Photo resembles photoshop composition

[rob_hanssen]

<p>Please have a look at the picture in this <a href=" to Flickr</a> . After taking and reviewing, I found this to resemble a photoshop edit where the people are pasted into the landscape. Having taken the photo myself, I know this is not the case :-).<br>

Can anyone explain why this is and how I can prevent it? More info: Canon 30D, Tokina 12-24 @ 22mm, f/9. 1/250s, fill-in flash to prevent shadows in the faces.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Too much fill. Set the flash at one to two stops under ambient exposure. </p>

[allardk]

<p>I don't think they look that pasted. Just a little bit. Less fill will make it better but the shadows will be stronger. What you could do, is use a larger aperture and/or tighter crop (preferably with larger focal length) to create shallower depth of field. Gradually decreasing sharpness from your subjects towards the back lessens the pasted effect. With current settings this creates problems with flash sync though. You might want to get your flash away from the camera when photographing people with glasses.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Shoot with a wider aperture to blur the background and make your subjects pop. Also look for softer light, usually open shade on a sunny day like this.</p>

 

[tholte]

<p>Do what Dick, Allard and Ian say and move the subject so the big trees aren't popping out of their heads. Placing them in front of the small trees and shooting at a larger aperture (like Ian said) would improve the image quite a bit.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

Over sharpening?

[jpo3136b]

<p>It's positioning. I'm going to recommend a book that is going to appear a little cheesy, but I read it when I was younger, and it had one of the best concise explanations of modeling errors I have ever seen. It's "Pro Techniques of Creative Photography" by Ian Bradshaw, published by HP Books [1986. ISBN 0-89586-380-4]. It's the kind of book you'll find in franchise photography stores. The kind of thing that will be in the How-To improve your photography-type section. I know. But, in there is a section on modeling errors that is specific to photography. The theme of the book is to present a stream of photos that goes from ordinary to improved; most of the improvements have to do with placing a model or positioning a model; changing point or field of view, etc.</p>

<p>The error is caused by the intersection of the hips in the figure in a way that blocks the top of the tree stump. Above the hips, there is a triangle of dried leaves on the forest floor. Below the hips, the tree stump is plainly visible. This causes a visual break; the brain is good at paying attention to differences that are breaks in a pattern that is before it; not too good at other kinds of pattern breaks, but it can pick out some right away. The tree stump is one of those. Might not be prominent enough for your mind to tell you in a way that's easy to recognize, but there it is. Sometimes you can find these spots by figuring out where your eye rests in the photo when you've got a feeling something isn't right.</p>

<p>Another good way to show depth, or that someone is in their surroundings, is with overlapping. It's used in drawing all the time. Objects before and after the subject; like the blades of grass near the shoe of the man in the picture.</p>

<p>Also, you mentioned looks photoshopped in; someone else mentioned too much fill; if there is any kind of dark wedging around the figure, even if it is caused by just a slim line of strobe shadow, maybe that can contribute. Main idea that I caught in the photo was the leaves, the tree stump and the hips.</p>

<p>There's another set of those, above the figures, with trees that meet the hair of the head; the roots and trunk of the tree is not visible. Also, there must have been a sapling blocked by the body of the people, because there are shadows of trees-that-cannot-be-seen coming from behind the subject figures.</p>

<p>Probably best way to fix this would be to throw DOF so that the forested background might be visible and identifiable, but not as sharp as the subject. I think the idea that the background is as sharp as the subject might also be a contributing factor.</p>

<p>If you can shoot the photo again, I'd suggest a tight shot of mom, dad, and baby in the arms with little or no background. Unless that land is somehow important, it could always be dropped from another, supporting photo.</p>

<p>Bradshaw's book covers some other stuff. Like, errors and illusions caused by a model that is kneeling. I saw this same error recently, I cannot remember where, but it was on some website that was showing people how something was done. The Exemplar photographer made this error with his model. Error is, when you have someone kneeling on both knees so that their shins are flat on the ground; photographed from the front, this can create the illusion that their legs are springing up out of the ground. Failure to turn, arch, twist a model to pull the person into a big shape; people often think small gestures are big ones; etc. The people in the photo holding the newborn child, these people are making "small" gestures. </p>

<p>Like, a "big" gesture would be some stage play melodrama or one of those obnoxious musicals or figures in classical painting (the best source for positioning ideas). Get 'em to use big gestures or big positioning for one of the frames, and stuff will come out better. I myself have never been able to pull this off, but other people have and their photos show it.</p>

<p>Just my two cents. Good luck. J.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Hey, all that said, I rarely get to photograph people. So, great job getting them to cooperate and stuff. Good photo.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Small gestures and big gestures. I know the little baby in the photo is fragile; so, getting too wild with the body positions would be inappropriate; that's why I mentioned the tight shot.</p>

<p>When people make gestures in real life, the gestures are usually very small. Tiny, tiny gestures and changes communicate a lot. When ordinary people are getting photographed, they often don't think of their bodies in the same way the artist will perceive them after basic training in figure study. I think this is because people perceive the gestures they are making from inside themselves. When we see them in the photo, we are only seeing the outside of them. Many great photos have been made involving small gestures and facial expressions, but many ordinary pictures have been made with people barely moving or departing from common positions of rest.</p>

<p>If you can get them into "big" gestures or big positioning in the frame, and also use lighting to supplement this, that would help put them in their surroundings. Key with that would be to not only use tone and shadow to show their form (less fill, as above) but also get them to cast a shadow on something. When a subject or object casts a shadow, it helps to show its relationship to the object the shadow is cast upon. Shadows are cast upon objects. This is another area of illustration that helps beginning drawing. Sometimes when people draw, they don't think about what the shadow is on, they think instead only of the object casting the shadow. Effectively representing a shadow requires both; the object casting the shadow and the object "holding" the shadow on its surface. A shadow relationship that the subjects could have in the picture could help break that "photoshopped in" look you were talking about.</p>

<p>I suspect, but do not know, that part of the reason why there is such a high demand for "shadowless" photographs is that it would make the image easier for a group of people to edit the work. If there is a shadow relationship in the photo, well, that would take time and talent to edit that. No shadows will promote ease of image editing.</p>

<p>If you want to make close-ups of people and use their small gestures, but don't know where to get good examples, turn on the TV and watch female Hollywood celebrities. Jennifer Anniston is a prime example of this; she has the most animated face of anyone I've ever seen, unusually so; there are many others; I am convinced that one of the reasons why some women end up with great, long-lasting attention from the public is because they are so prolific with their small gestures through facial expressions. Like, turn down the sound [if you can see a Hollywood woman frame by frame in a recording you will see what I mean right away] and closely watch their face. If you find them distracting because of their great beauty, focus on just one area of the face, like a corner of the nose, eyes, or mouth. Those corners will move with the larger parts and show the motion, but are not too interesting in and of themselves.</p>

<p>In Hollywood stars, you will see, particularly among the women, that when many of them are featured, their faces are particularly active. Unusually active; almost hyperactive. Frame by frame, you will see that these women are communicating with a fast and furious flow of constant changes in facial expression, gesture and movement. So, if you are in a situation that requires use of small gestures for the photo; maybe a multitude of facial expression changes would be called for.</p>

<p>For ordinary people, the number of these changes that you would have to inspire would seem very great. Just as ordinary people don't dance around in big gestures like they're in some ridiculous stage musical; to bust them out of the ordinary rest positions, you'd have to make a dramatic increase in getting an ordinary person to move and change position. I mention this because the standing rest position that the people are in, I think that contributes to part of the "photoshopped in" problem. If they were in a "big" gesture or "big" positioning scheme, with shadows showing their interaction with their environment, and some overlapping, and some of the other stuff people brought up; well, if you got all of those things to hit it right, that would be an outstanding photo.</p>

<p>Maybe the fashion photographer people can help out in this area if you need real help. But, just saying. Good luck. Hope your photo works out okay for you. J.</p>