Thread: Satans-child at Audis in the Park - A Photoshop Project

Hi All,

I'm just starting to play with some of the photos I took on Sunday (alas I only really had the time for snaps - there was enough nice metal on show to spend months taking photographs!); and I put in a bit of time with Photoshop on this one; I thought it might be interesting to 'show my working'.

All the best,

Rob.

Original Capture:


Workflow:


Final Image:

good skills

Looks good, why not 'photoshop' out the SRS badges hahahahahaha

Jokes!

Good work

Stacey

Good Lord...!!!

You got any videos of this monster???

Looks great Rob. Good work
Feel free to play around with any of my photos haha

Thanks all

Originally Posted by Gryphon001

You got any videos of this monster???

Alas not yet (well, if I exclude the few seconds' worth when I just walked around the car at AITP (although if you really want to see if that, let me know)). HOWEVER! There are plans for much HD loveliness to be filmed when the car's next in testing, and of course ASN will be the first place I post linkies, so stay tuned...

benskin07 - I'm due a bit of photoshop therapy I reckon, so I may well have a play... (although there is a test match on, so it might get next week )

Cheers,

//R

I appreciate what you did but its no longer at AITP is it ? Its now just an Audi in a field. You sort of lost the whole point of the photo. You might as well lasso it and put it on a cliff top with a fake sunset...It would have been far easier to take the picture you wanted in the first place...ie an Audi on its own in a field near a tree.

I lost the whole point of the photo?

OK.

Cheers,

Rob.

Well you called is "Satans-child at Audis in the Park " and then removed any evidence of the "Audis in the Park" meet .
As a photographer i find that so many people try and get these clinicaly perfect pictures and in so doing remove a lot of the interest from them. You reach a point where rather than take a picture you might as well just buy a magazine because their pictures are photoshopped and ready done for you....

OK, lets get a few things straight here...

1) I called the THREAD "Satans-child at Audis in the Park - A Photoshop Project" - there was NO mention, ANYWHERE, of what I (the Photographer who captured/produced the image), intended as a title or sentiment of the image. That was an assumption you made all on your lonesome - I'm sure I don't need to point out what assumption normally does.

2) Regardless of the content of the image, the title of the THREAD is still 100% factually accurate. It's Satans-child, and regardless of whether or not there is a mass of evidence in the image, it IS (/was) at Audis in the Park.

3) You conveniently forgot the latter half of the thread title, which indicates that it was a Photoshop Project - It wouldn't have been much of a project if I'd opened the sensor raw file and just saved it as a JPEG.

3a) "As a photographer i find that so many people try and get these clinicaly perfect pictures and in so doing remove a lot of the interest from them." - I guess that's fair to say in some (quite a large number, it could be argued) cases; but "As a photographer" I trust you'd probably agree (given that I posted the original, untouched image) that NOTHING I removed was background "interest", ALL the elements removed, were in fact background DISTRACTIONS, which in no way complemented the composition or the final image, in terms of adding sentiment/perception of the surroundings/environment/event - it could perhaps be weakly argued that the people removed from the image might add a bit of something to that end, but if we extend your quite literal view of things to their inclusion - the image would still surely be just "Satans-child in a field with a handful of people milling-around in the background".

3b) I'd have been more than happy to capture an image, with background INTEREST, which conveyed some sentiment/perception of the surroundings/environment/event - but again, being a photographer, I'm sure you'd agree that elements in the image would need to be composed carefully to do that. Now, I know Calvin's a GREAT shouter, but to be fair he's already a busy chap at AITP; so perhaps next year YOU'D like to be my shouter; and get the required cars, owners/occupants, and members of the passing public arranged in such a way that they did add background INTEREST rather than DISTRACTION; and we'll get the shot you're after...

Whatever. I've no problems with people having opinions on my work, if I did - I just wouldn't post it. I quite cheerfully accept that can come both as compliment, or criticism - if I wanted just compliments and pats on the back, I'd play safe and just show my Mum. I am quite happy to accept criticism too, particularly of the constructive type; but as argued above - I really don't think that's what you've offered here; and I honestly feel that nothing I've said in this post is at odds with pretty basic/standard photographic (/compositional) theory.

You'd probably never believe it, but I'm actually against "over-processing" of images; but of course we all put that line in a different place... I'd quite honestly say that the original capture just wasn't a keeper; and the work carried out on it snatched victory (to some extent) from the jaws of defeat...

Perhaps you'd have just left the original capture as it was and called it a keeper; then I'd have ventured it was cluttered with elements which don't add anything in terms of sentiment, but do add plenty of distraction, and a weaker image overall because of it. Perhaps you'd have just said "nope, it's a dud" and not attempted to make anything out of it. I honestly can't see the problem with getting what I'd like to think is a pretty nice image out of something which otherwise would've gone straight to the Recycle Bin, or /dev/null (or whatever your poison is for binary obliteration).

All the best,

Rob.

I think i am not getting my point across very well and that is my fault. Its the idea that i cant get the shot i want so i will just fake it that bothers me. I bet within a couple of minutes the people with the pram had gone....Some minor sharpening and colour correction would then have done. I am not criticising you picture or your photo editing, I am just highlighting a principle that people these days will take a shot and fix it later rather than actually compose a shot. that’s ok but it does mean that when you do get that once in a life time shot the fun is not really there when the next guy can fake the exact shot in half an hour...
I think maybe its my problem not yours, i am living in the past i supose..

Put like that, I DO see your point; however there is a but, and it's a big BUT...

The fact is that I've got a "proper" body, a bag of L-series glass, a selection of various "proper" filters etc. etc. - if I just wanted to take a shortcut, I'd have bought the cleverest point-and-shoot I could, and a copy of Photoshop; or gone the whole hog and just bought Maya or 3D Studio Max and faked everything.

I didn't though.

I guess it's about possibilities, and making the most of stuff...

FACT: Being picky about composition and presentation, I'd have thrown away every shot I took of the car. If I'd have waited until there was NOT ONE cluttering item in the background, I probably wouldn't have got the shot. By the time all the extraneous vehicles, gazebos and people had gone; Jack would have had the car back in the van and be halfway home.

So, I got the best capture I could, and used tools to finish it off.

As I say, I do understand the argument that sometimes, digital darkroom practices take the 'honesty' out of Photography; but as I say, I also see the argument that tools can be used to 'make the best of a bad job'... If I went hard-line one way, I'd have a plate camera and a flash filled with black powder. If I went hard-line the other, as above, I'd just have Maya or 3DSMax. I've used tools (as I said before), to snatch 'victory' from the jaws of defeat.

I do see Photography as an art - absolutely I do, and I agree that should be protected; but things do develop (no pun intended (although if you think about it, 'developing' a photo is a process which has been completely revolutionised, and it's a VERY small number of people who still fiddle about in a dark room - and I dare say most of the 'pros' in that field have performed dodge & burn work to improve/correct an image))...

The way I see it, if I'd used a really nasty point-and-shoot, and didn't have a clue; I'd not have got the shot. I used decent equipment, which I've painstakingly learned to capture the shot, and then the modern version of th'owd dark room to present it in the best way I could - and to be honest, it wasn't much of a shortcut - I'm no Photoshop pro, and it still took ~4 hours of f**king about to get the result to that above.

Lets spin it another way (not because I want to have a go, or take the pi55, simply because it might add another perspective)...

I'll post a wanted ad for a manual gearbox for you, as of course being an old skool purist, you'd rather do the work instead of the DSG machine; and you'll not be able to post the wanted ad on the forum, because you'll put your PC in the bin on your way to put a post-it in the newsagent's window.

It's no fault of yours, as it's quite a common thing, but perhaps some attitudes towards photography are overly precious...

All the best,

Rob.

I remember when i got this shot a few years back.


Nikon D200 + sigma 500mm prime
I had been dong the air show circuit for 30years trying to get this shot but never got the positioning exact. A closing speed of 800mph and a 500mm lens means its mostly guess work as you follow one aircraft...the other enters frame for a fraction of a second and its gone. These days I can create that shot and better from nothing on the PC but I will always be proud of that shot. I just don’t think it would be the same for me if I just made it out of nothing…It’s a sign of the times where everyone wants everything instantly but I will wager I had more fun getting this shot over the years than I ever would sitting at my PC trying to get photo shop to do what I want..
As you say if the past was better then why don’t I use film instead of digital and buy a Model T J I do fully appreciate what you have done with your picture and on reflection I do see your point entirely. Thanks for a sensible conversation.
Cheers
Paddy

Perhaps the finer part of finding a balance is what you do with the tools, and how open you are about what you've done...

For example, in my image - I've just removed clutter, and (aside from filling in the gaps created, and putting a plate over the wing-mirror mountings that Jack had forgotten) not added anything. That's perhaps an over-simplification and somewhat weighted, but it's not inaccurate. The crucial part though, is that I'm not one to pass off a 'shopped image as a virgin capture. Of course in the post here, it's deliberately obvious (as was the point of the thread), what's been done. I could imagine a situation where the final image might sit in a frame on a wall, and while the 'workflow' wouldn't be shown; if anyone asked if it was Photoshopped, and how, I'd never dream of being anything but honest.

In terms of your (absolutely stunning) capture, as you say, you could composite something like that in PS; artificial in a different way - in so much as, if the two aircraft were never in the same frame, and you used digital wizardry to put the second in place; I'd say (and I suppose this is much more down to personal perception) that a shot like that could more fairly described as manufactured. I guess the way I look at it is that if you're performing tricks that you could do in a bath full of chemicals, that's not so bad; and likewise if you're playing with things that aren't an integral part of the image - the foreground subject/focus, that's OK too. If it's anything outside those terms, then I begin to have a problem with it.

Anyway - getting on to your shot properly, that really is a stunner; and being a veteran of a good few airshows and various sketchy spots approaching or beside the thresholds of various runways around this country and others; I completely appreciate the measure of skill (and of course the good fortune on top) to get that shot. I'd love to be able to show you some high-speed in-flights of mine which are even approaching that quality, but the harsh truth is I don't have anything close; I'd like to think that's mainly because I've not had the opportunity since I've properly been into photography, so maybe one day soon - but as you've so rightly pointed out, it could still be another 30 years, or beyond! I've got some low-speed 'in the right place at the right time' shots, maybe I'll dig through some and we can start a thread to spam this place with aviation captures!

Here was one I was quite happy with (taken after I'd given up with film-SLR, but before I took the plunge with a digi-SLR):



If only the bloody field was flat! Still, I was pleased to turn around when I did!

I'll start a thread if I can find any of my real 'faves' (mostly at home in Wales, I'm up with the 'rents in Preston atm)...

And likewise, thanks for an interesting and sensible discussion...

All the best,

Rob.

There is always something nice about bang on, head on and you got that spot on...

I took this last week and i wasnt even at an airshow..just passing the Airfield . Slightly too fast on the shutter speed so not enough prop blur but hey...i wasnt ready


Dont start me off on aircraft pictures....lol
Cheers
Paddy

You could probably give that prop a bit more blur with some careful Photoshop

Seriously though, another great capture - and particularly when it was just by chance!

...Oh, and consider yourself started off!

All the best,

Rob.

Looks good Rob

Was this in CS5 by chance? It appears to have some pretty nifty tools for doing just what you have achieved..

Cheers

Cheers Mike

It was indeed CS5... The new version has got a couple of pretty clever new tools. There was some use of the content-aware fill tool (one of the bigger new guns); it's not quite as 'automagic' as the marketing would have you believe, and as is usual with a lot of the stuff in PS, it can require quite a bit of care in application to get the best results; but it's a good add-on to the old favourites (which were still liberally used) - the clone stamp, spot healing, history brush, smudge/blend, and of course the good old windows clipboard.

All the best,

Rob.