Focus stacking and applications of it

 

 

Lately I’ve been thinking about the above tutorial on Focus Stacking given at Phlearn, which is a group that offers Photoshop Learning company based right here in little old Chicago.

Focus Stacking is the answer to all you macro photographers who get frustrated when your ultra closeup photography has a really short depth of field.

The video graphic above takes you to Phlearn’s web site, because I cannot embed Vimeo videos here.

But there are other applications of focus stacking, too.

In the above example, Aaron Nace photographed the toy unicorn about 10 times that stands about 2 or 3 inches tall (at most). All 10 photos are at different focus points. At one point, the horn is in focus and then the wings and then the back foot. Once in Photoshop, you can use a tool called “Auto Blending” to put them all together.

I was thinking how cool it would be if we photographed a child and took one of his or her small toys and made a scene of them both sitting together.

Or maybe an adult has a toy of some significance.

I’m trying to dream up other applications as well.

Below is Phlearn’s final image.

 

Oh, how they lie to you using Photoshop

; Earlier today, I posted the above photo to Facebook and I wrote:

Hey guys, we did a quick sitting with Bill Whitmire yesterday. We needed to rush a photo to someone for a presentation we’re doing in Oct. We wanted to clog your feed with us two cheeseballs. Nothing says sincere salesy like the double head tilt.

I posted it partly because I wanted to see what kind of reaction it would get from our friends and family. It appeared to be quite a hit. Which made me feel good about submitting it to represent us for a talk we’re giving in baltimore next month. We’ve talked on the blog about the benefits of Photoshop, and since this is our photo, I feel comfortable showing you how Photoshop is almost essential to even regular, everyday men and women. I’m posting the rest of this below the fold, because I want you to open up the photo (click on it) and see if you can spot all that’s “fake” about the image. Then go through my notes and see if you were right. Go ahead. Giver ‘er a whirl.

Sunday Inspiration: Erik Johansson: Impossible photography

http://www.ted.com Erik Johansson creates realistic photos of impossible scenes — capturing ideas, not moments. In this witty how-to, the Photoshop wizard describes the principles he uses to make these fantastical scenarios come to life, while keeping them visually plausible.

On Photoshop … continued

Only a few of you read my response to Lousy Canuck and Biodork’s take on how Photoshop contributes to ruining people’s perception of beauty. I don’t mind. It was long. And I got a little snarky. Okay a lot snarky.

The long and short of my “argument” is that techniques predating Photoshop have been used since long before Photography was invented to enhance photography. Photoshop is not the enemy of beauty or our perception of beauty. Ignorance is the enemy of what’s beautiful. Often, as adults, we need to be shown and taught was is and is not attractive. And often, what’s considered “ugly” is considered “ugly” based on a lack of knowledge.

A couple points came up while Tina and I were discussing the topic:

• Our grandparents’ wedding photography used techniques that smooth the skin and create illusions of better images.
• To further one point, a baby doesn’t need to be taught to groove to music. A baby will “dance” to music at early ages. A baby isn’t taught to know what is beautiful, but you can tell that babies are attracted to certain people and not others. These mechanisms are evolutionary based. You’ve seen babies flirt. The Point: we “know” from an early age what is and isn’t attractive. Children have no filter and can easily distinguish — quite vocally — what they approve of and do not.
• In the cases of commercial photography/Photoshop, everyone needs to become educated about techniques used and to meet models. It really helps.

Unfortunately, I don’t have a female image that I wanted to show at the moment, so Aaron gets to be my guinea pig today. I was looking at some work I did to the above photo of regular reader and my best and oldest friend Aaron. I’ve known the guy since we were five or six. The above image is different than the one I posted here.

Click on the image above to enlarge.

I’m not saying the work on the image is stellar or amazing, but it shows a point or two. I like where it went. But like all art, it’s subjective.

The first image is straight out of the camera. I used my flash with dome diffusion. I didn’t have a stand with me, so I had Tina hold the flash. I didn’t mind the shadow on this shot, because it mimicked the line from the staircase. The image isn’t bad out of camera. But it needs some sharpening and color enhancing.

Another aspect of the original image is that Aaron’s jeans were a bit baggy. He’s been running his ass off … literally. And if I didn’t have him stand the way he is, you’d tilt your head and wonder. It was our job to take Aaron’s person and adjust it on set. You wouldn’t know it if I didn’t tell you (maybe). My point is that it’s the photographer’s job to enhance, to trick you, to add, not take away.

And then Photoshop comes in

I’ve been using a variation of a set of steps I learned from an Adam Elmakias technique that Bill Whitmire introduced me to. You can see that by the time you get to the Photoshopped dodge and burn step that the textures in Aaron’s clothing are popping. The contrast is starting to give Aaron an edge, and it’s bringing out the graffiti as well. Aaron’s skin is a little more smoothed out.

But if you start looking closer, check the gravel on the ground. Trash never looked so cool as it does in this photo. The art isn’t great, but it works. The depth in the brickwork is more pronounced. Hopefully it’s more subtle than abrupt, which is key to image enhancement. But I don’t want this image to be completely “subtle.” I want it to smack you in the face, whether you like it or not.

Last step, I like to play in Lightroom with some presets once I’ve done a few steps in Photoshop. The preset I used above is a variation of one I found called, “Wet Chrome.” I like the edges vignetted and how it alters the color to a cooler version of the original’s warmth.

I promise I’ll put together a version with a woman soon. I had an image of Tina that I recently worked.

I’m a little more sensitive about the work I do to women’s images, though, so it’s a bit harder.

Thanks, Aaron. I didn’t have permission to do this, but I hope (and pray) that he’ll understand.

On beauty, Photoshop, women, men, girls, boys and you!

The above is piss-poor photoshop work anyway. Read below for more information.

Friend, blogger and regular-reader Biodork posted about Photoshopped beauty yesterday based on a post inspired by atheist blogger Lousy Canuck Jason Thibeault. Even PZ Myers posted about perceived beauty recently here.

I read Biodork’s interpretation and then read through Lousy Canuck’s post, and then scanned through the links.

The posts detail how Photoshop is hugely responsible for creating unattainable beauty that influences young women. It gives them a false sense of beauty. Both posts leave out that it influences men as well.

I’m a photographer and work in Photoshop a lot. I’ve given the topic of beauty a lot of thought. I’m biased. I admit that wholly. I’m an advocate of Photoshop as a photography tool.

First, Photoshop is not the enemy. Ignorance is the enemy. Photoshop might be a factor, but it shouldn’t be called out as the enemy of what’s pretty and good.

The fact is that everyone, from gorgeous to normal, can benefit from Photoshop.

What I want to explain is that beauty is everywhere. I see it in the faces of almost everyone I meet. Finding beauty and relaying that is a learned trait. This is something my dad instilled in me. As an artist, it’s my job to make you look and feel beautiful, handsome, badass, cool, etc.

And while other people fail miserably at finding beauty in almost everyone — young, old, black, white, fat, skinny, and all traits this way and that — I find the beauty in people and attempt to convey that to you.

Even the most beautiful people in the world aren’t as gorgeous as you think. Stop any gorgeous, well-made up, cleanly waxed, beautiful bodied woman or man in time at 1/200th of a second, stare at the image, and I can show you 1,000 ugly things about them. But I can also show you 2,000 beautiful things.

Perception is key.

This is a long post and I’m going to put the rest below the fold. I broke up my thoughts and separated them with emboldened text. The last couple/few sentences sum up my thoughts to help you skim a little faster. Either that, or read the whole thing. I realize this isn’t a perfect argument, but it’s an alternative perspective of “Blame Canada Photoshop!”

What the funny kids at Tastefully Offensive are posting

Tastefully Offensive’s tumbler is a great source for funny on the Internets.

Here’s a few select recent posts to tickle your tongle.

Go here for more.

Graphic of badminton birdie next to oven mitt reads: “Badminton. Bad Mitten. Know the difference.”

Writing on wall pointing toward lipstick mark: “Really you put your mouth on a bathroom wall? At a Bar?!” You sick bitch.

“Nothing brings two people together faster than the hatred of a third person.” 

 

Well [spit, ding] these ribs are spicy

Tina wasn’t as thrilled with this image as I was. It’s two different images combined, but I thought they should be together.

I like that Bill is staring at the other guy like, “What the fuck are you screaming about? I have this shit on my face.”

I also photoshopped this image of yours truly, that I think works.

Click any image to enlarge.

 

 

What the kids are posting

Oh those kids at reddit.com/r/atheism are so mean and angry. Check out the latest in their EXTREME H8 campaign:

 

Graphic of slaves chained up and two men holding hands says, “Morality? Guess which one the bible’s okay with.” 

 

Man holding a sign (we can quote the bible too): A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

 

 

Image of man putting crying baby in an oven says, “Scumbag atheist: Agrees to watch your baby so he can eat it.” 

 

Skeptic Carl Sagan asked the Dalai Lama what would he do if a fundamental tentt of his religion (reincarnation) were definitily disproved by science. The Dalai Lama answered; if science can disprove reincarnation, Tibetan Buddhism would abandon reincarnation … but it’s going to be mighty hard to disprove reincarnation.” 

Graphic of two dinosaurs one is reaching for the forbidden fruit or an apple says, “Creatiolution: There, problem solve, argument over.”