Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Starry sky


Rende e2
7 37 4 Netherlands
22 Feb 2009 1:52PM
I was playing around in Photoshop (CS3) and wanted to create a night sky with stars without making each dot individually. I found a useful article here : http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-effects/starry-sky/
I followed the instructions and came up with a lovely starry sky until I flattened the layers, or tried to store it as a jpeg and the shole "sky" turned into a noisy mess. Trying to find out where it went wrong, I found out that it was in levels, where I got the result I wanted by sliding the buttons, but kept losing it all when clicking OK.
Anyone got any idea what I'm doing wrong, or is there a mistake in the instructions?
Rende

P.S. I tried to make a link to the article but it didn't seem to work- sorry about that.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

dougv e2
10 8.4k 3 England
22 Feb 2009 2:32PM
User_Removed 12 2.8k 11 United Kingdom
22 Feb 2009 2:54PM
So what you're saying is, you design your images as opposed to photography.......ok?
dougv e2
10 8.4k 3 England
22 Feb 2009 3:00PM
Oh dear!
Someone's in a bad mood today.
SuziBlue 12 16.2k 10 Scotland
22 Feb 2009 3:30PM

Quote:So what you're saying is, you design your images as opposed to photography.......ok?


Your point ..?

Anyway I had a go at this tutorial although I'm using Elements - I come to a brick wall when I'm adjusting the levels of the noise layer - I can get it to show a hint of stars (very very fine) but they revert to a sheet of noise when I save.

I may not have the software to cope with this! I have to say though that the stars do look a little odd in the tutorial - perhaps if they were reduced in number one could then carefully dot in the odd constellation ..
Rende e2
7 37 4 Netherlands
22 Feb 2009 4:15PM
Thanks for the link Doug!
Laurel, I'm sorry, I don't get what you mean; I wasn't aware that playing in Photoshop is not allowed, or that there is an either or issue.
SuziBlue, yes, that's exactly where I got stuck too in CS3. I agree that they look a bit unnatural, but it was just for a little fun project.
Rende
Slippery_Jim 6 597 England
22 Feb 2009 4:16PM

Quote: I have to say though that the stars do look a little odd in the tutorial - perhaps if they were reduced in number one could then carefully dot in the odd constellation ..


Agreed, they look totally unatural. With the level of light pollution from the city you would only be able to see the brightest objects in the sky at best.
User_Removed 12 2.8k 11 United Kingdom
22 Feb 2009 5:27PM
Read it again Bosworth but slower this time and I'm sure you'll understand my point.
dougv e2
10 8.4k 3 England
22 Feb 2009 5:35PM

Quote:I wasn't aware that playing in Photoshop is not allowed, or that there is an either or issue.

There isn't a problem using Photoshop to manipulate images.
There is a category (Digitally Manipulated) specifically for this purpose.
User_Removed 5 694 3 Scotland
22 Feb 2009 5:39PM
Rende, I think it is good that you are taking an interest in your software and the stars tutorial is a good way to practice several techniques. There will probably be a time when being able to create something from nothing will be necessary to complete a picture or maybe replace something that was damaged in an old photograph for instance.

As for designing pictures everyone who edits in Photoshop or similar will be doing this. Just using the clone tool changes the picture from an original to a modified (redesigned) version. It is just a question of degree. By rights any picture that has been modified should be tagged as "digitally manipulated" but this would apply to 99.99% of all images so not much point.
tepot 10 4.4k United Kingdom
22 Feb 2009 5:40PM
The finished pic in the tutorial doesn't even look natural, way too many stars, i wouldn't bother.
tepot 10 4.4k United Kingdom
22 Feb 2009 5:44PM

Quote:So what you're saying is, you design your images as opposed to photography.......ok?


When you set up your camera and compose your picture, you are at that point "designing" your image......!
User_Removed 5 694 3 Scotland
22 Feb 2009 5:48PM
In fairness to Laurel Steinbeck the point she was making was that adding a complete new sky made from no other image was in fact designing.
SuziBlue 12 16.2k 10 Scotland
22 Feb 2009 5:49PM
Rende, as you say, you're trying to create a night sky, so I'd go with painting them in or incorporating a sky of stars that you've previously photographed. The noise effect looks too unnatural.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
22 Feb 2009 5:49PM
If you are not actually using a camera, does this not fall into the Digital Art category rather than Digitally Manipulated?

"Manipulated" suggests you took a photo and did something to it....

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.