Back Versions (4)
Modifications (1)
Views: 138 (75 Unique)  Award Shortlist   

Ashbourne church&gate

By xwang
I took Paul's and Phil's advices on the photo yesterday, changed this photo's sky, but I couldn't get it right. The most difficult part was the white edge after the two pictures put together. Large file looked even worse, especially the fence and trees parts. You may still see the white edge on the left side of the fence. Any tips please? I'll upload the two photos that I used to merge on V2&3, in case you want to have a fun..Smile
I used layer mask. Magic wand>select sky>similar>refined edge about 1...maybe not enough for fence and trees after selection, so I guess it may need to do it separately. I didn't try, that would be another layer, I couldn't work out how the second layer cover up the first layer's edge. Or select twice, leave the tree and fence on the first selection,paint the easy part, and then second selection refine edge further to cover up the edge and paint them..just a thought..Grin
All comments, criticisms&MODs are welcome. Thanks for looking.
S1/320;F9;ISO320;Focal length24;EF24-105f4l is usm;manual.Date: same as yesterday's

Tags: Gate Church Tree Fence Architecture Black and white Landscape and travel Ashbourne

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

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

This photo is here for critique. Please only comment constructively and with suggestions on how to improve it.


Hermanus 5 4 South Africa
7 Mar 2013 5:30PM
I think this is a lovely image - very well seen and taken Jasmine Smile

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

NDODS 7 5.1k 125 United Kingdom
7 Mar 2013 5:45PM
I think what you have done is brilliant Jasmine, however there is something not quite right and I can't seem to put it into words at the moment. Please someone help...

Regards Nathan Grin
nonur Plus
9 17 13 Turkey
7 Mar 2013 6:11PM
I think it looks better than the original, but if you add only the upper part of the cloudy sky, the problem could be eliminated.
johnke 5 223 15
7 Mar 2013 6:17PM
Hi Jasmine, I think you have put together a well lit image with beautiful exceptional tones and while I think everything is a little central as far as composition is concerned. The biggest problem for myself personally is that the gates are holding your eye's back from wandering inside the church yard. I can imagine what a wonderful image this would be with those gates open and maybe the church steeple not quite so central. But Jasmine I think you know this already....John
lonely_oryx 10 61 55 England
7 Mar 2013 6:27PM
Good work
banehawi Plus
13 1.8k 3879 Canada
7 Mar 2013 6:59PM
Its a good effort jasmine. Frankly, it isnt worth it, except as a Photoshop exercise. It does actually happen in real life that the sky is exactly as it appears in your original! An inage that has a lot of empty tree branches is a major challenge.

There is a technique you may or may not be aware of, and thats the paste Into command.

To use this, use the magic wand, very carefully, and select the sky in the original. You may lose some fine branches, but it really depends on how much time and patience you have. The select the sky image and copy it. The back to the original, and edit>paste>paste special>paste into and enter. This will place the sky into the selected areas. You will have a lot of clean up in this shot, but lets say its summer, theres leaves on the trees, your job will be a lot easier. No easy way though with small spindly tree branches.

If you go to Youtube, and look for photoshop tutorials on selecting fine hairs, - theres information there you could use with this, its complicated.


LynneJoyce Plus
9 20 99 United Kingdom
8 Mar 2013 7:36AM
I will try Willie's technique for myself on your image later today when I have time to get on to my computer.

Quote:I think what you have done is brilliant Jasmine, however there is something not quite right and I can't seem to put it into words at the moment. Please someone help...

Regards Nathan Grin

I agree with Nathan and I suspect that the intensity of the sky is too much for the image. When I place a more interesting sky into an image I always do it on a layer below the sky-less image that I have duplicated on to a new layer. That way I can adjust its brightness, clarity (usually with a slight blur) often its transparency and sometimes its hue/saturation.
paulbroad 10 123 1243 United Kingdom
8 Mar 2013 8:34AM
This is a strong image. What looks wrong is the church, which has a bit of a cardboard cut out look. It is not natural, but does it have to be? This image, on an exhibition wall, would cause people to stop and look. Then, like it or not, it has achieved something that many normal images do not, interest.

Sooty_1 7 1.5k 221 United Kingdom
8 Mar 2013 1:56PM
The main thing you have to think about, before you go anywhere near changing/importing/processing differrent parts of an image, is "do they fit together?" Ie....the lighting needs to be the same. The same sort of quality and the same direction. Here you have a low contrast gate, looking like it was taken in dull light, and a high contrast sky lit from the right...which is the wrong side for the highlight on the church spire and the dullness on the gate posts.
It has to look right before you start. Here, it looks like you are combining two images that are both the main subject and are competing for attention.

Also, you are trying to combine very complex images (ie the tree and all the fine detail) - maybe you should start with less detailed images first.

Selections are not easy to make around fine details and still look natural, you have to fine tune the "refine edge" controls for the best effect, and there are different ways of adjusting the "blending options" to control how top and bottom images interact.

Whilst we would all like dramatic skies every time we go out, the fact is that it is much better to get as much right in camera rather than look for images you can change skies in. Very rarely, and only with a lot of time, effort and skill does an image like this come off.

xwang 9 56 8
8 Mar 2013 2:14PM

Quote:This is a strong image.
.. Really? Thank you very much, Paul. I was going to give up it until you said so.. I'll have another look...I wonder the cardboard cut was caused by the small refined edge. The original thought of taking it in this way was to emphasis the skulls that I didn't see on my last visit. Not quite traditional way to show a church and gate, because the proportion was not right. By choosing this sky, it would put more pressure on the matter I tried to emphasis. But I didn't know it was an 'abnormal' image..thank you very much for telling me, I'll keep it.Smile
Thank you very much, Willie for your MOD. That's very clever, you used different part of sky. Actually what bothered me was the light when I did it. I should flip the sky, because it seemed that the light part of the church was on the left,(actually it was snow,) so the sky's light should be from left as well...I tried a bit your special one,Grin this morning before I went out, but I couldn't get some part of the procedure right, the cloudy sky landed on the church rather than on the white sky..inverse didn't work out I did them via layer mask again, not more difficult. Simply move the church on the top of the sky, select the church sky and then click layer mask. The problem of this image is that I can't use smart radius as the hair image, because there are too many different edges. If I got the tree right, the fence would be wrong. I couldn't select all of them accurately.
I'm trying to find out an answer about pixels...
When I correct the perspective for a very tall building as the Derby cathedral, if I get the vertical right, the tall building becomes short and flat. Sometimes, I use free transform tool to pull it back as what I saw. I was told that by doing so I stretched the pixels and looses definition,... so I thought if the content-aware scale and smart object tool can do the opposite way as well... I mean, smart object mostly is for resizing, content aware for 'squeeze' the empty space. If I turn the whole picture as a smart object and then whatever I do on the building, , and when I 'pull' it back, will they come back to their original place? But what ever I do on perspective, there should no pixel loss. The question is: How can I pull the building back, and not stretch the pixels?
Thank you very much, Lynne.
I'll be back later to see your MOD, and if it works out easily, do tell me the detail work please. Just use ">" to show the steps will do...easy to follow and save your typingSmile
Thank all very much.
xwang 9 56 8
8 Mar 2013 2:18PM
Thank you Nick. Sorry, I didn't see your comment when I started. Yes, I had noticed the light problem as I mentioned above....Could you tell us something about the Pixel as well please? Thanks!Smile
xwang 9 56 8
8 Mar 2013 8:59PM
Uploaded an improved version on V4, larger and easier to view. I'm not really entirely happy with it,I just tried to find the way to do this kind of work. It seemed that the fine selection(magic wand 8), refine edge(2), grow came out a better result.
I took Nick's view, changed a slightly low contrast sky.
Thank you all very, very much. Your comments are all very helpful and keep me going to work harderGrin

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.