Part 1.
For the first part of this exercise I had to choose two landscape images taken in sequence to combine into a single image .
Exposed for the sky
ISO 100 F16 3.2 Sec @ 10mm
Exposed for the foreground.
ISO 200 F16 2.5sec @ 10mm
I opened both images as layers in Photoshop placing the image exposed for the foreground at the top. I then used the quick selection tool to make a selection of the overexposed sky and hit the delete key to erase it. As I chose quite an undetailed and clean horizon line it made the task easier than I expected. I am not sure if I am proficient enough yet to make more complicated selections but am happy with the end result for my first attempt at combining two images to make a new one.
Exposed for the sky
ISO 100 F16 3.2 Sec @ 10mm
Exposed for the foreground.
ISO 200 F16 2.5sec @ 10mm
I opened both images as layers in Photoshop placing the image exposed for the foreground at the top. I then used the quick selection tool to make a selection of the overexposed sky and hit the delete key to erase it. As I chose quite an undetailed and clean horizon line it made the task easier than I expected. I am not sure if I am proficient enough yet to make more complicated selections but am happy with the end result for my first attempt at combining two images to make a new one.
Exposed for sky
Exposed for foreground
Final combined image
I see nothing wrong with this type of manipulation , The camera sensor , unlike the human eye , is unable to adjust when viewing a scene such as this. Combining these two images simply replicates how I initially visualized the scene and therefore do not consider it alters the truth.
Graduated filters are considered a perfectly legitimate method of achieving a better exposure in-camera whilst shooting , what is the difference between using a digital method post shoot to achieve the same end result?
Graduated filters are considered a perfectly legitimate method of achieving a better exposure in-camera whilst shooting , what is the difference between using a digital method post shoot to achieve the same end result?
Part 2.
For the 2nd part of the Addition exercise I needed to replace the sky from one image and choose a sky from another image to replace it.
Using layers I created two different versions as I worked on the image.
1.
I opened up both images in Photoshop choosing an image of Caitlin with a very pale and washed out sky behind her. I copied and pasted it onto the image created for the first part of the exercise as it had a more summery sky.
Using layers I created two different versions as I worked on the image.
1.
I opened up both images in Photoshop choosing an image of Caitlin with a very pale and washed out sky behind her. I copied and pasted it onto the image created for the first part of the exercise as it had a more summery sky.
2.
I then created a duplicate copy layer image and turned this layer off.
3.
Returning to my original first layer I made a selection of the areas I wanted protected and added a layer mask, white shows the areas to be protected and black areas will be hidden. I actually found it easier to make a selection of the sky and inverse the selection.
Version 1.
I think this looks false –the small area of horizon between the sky and sea creates a rather wonky looking line !
I then created a duplicate copy layer image and turned this layer off.
3.
Returning to my original first layer I made a selection of the areas I wanted protected and added a layer mask, white shows the areas to be protected and black areas will be hidden. I actually found it easier to make a selection of the sky and inverse the selection.
Version 1.
I think this looks false –the small area of horizon between the sky and sea creates a rather wonky looking line !
Version 2.
For my second version I also included the sea visible to Caitlin’s left in my selection to be hidden. I think this second version looks better even if I have altered the actual reality of the scene.
For my second version I also included the sea visible to Caitlin’s left in my selection to be hidden. I think this second version looks better even if I have altered the actual reality of the scene.
4.
I returned to the duplicate copy layer making my original image visible again. Double clicking I then opened the blending options choosing blend to blue dragging the top slider from right to left until I was happy with how the sky looked. The image was then adjusted to reduce any fringing by holding the Option key (Alt on a PC) and dragging the slider to the left which then split into two. At this point I could release the Option key and adjust my image.
5.
The final image.
I added a Vibrance and Curves layer.
I returned to the duplicate copy layer making my original image visible again. Double clicking I then opened the blending options choosing blend to blue dragging the top slider from right to left until I was happy with how the sky looked. The image was then adjusted to reduce any fringing by holding the Option key (Alt on a PC) and dragging the slider to the left which then split into two. At this point I could release the Option key and adjust my image.
5.
The final image.
I added a Vibrance and Curves layer.
I have enjoyed this exercise , but doubt I would use alteration of this type often.
Landscape photographer of the year 2012 David Byrne lost his prize of £10,000 (ouch!) and was disqualified for excessive use of digital manipulation, including replacing the sky.