10 Things You Need to Know About Compositing in Photoshop
Vootie (1482 pencils) | Wed, 2011-09-14 08:35
Adapted from Photoshop Compositing Secrets (Peachpit Press)
By Matt Kloskowski
1: Which Comes First, the Background or the Subject?
I get asked this one all the time. Unfortunately, it’s not a definite answer one way or the other. For me, I’d say that 75% of the time the subject usually comes first. Give me someone interesting to photograph, and I’ll find a fitting background for them. Most of the time, I don’t even know what that background is before I photograph the person. The other 25% of the time, I’ll have a background specifically in mind before the photo shoot. I’ll photograph the person in a way that I know will work for the background. Some times, I’ll even try a quick composite in Photoshop while they’re still in the studio.
Read further on Graphics.com
Commenting on this Blog entry is closed.
Oh well done indeed. That gradient which obscures the feet (apparently, an important compositing tip) also minimizes the most interesting part of the image - the basketball embedded in the pavement.
*slow claps*
Without my sense of direction, I don't know where I'd be.
+1, I don't get these articles posted by this user. They're vague and quite frankly, wrong.
These are extracts from some of the best graphic design and Photoshop tutorial book publishers in the business, so I guess you have an argument with them, not me. What precisely is so "wrong" with this extract, for example, from a book by Peachpit Press (heard of them, perhaps?) and authored by Matt Kloskowski, one of the best-known authors of books on Photoshop. The 48 people who Tweeted it and 85 who Liked it might also disagree with your assessment.
Here's a summary of what was exerpted:
1. Which comes first, background or subject?
A: It depends.
Did you actually read the extract? There were ten points.
I'm talking about what is posted on this site. But either way, thank you for your valuable and tireless service. You have empowered the creative media community yet again.
Either way? In any case, thanks for your kind words. I would hope some of the 7,000 people who read the article would echo them.
The technical use of Photoshop is good, but like most people- they don't know when to use it- or where. As stated above, the focal point, the entire point of the ad by the looks of it, is dampened. If you're going to go through the motions of creating a tutorial, book or article I find it would be prudent to outline exemplary ways to use the technique being demonstrated (if not for your own example being shown). If the purpose is to show composition, of which is bad- it fails on that part. I did read the entire article, thanks.
For 85 people who liked it, out of the thousands who read from the various Creative networks, I don't really feel too bad.
Good solid tips in the article - a few of which are well worth reminding yourself of even if you are well seasoned. I still, from time to time, get hung up on creating ridiculously detailed selections only to realise later that my work of art will all be lost once it's scaled down, half hidden and/or blurred.
I agree with the other posters that that particular illustration isn't a great one - though it could have been used to illustrate "poor communication between Compositor and Art Director" very nicely.
Thank you for your comments. It's good to keep in mind that this is a book extract. As such, it has as its origin a PDF from the publisher, so the relative brightness and colors are not exactly they would have appeared in the printed book. I don't have access to a printed copy, so I can't tell you if the effect on the feet in the book was less evident.
In any case, the author is trying to bring the reader's attention to the idea of moving the focus away from the lower part of the image, which I think he does successfully, in this case by making the focal point the face. Perhaps the basketball wasn't seen at the most important part of the composition, who knows?