glenn_owens1 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 I have no experience with photoshop,so this might be a SILLY question. Do any of you switch heads in formal group shots to produce the best picture? I know a portrait guy that does it but i wasnt sure if it can be done well enough so no one knows? Another way of asking this is, if you take 3 pictures of the same group,same pose and then clip and paste the best smiles or eyes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catherine_oostdyk Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Photoshopped the grooms eyes from one pic to another cause he was blinking. It looked good enough for the 4x6 print they wanted of that photo. It was a larger group photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kari douma Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Yes, I do it all the time! I have printed up to a 20X24 that looks great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_schilling___chicago_ Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 I've done it often enuff, mostly to open eyes....watch out for the bride that wants you to switch this smile for that in a dozen or so shots. One of my favs was when I had a bride's mom ask me to remove her parents..........<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steakandale Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 I have a lot of experience with this, I will add that entire heads usually swap out with better results, unless you have an exact match to the head angle the eyes might look strange unless its exactly the same. Heads are much faster to do also. Another tip is not to not get to fine cutting it out, you can often hide the cut using more background and hide the paste line a bit further "outside the lines". Our eyes naturally seek out those hard edges first - the hunter gatherer in all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon jacobson Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Some see this as an ethical dilema. I personally do not see it that way. However, I try not to spend much time with it. Easier to swap out a face than a head. Sometimes add catch-light to eyes. A little nip-n'tuck here and there. Basic facial touch-ups. Whiten teeth. No worries. Taking out braces is extra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennifer valencia Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 hi Glenn, I've done it before during portrait shoots. Usually I only need to do it for families with young, wriggly kids -- when everyone else looks nice, one kid is not smiling. I will take that kid's head with a smile from another picture and paste it into my "almost good" family picture. I've done this a few times without being asked, just because I felt obligated to provide a nice family picture since I was getting paid. I can only do this when there was minimal movement from frame to frame, otherwise the skew is off and I am not able/willing to correct that in PS. I usually do a whole head rather than eyes. It might sound strange, but it's easier. If I do it right, nobody can tell it was done, even when the pic is blown up! Again, having the original and replacement head in nearly the same position/size is critical to success on this. I don't like having to do this, b/c it takes time, but I don't consider it cheating or unethical or anything like that. Usually my goal is to get the client the best possible picture! JenStar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennifer valencia Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 David, great job removing the parents! I can't even fathom why she would do that, but you did a great job of it. I like the way you matched the pants and head shadow that suddenly had to appear. It looks very natural - I never would have known (at least at this size.) How long did that take you to get it right? For me, doing a simple head replacement takes about 20-30 minutes. I imagine that your parent-removal took a lot more time? thanks,Jennifer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnWebster Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Dale Bergestrom is right on---swap complete heads---a very slight head tilt up or down or sideways make swapping only face parts appear non-believable. If the face is from a different grouping and the head size is much larger, transform the head to fit using eye catchlights to get close to the correct size. Minor tweaking of size may be needed to complete the illusion of reality. Also, check skin color and contrast to closely match the original. With practice you can nail it consistently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_schilling___chicago_ Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Thanks Jenn....I did that just over a year ago and it took about 30 minutes or so. I've gotten alot faster with PS and could do it now with about 15 minutes or so. I can swap out eyes in about 2-3 minutes. There's always a story behind any request like this....weddings tend to bring out the best & the worst in families :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daydreamsart Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 In addition to what's already been written, don't bring up with the customer the fact that you changed anything. Because they will then be looking for evidence and you'd be amazed at what they come up with! I learned that lesson when I did a family portrait a few years back and did some head swapping. They knew that I did such stuff and told me "John's eye's are crooked." I informed them that I hadn't done anything with John's eyes! They never did figure out what I did. Just let them assume you amazingly caught them all at their best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marv_stasak___southfield__ Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I can see why the request to remove the parents from this particular shot; their clothing is not in keeping with the others and the pix looks better without them. She probably figured the parents were in other pix so it would be OK and they would not be insulted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_schilling___chicago_ Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Marv.....you gave me a good chuckle and it had nothing to do with their clothes. Rememebr the comment that weddings bring out the best and the not so best in families? I'll respect their privacy and leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marv_stasak___southfield__ Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Ok, Dave. I stand corrected. You would know better than I the dynamics of that family relationship. Though from the standpoint of composition and unity, I think the pix without them is the better one. Ain't doing weddings great? The people watching, alone, is worth the effort! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afs760bf Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Interesting shot, Dave. Did you move the entire group up and to the left before removing the parents? The shot without the parents looks like its shot at an entirely different angle. Quite a piece of work. That's more PS than I would care to tackle. I've moved heads and I've moved eyes, when necessary, but I like to take about three shots of each pose and hope that one will be satisfactory. But it is nice to be able to re-do those once-in-a-lifetime moments that never happened. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
think27 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Interesting Barry - Not only is it a different perspective/angle on Dave's shot horizontally but vertically as well and the little girl's dress on the right is different the way it lays creased in on one and just touching on the other - no ferns coming out of the heads and the windows are a different level. There is flash on the bench behind them on one and not on the other. Must be a different background and a grouping from another photo as well. I'm curious as to how this was done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kari douma Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Not only that, but the guy in the back, behind the removed parents, now has on a different color shirt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 They were all cut out, look at the top of the steps/bottom the kids clothes. One even has half a foot growing out of the carpet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaimie blue Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Well what is the need for photography anymore, just become a photoshop technician...In my past I would not even crop, it had to be exact composition as I shot it. Is there any purist kind of ethic or aesthetic in photography? Maybe not, take a crap picture and photoshop it, no more skill in photography I dare say and y'all can argue this but I believe now it takes not so much to be a shooter as long as it can be FAKED in photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Same here Jaimie, but those with the foundation of film will excel. But to answer the question, only results matter, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaimie blue Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Nothing wrong with results, photoshop, altering images, etc...but I think there needs to be a redefining of the medium of photography. It literally requires little skill of its own anymore. Images can be completely fixed, altered, changed, rebuilt, etc. with photoshop. Maybe large format shooters scoffed when 35mm came along and expressed similar sentiments. I am just wondering if there is any criteria for photography as a true discipline, maybe it was never a "pure" art form to begin with, painters use to not think so. Maybe photography lends itself to be a completely changing form and it never was near the ethics of a classic art because it is so changable and relies on technology and we all know the very essence of technology seems to be rapid change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_schilling___chicago_ Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I honestly don't rememebr the exact steps I took since I did the PS work during Novemeber of 2004 but I had plenty of formals to play with. They key switch involved a bridal party shot which explains why the guy in the back row right now has a tuxedo instead of the blue shirt/sport coat jacket. In the original shot I also cloned out the backs of the pews on both sides of the foreground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil vaughan - yorkshire u Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 <i>"I am just wondering if there is any criteria for photography as a true discipline, maybe it was never a "pure" art form to begin with, painters use to not think so."</i><p> On my very first professional photography seminar I attended a seminar by one of the UK's top portrait photographers (mid '80s), he gave a great talk about retouching techniques, both in the darkroom and work done on prints. And look at images in magazines, images are rarely published "as shot". It's not a digital phenomenon, it's always been done.<p> Personally I find that I spend very little time retouching images, the question is: Do I have lower standards for the final product OR Am I just better at nailing it first time OR Am I just lazy?<p> The fact is that we all have different techniques, standards, client bases etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now