• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Contrast Problem

doug anderson

New member
2694463978_64caa0b2f2_b.jpg



I seem to be shooting a lot of these high contrast street scenes these days. I have Photoshop Elements, but don't know what my options are for darkening the background. Or not darkening: maybe it's good like it is.
 
Doug,

Are you shooting in RAW? If so, you can do a double process. If not shooting RAW, save the original file as a TIFF. Save a copy of it, under different name, ex. file2. Change Exposure settings for the second shot, the one to use for the background to be darker. Open both files, and while holding the shift key, drag main file over top of the second file. Add layer mask, then brush in main image to let it appear.
Did that make sense?

Marshall
 
I seem to be shooting a lot of these high contrast street scenes these days. I have Photoshop Elements, but don't know what my options are for darkening the background.

Are fill flash or repositioning of the subject possible for your type of shooting? Alternatively you could experiment with bracketed exposures, although subject movement will require a lot of postprocessing. Shooting Raw images gives a few more options, such as multiple renderings from a single file and combining those, e.g. with an Enfuse/TuFuse type of exposure blending.

Bart
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Doug
just for the sake of the demo… of course the raw route is the one to follow, but just to show you that there's aways some hidden data… I spent a few minutes with highlight and Shadow filter in Photoshop, then a light selective sharpening (the guy) and softening (background):

2694463978_64caa0b2f2_b.jpg


I don't say it's worse or better, it's just for the demo…
 

doug anderson

New member
Nicolas, it seems to abstract the background a little more, which to me is better. I can't always get street people to pose as I want them, so I just take the shot. I get more extreme contrast shots than I like.
 

charlie chipman

New member
agree'd, definetely shoot raw and perhaps think about using a speed light. this way you may be able to lower the background exposure a bit depending on circumstances.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Getting the background in one image whenever one shoots people!

Hi Doug,

It's a good idea to have the entire background anyway as you may want to do more with this image or repurpose it. So I try to take the related backgrounds with any shoot. Otherwise if one moves an arm, some piece of previously covered architecture, shadows or glass relfection might have to be created from scratch.

When the street subject moves on, just retake the scene metered for the background. Of course, you'll keep your camera in the same position as before. At least as close as possible. Duplicate your picture layer and put the properly exposed empty scene in between them and align the main features of the background.

Then you can simply erase/mask//cutout the over-exposed background from the top picture of your street subject and then the properly exposed background placed in a layer below will show through.

Asher

I'm sure you know all about selecting, masking and/or erasing so I have not provided details. However if someone wants to ask, use the entry to digital forum!
 

Dierk Haasis

pro member
As it is, what is visible behind the subject creates a kind of busy jangly effect, no?

No. Looks like you know the common wisdom of photography well enough to discard it as what it is: BS. Common wisdom is the exact opposite of common sense. Granted - just to show that I am not just in a foul, contrarian mood - the "rules" can help in tight spots, when nothing seems to fit; just go with the "rules" and you will have a usable pic.

In this portrait you are not interested in the background, it should just give a hint of naturalness, that is, show the viewer this is not a studio shot. And that is exactly what your photo does. At the same time it leaves a bit of mystery [pardon the pretencious term]without distracting from the person. In technical terms the only difference between your approach and film noir is the exchange of black and white - no wonder, your subject seems to not have the same skin colour as Barbara Stanwyk.

While a blurry background can fulfill the same task - show surroundings withoput distracting - often enough it actually does distract. The whole discussion of 'bokeh' is an obvious pointer that something went wrong, we look for the blurry background, not the sharp subject, strange, eh?

Another unfortunate influence is advertising photography, which needs [as per client's request] silhouetted subject. While I understand that for product shots it led to a completely artificial and unconvincing style with people and the slice of life genre.


For those having forgotten, the reason we tend to avoid pure black and pure white is newspaper printing. White is no ink applied, leading to a bleed effect, metaphorically speaking: the picture loses its footing, goes into the paper and looks strange as if something is missing. Large bla areas, OTOH, lead to smear - not just in the image but the whole run, literally.


PS: Yes, I really like the 255-255-255 areas in the face of the musician.
 

doug anderson

New member
No. Looks like you know the common wisdom of photography well enough to discard it as what it is: BS. Common wisdom is the exact opposite of common sense. Granted - just to show that I am not just in a foul, contrarian mood - the "rules" can help in tight spots, when nothing seems to fit; just go with the "rules" and you will have a usable pic.

In this portrait you are not interested in the background, it should just give a hint of naturalness, that is, show the viewer this is not a studio shot. And that is exactly what your photo does. At the same time it leaves a bit of mystery [pardon the pretencious term]without distracting from the person. In technical terms the only difference between your approach and film noir is the exchange of black and white - no wonder, your subject seems to not have the same skin colour as Barbara Stanwyk.

While a blurry background can fulfill the same task - show surroundings withoput distracting - often enough it actually does distract. The whole discussion of 'bokeh' is an obvious pointer that something went wrong, we look for the blurry background, not the sharp subject, strange, eh?

Another unfortunate influence is advertising photography, which needs [as per client's request] silhouetted subject. While I understand that for product shots it led to a completely artificial and unconvincing style with people and the slice of life genre.


For those having forgotten, the reason we tend to avoid pure black and pure white is newspaper printing. White is no ink applied, leading to a bleed effect, metaphorically speaking: the picture loses its footing, goes into the paper and looks strange as if something is missing. Large bla areas, OTOH, lead to smear - not just in the image but the whole run, literally.


PS: Yes, I really like the 255-255-255 areas in the face of the musician.

Thanks, Dierk, for the detailed, well thought out response.
 
I like the suggestion to add a little fill flash, if you want more background. If you keep the fill two stops under ambient, it will give you a little more balance between the subject and background without looking "flashed" and won't require much in the way of post processing.

Richard Avedon used to [have his assistants] retouch portraits to look like this when he didn't actually have a white background, masking out anything that detracted from the subject, and elements that added interest would look way overexposed intentionally, just to give a hint at context. A good example of this is his portrait of Sheikh Saud al-Thani with a gazelle, but I can't find a good reproduction on the web. When it appeared in The New Yorker the gazelle was very subtle and you might not even notice the background at first.
 
Top