Creases on backdrop

If your backdrop has creaes on it, would you gaussian blur it? Or do you think it looks fake? I've tried it and would have to do it 10 so you couldn't see any creases, but I'm not sure what I think.

Creases on backdrop

If the backdrop looks fake when you use gaussian blur, you might want to think about adding a small amount of noise to the area you blurred. Filter%26lt;Noise%26lt;Add Noise.

Creases on backdrop

Thank. Just tried that and still not sure. It looks more grey than white now.

Also, when I select the backdrop with the magic wand, it puts like a halo around the subject, whether or not I feather it. So that makes it look even more weird.

Maybe Decrease the noise or better yet apply the noise as an overlay. (Hold in the alt key when you add a new layer; in the dialog box that pops up change the mode to Overlay and check the box that says ''Fill with Overlay neutral color-50% gray''). Add the noise (with monochrome checked) to this layer. If the noise is too sharp, you could even add some gaussian blur to this ''noise layer'' to make it softer.

It would be easier to come up with a possible solution if you uploaded a photo with the creased backdrop before you did anything to it.

You can upload to this site for free:

http://www.pixentral.com/

Deleted

Message was edited by: Cori21

Sorry, I can't get my link to work.

You can insert the image in the reply box here. Click on the icon that looks like a camera.

In Pixentral, upload the picture file (JPEG), then copy the URL and paste here.

I was trying to do it with ImageShack. Can you use ImageShack to link photos to here, or do I have to use Pixentral?

For this forum, you want to use the link I have circled in blue. Highlight everything that is in blue; then copy. In the forum, paste. I never use the insert link deal ...not sure it even works with my browser anyway as I use Opera.?BTW, this image was uploaded using the camera icon...the method Hatstead mentions in the above post.

http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1Z0JUBXAR2mGHp8dp8ghG64OVrAoBo1

Thanks, done it!

The idea to use a Gaussian Blur is really pretty good.?I used an about 10px blur (can't tell for sure, since I played with the layer opacities).?The trick is in the selection method.?I selected all of the sheet, inversed and expanded by 7 pixels, then feathered by the same amount.?Next I placed the girls on their own layer on top.

I reselected and inversed again with the layer below (sheet) active.?I applied the blur to it.?I also played with some gradients to neutralize the white some.

Juergen

http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1NL71knYEwlJqYVZ3y83CmwhKiVS7

You should consider lifting them off the sheet background and placing the girls onto a new background/setting. With that white sheet, selection shouldn't be too difficult. BTW, that is a really cute photo.

Here's a little something I threw together using a picture I took in Branson MO at the visitor's center last July just to give you an idea of the type of thing you can do with this. The girls were really easy to lift of the background. I used the quick select tool (CS3's...with the exception of the quick select which I think is in Elements 7...maybe 6 too...I made sure I didn't use anything that couldn't at least be added onto Elements. I use masks and would recomend downloading one of the freeware sets that adds this capability to Elements. I HATE, HATE, the eraser...never use it...too frustrating if I make a mistake.

Here's the link:

http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1g5AA0ydUHgyXnebuSRPEcPhs2XkL9

Edited to change linked image. I couldn't bear to look at my rushed grass clone job. Could still be better but at least it doesn't make me want to gag. LOL.

Yeah, I tried the noise and didn't like that. I think, however, instead of gaussian blur you need to be looking at either surface blur if you have it in your version or smart blur which is in all versions. Gaussian is creating dark halo. (I think if you really wanted that could be gotten around but would take more effort than switching filters.)?Here's the girls selected and raised above the image then the Surface blur filter applied to the background (girls still there...orignal background is intact) at a setting of Radius 10; Threshold 47. Smart blur produced similar results although I liked Surface blur a little better.

Here's a link:

http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1F4ftBbl8GRNT3dZbDEM7sCiv1

I didn't add any shadows or anything...just a copy of the girls separated on a layer above the Surface Blurred original background.

Thanks everyone.

Juergen

I really love that green background. However, they want all the photos printing in black and white only, so I want to keep it white.

Thanks Terri.

That's really cool what you did with that first one.

I don't have the quick select tool. I'm using PSE4. I have CS2 on disc, but never installed it. Do you know if that has it? Is the quick select tool easier than all the other selection tools?

I like the surface blur one, but I don't have that tool either, unless it's in CS2? I tried it with the smart blur and I'm happy with that.

What do you mean by 'raised above the image'?

Which version of Photoshop has the best selection tool?

I have about 80 photos of that shoot, so if I changed the background on all of them, it would take forever. Unless I just did it on the ones they wanted printing. It's just the selecting that takes the time. The magic wand is frustrating sometimes.

Here you go:

http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=16j6jvZ2wRraxdHEdiWm1NpUmERR

Juergen

Thank you!

What is the difference between the magic selection brush in PSE4 and the quick selection brush in the other versions?

Cori21 wrote:

Thanks Terri.

That's really cool what you did with that first one.

I don't have the quick select tool. I'm using PSE4. I have CS2 on disc, but never installed it. Do you know if that has it? Is the quick select tool easier than all the other selection tools?

I like the surface blur one, but I don't have that tool either, unless it's in CS2? I tried it with the smart blur and I'm happy with that.

What do you mean by 'raised above the image'?

Which version of Photoshop has the best selection tool?

I have about 80 photos of that shoot, so if I changed the background on all of them, it would take forever. Unless I just did it on the ones they wanted printing. It's just the selecting that takes the time. The magic wand is frustrating sometimes.

Thanks for all that info, Terri.

Can I just ask what is the purpose of creating a copy of the layer before blurring the background?

I understand why people use layers, so you can delete the 2nd layer and go back to your original image, but if you keep an original copy, is there any need for that? Also, if I make some adjustments on an original image and then create a new layer to make further adjustments incase I need to go back and re-do the 2nd lot of adjustments I made, the file with the layers is a lot larger than if I save a seperate TIF for each lot of adjustments I make. So that's what I have been doing. Does that make sense?

Cori21 wrote:

Thanks for all that info, Terri.

Can I just ask what is the purpose of creating a copy of the layer before blurring the background?

I understand why people use layers, so you can delete the 2nd layer and go back to your original image, but if you keep an original copy, is there any need for that? Also, if I make some adjustments on an original image and then create a new layer to make further adjustments incase I need to go back and re-do the 2nd lot of adjustments I made, the file with the layers is a lot larger than if I save a seperate TIF for each lot of adjustments I make. So that's what I have been doing. Does that make sense?

Wow, thanks for that. It all seems pretty complicated. I still have a lot to learn about layers.

That's my workflow...not necessarily to correct one. LOL.?I firmly believe there is not a right or wrong way. If you are happy with the result, it's all good.

That's true

I must admit though, it seems like a good idea to have all your stages of modifying within one image with layers, rather than having seperate files in different folders. I may do that when I get a bigger hard drive

Cori21 wrote:

That's true

I must admit though, it seems like a good idea to have all your stages of modifying within one image with layers, rather than having seperate files in different folders. I may do that when I get a bigger hard drive

Yeah, kind of. My hard drive is 3/4 full and I find that the fuller it gets, the slower it runs. I have everything backed up on an external hard drive, but I still want it all on my computer aswell.

But if I did save them as layered PSDs, I would still probably save a flattened jpeg aswell, so I could view it in windows picture viewer.

I don't use the organizer. I know exactly where all my photos are, lol.

It's not too bad though, as I have the 1st lot of modified TIFs in a folder along side of the 2nd lot of modified TIFs, both within another folder. I just name both lots of photos the same and put modified 1 and modified 2 on the end.

When I get my next PC with a bigger hard drive, it shouldn't take me long to go through them all and re-do the 2nd lot of modifications, as that will just be colour correction/lighten darken/sharpen. I make a list in 'info' exactly what I did with them.

Cori21 wrote:

Yeah, kind of. My hard drive is 3/4 full and I find that the fuller it gets, the slower it runs. I have everything backed up on an external hard drive, but I still want it all on my computer aswell.

Is it possible to delete your photos off pixentral? I don't really want to keep any on there.

Can you link to photos on Photobucket on this forum?

No, you can't delete photos, but they will go away after a while:

(Pixentral)

Q:	How long will my pictures be online?
	Due to space restrictions the system will remove any image that has not been viewed in over 30 days.

You can post a link to any picture site.

Juergen

Thanks. I will just use Photobucket from now on, if I can figure out how to post the correct links.