting the opacity of the adjustment layer)
This particular demo was fairly obvious, as it was done to teach the
technique,
but you can acheive great subtlety with this technique
The DOF blur, however, was done in camera. I've seen lots of techniques,
filters
and plugins that say they can create DOF and bokeh, but they're all more
work than getting it
right to begin with.
HTH
| |
|
|
"JP Kabala" <jp@jpkabala.com> wrote in message
news:RcidneOO1qBnIQPZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com...
> I'd have to see the photos to give you a more specific answer,
> but there is a painter's trick of decreasing the brightness and saturation
> from objects that you want to recede...see an example at
> http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/.../640/coolit.jpg
>
>
> This is done by creating 2 adjustment layers-- one to manipulate the
> saturation
> and another to manipulate the Luminance- and painting on the adjustment
> mask with a black paintbrush, then radial zoom blurring the masks. (2
> separate
> masks allows you to manipulate the intensity of each part of the effect
> separately
> by adjusting the opacity of the adjustment layer)
> This particular demo was fairly obvious, as it was done to teach the
> technique,
> but you can acheive great subtlety with this technique
>
> The DOF blur, however, was done in camera. I've seen lots of techniques,
> filters
> and plugins that say they can create DOF and bokeh, but they're all more
> work than getting it
> right to begin with.
>
> HTH
Thanks so far guys, fortunately in the original composition I have a
`foreground` my problem will be the background is 4500 feet away with no in
between.
Dunno of this will work but a reduced file size of pic is here,if anyone
cares to look....
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h...do/IMG_8315.jpg
>
>
| |
| Harry Limey 2006-07-10, 6:18 pm |
|
"S S" <nonsense@Hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:%Ezng.477427>[color=darkred]
> Dunno of this will work but a reduced file size of pic is here,if anyone
> cares to look....
> http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h...do/IMG_8315.jpg
Reduced file size!!! I should bloody well hope so! 62kb!!!! :o)
Anyway - you have only to look at levels to see the problem here! a few
tweaks with curves would not go amiss either.
| |
| Derek Fountain 2006-07-10, 6:18 pm |
| > Thanks so far guys, fortunately in the original composition I have a
> `foreground` my problem will be the background is 4500 feet away with no in
> between.
>
> Dunno of this will work but a reduced file size of pic is here,if anyone
> cares to look....
> http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h...do/IMG_8315.jpg
You don't need depth, you need more contrast to give the rocks more
punch. A smaller aperture would have got the whole scene in focus, but I
guess it's a bit late for that now. :o)
--
<a href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a> on the web at
http://www.derekfountain.org/
| |
| Rudy Benner 2006-07-10, 6:18 pm |
|
"S S" <nonsense@Hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%Ezng.477427$xt.335153@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...[color=darkred]
>
> "JP Kabala" <jp@jpkabala.com> wrote in message
> news:RcidneOO1qBnIQPZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> Thanks so far guys, fortunately in the original composition I have a
> `foreground` my problem will be the background is 4500 feet away with no
> in between.
>
> Dunno of this will work but a reduced file size of pic is here,if anyone
> cares to look....
> http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h...do/IMG_8315.jpg
Convert to LAB, then go to Curves, hit Auto. Done.
| |
|
| On 25-Jun-06 12:24, S S wrote:
> "JP Kabala" <jp@jpkabala.com> wrote in message
> news:RcidneOO1qBnIQPZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> Thanks so far guys, fortunately in the original composition I have a
> `foreground` my problem will be the background is 4500 feet away with no in
> between.
>
> Dunno of this will work but a reduced file size of pic is here,if anyone
> cares to look....
> http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h...do/IMG_8315.jpg
>
>
>
Part of the problem is lighting. Take a look at the shadows under the
benches. The sun is almost directly overhead. You're not going to get
much play between shadows and highlights which is where a lot of the
dimension will come from in a photograph.
As a few others replied, try messing with the Levels to get a stronger
black and white and maybe try burning the sky in.
--
JD..
| |
| JP Kabala 2006-07-10, 6:18 pm |
| Try a curves adjustment layer to improve the contrast in the distance. Make
the adjustment so that the canyon looks right-- do't worry about the
benches in the foreground
Then paint on the adjustment layer mask in black (to completely negate the
changes) or a shade of gray (to reduce the amount of change) over the
foreground area if that area looks too harsh.
See the image here (click the image to enlarge)
http://jkabala.blogspot.com/
| |
| Routemeister 2006-07-10, 6:18 pm |
| When I viewed your small photo, I saw the haze that's far too common in
summer landscapes. Here's how I deal with it:
Duplicate the layer.
Apply USM: amount ~50, R ~ 100 - 200 (200 in this case) to the duplicate
layer.
Vary the blend mode - in this instance, Overlay "punches up" the contrast
very nicely.
Watch the histogram and reduce the duplicate layer transparency until you're
satisfied that you haven't blown the highlights and/or blocked up the
shadows. In this case 80% transparency seems optimum,
This simple technique "punches up" the detail in the foreground while the
far background gains only a little contrast. To my eye, the "depth" you are
looking for has been achieved.
Since learning this technique, I at least try it on nearly every photo I
take. The in-camera contrast is set to minimum to maximize the dynamic
range in the capture. Then Photoshop takes over to optimize the contrast.
Regards,
David "Routemeister" Thompson
http://home.rochester.rr.com/backroads/
"S S" <nonsense@Hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Yfwng.477399$xt.84614@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>I just came back from USA to UK and while there took some pics of the grand
>Canyon although the pics are ok they do not capture the depth as
>experienced while standing there. Unfortunately 2 days after arriving back
>home my wife bought me a Nikon D50 SLR I am sure that would have helped!
> Anyhow any techniques to try and add depth to a couple of the pics?
>
> thanks
>
| |
|
| Thanks guys I have printed off the replies and will work on them over the
next couple of days, should be fun.
been a great help, thanks
"Routemeister" <dthomps1@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:KSGng.53799$3B.36503@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> When I viewed your small photo, I saw the haze that's far too common in
> summer landscapes. Here's how I deal with it:
> Duplicate the layer.
> Apply USM: amount ~50, R ~ 100 - 200 (200 in this case) to the duplicate
> layer.
> Vary the blend mode - in this instance, Overlay "punches up" the contrast
> very nicely.
> Watch the histogram and reduce the duplicate layer transparency until
> you're satisfied that you haven't blown the highlights and/or blocked up
> the shadows. In this case 80% transparency seems optimum,
>
> This simple technique "punches up" the detail in the foreground while the
> far background gains only a little contrast. To my eye, the "depth" you
> are looking for has been achieved.
>
> Since learning this technique, I at least try it on nearly every photo I
> take. The in-camera contrast is set to minimum to maximize the dynamic
> range in the capture. Then Photoshop takes over to optimize the contrast.
>
> Regards,
> David "Routemeister" Thompson
> http://home.rochester.rr.com/backroads/
>
> "S S" <nonsense@Hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Yfwng.477399$xt.84614@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>
| |
|
| In article <129tdid9cd1dpa1@corp.supernews.com>, bit_bucket@rudybenner.com
says...
>
>
>"S S" <nonsense@Hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:Yfwng.477399$xt.84614@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>In my opinion, its not the camera that puts depth into a picture, its
>composition. Its the brain that interprets what it sees into thinking there
>is depth. It does this by comparing the elements of the scene, in
>particular, foreground midrange and background objects, and variations in
>the light due to distance.
>
>R.
I don't know Rudy, you seem to have said it quite well!
Hunt
| |
| Rudy Benner 2006-07-10, 6:18 pm |
|
"Hunt" <noone@hunt.com> wrote in message
news:e7pfe10jtu@news2.newsguy.com...
> In article <129tdid9cd1dpa1@corp.supernews.com>, bit_bucket@rudybenner.com
> says...
>
> I don't know Rudy, you seem to have said it quite well!
>
> Hunt
>
Thanks !!
| |
| Mike Russell 2006-07-10, 6:18 pm |
| "S S" <nonsense@Hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Yfwng.477399$xt.84614@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>I just came back from USA to UK and while there took some pics of the grand
>Canyon although the pics are ok they do not capture the depth as
>experienced while standing there. Unfortunately 2 days after arriving back
>home my wife bought me a Nikon D50 SLR I am sure that would have helped!
> Anyhow any techniques to try and add depth to a couple of the pics?
Increasing contrast and color saturation using curves in the Lab color space
is very effective with the subject matter and colors in canyon images. Dan
Margulis has written a book called "Photoshop LAB color" aka "The Canyon
Conundrum", and it has a chapter devoted to improving canyon
images.
If you'd like, post one of your images to the "interesting images" thread on
the curvemeister forum, and some of us will have a go at it.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|