Photography Topics
Adding a person to a group shot in Photoshop.
This year I had three different sessions for a company called The Camden Group. The Camden Group needed group shots of their Senior VPs and VPs. The problem was that not everyone was able to be present for the main group session. I had to go back and photograph individual SVPs and VPs to then later insert them into the group shot. As you can imagine, this posed a question: “How can we combine the photos to incorporate everyone into one image?” Thanks to Photoshop, there is a relatively simple way to do this.
In this case, there are five SVPs and we needed to add an image of Becki, into the middle of this image.
First shoot/Before
Becki, photographed on a different day.
Second shoot/Before
The way the final image below was accomplished:
I opened both images above.
I dragged Becki’s image into the group image, using the move tool.
I made sure that she is in perspective by decreasing her layer opacity (now on top) to 50% . This way I could see the image below and I was able to line up the lines on the wall to make sure she is the correct height compared to the guys next to her. In a sense I “resised” her using the free transform tool.
Next I changed Becki’s opacity back to 100% and added a layer mask to her layer, by clicking on “add adjustment layer” at the bottom of the layers panel.
The layer mask is the button that looks like a square with a circle in the middle.
Next I chose the brush tool and clicked on the color black.
Black erases anything on your layer mask, as opposed to white, which adds to the layer mask. By using the black brush tool, with the layer mask selected on Becki’s layer, I brushed away the rest of the image and was left with only Becki.
This is the relatively easy part.
Next, I spent another hour refining my mask by meticulously and very carefully “brushing in ” and “brushing out” edges where Becki touches all three men. For the most part, I set my brush to “hard” rather than “soft”.
Blending in hair poses a particular challenge. That’s where I set my brush to a softer mode and go back and forth between the black and white brush until it looks natural.
The final image!
Combined After
Why does my headshot photography package not include RAW files?
“Why?” you ask, “why does my headshot photographer not want to give me a CD of high resolution files that I can go do as I please with? After all, my other photographer did.”
This question has come up enough times that I feel the need to respond for the collective who don’t give out high resolution files. These are my colleagues, photographers, and artists whom I have great respect for because they truly value their work, and like to see the process through from start to finish. Let me explain.
But before I explain, I would like to define what a RAW file is (for the laymen). Most professional photographers shoot in RAW mode. A RAW file is the equivalent of a film negative. RAW files are not the same files that a point and shoot digital camera produces. A point and shoot produces JPEG files, which are compressed images, that are pre-processed by the camera. Meaning, the contrast, color balance, and skin tones are determined by the camera, and therefore, the images need no further processing. By contrast, RAW files need processing in the digital darkroom, sometimes referred to as the lightroom, just like a film negative needs processing in the darkroom. RAW file types are available only with Prosumer or Pro Cameras that cost anywhere from $1700 to $8000 or even more.
Here is an example of what a RAW file that comes out of the camera looks like and the same file processed.
RAW Headshot vs. Custom Processed
Every actor understands that a film negative is not a finished product or a ready image. It is not an 8×10 headshot. It needs to be processed in the darkroom, and then printed in the darkroom. The printing process involves chemicals and other goodies where the photographer adds contrast, burning and dodging, and controls skin tones and brightness to produce the final print. This can be the most creative, fulfilling, and exciting part of being a photographer. After all, this is the only part of the process that the public sees, the final image we create from that negative! That’s the image that gets hung up in galleries, or published in books, or in the case of headshots, the image that gets passed around all over town with our name stamped on it (literally or not)!
Even those of us who dropped film off at the lab, for processing and printing, felt we had creative control over our final images. This is because, to the labs we had a relationship with, we could dictate our standards and preferences, get exactly what we asked for, and even proof our images before proudly passing it on to the client as the image of our vision.
No one seems to understand that RAW files need to go through the same process of “processing”.
Here is another example or a RAW vs processed file.
RAW vs Processed
The truth is, the average person can not take film and process it themselves in their own darkroom. Unlike the “Lightroom”, consisting of a computer and Photoshop, darkrooms are expensive, time consuming, and require skills not easily available to the public.
With digital cameras and the tools for processing easily available to the public, I hate to say it, but, with all due respect, every Joe schmo thinks he is an expert in Photoshop; essentially an expert printer. Maybe so. But I can guarantee, that nine out of ten consumers do not have the skills to process an image the way a photographer can. Why? Because photographers spend countless hours doing what they do (their full time job), in addition, they are constantly educating themselves, learning new techniques, investing in new software and hardware to be able to give clients high quality images with their vision.
Most importantly, the processed RAW file is the photographer’s very own creative interpretation of the final image. My personal feeling is that no one should take that away from an artist.
Saying to a photographer that you’d like to play around with the RAW images yourself, is truly diminishing what a photographer does as an artist. The only part of the whole process that the public sees is the final image, and that final image should, in my opinion, be created with the photographer’s vision and no one else’s.
I think a painter would very much be offended if after purchasing his painting, the buyer decides he would like to add his own brush strokes to the canvas.
A writer would very much be offended if an actor decided to change the interpretation of a line that was meant to mean something else.
I could go on but you should be getting the point by now.
Sure, in the days of film, there were headshot photographers (for one reason or another) who gave away their negatives, just as they now give away their RAW files, or what some people call the high resolution files. When a photographer gave his negatives to the client, and a random lab processed the negatives and made a print, the photographer essentially gave up creative control over the final outcome and look of the image. Chances were, that if the lab was not a trusted lab that the photographer had a relationship with, and that lab put out mediocre work, the photographer in turn looked mediocre.
By the same token you can take RAW files to the reproduction lab and have them process the files for you. In the case of headshots, unfortunately with few exceptions, reproduction labs don’t necessarily take the time and care to creatively process RAW files. They merely focus on the “setup” of your name, font, border etc. and don’t necessarily focus on things like selective burning and dodging, perfecting skin tones, contrast, and enhancing colors.
Same as a film lab, if a reproduction lab is mediocre, chances are the final image will also turn out to be mediocre. Guess who’s name and reputation rides on that image? Yup, you guessed it. When the quality of the final headshot is bad, the only person that gets blamed is the photographer. This is true mostly because people are unaware of the process the images have to go through to look good, the process I explained above.
Here is another example.
RAW vs. Processed
In the world of headshot photographers, there are many who don’t necessarily view their work as art, who don’t care enough about what happens to their work once it leaves their possession, and simply give away their RAW files. These photographers generally charge less since they spend less time in post, and also don’t need to invest as much in equipment and software to process RAW files. I truly believe that they would be more successful if they took control of their images and treated, yes, even headshots, as art. Because in my experience, good work (on final images that the public will view) begets more work.
A quick note about the rest of the industry: giving away RAW files is not common practice in any other field of photography. In fact it’s frowned upon. From wedding photographers to commercial photographers, and everyone else in between, giving away RAW files is the equivalent of giving away our precious copyright, completely disregarding the Copyright Act of 1976 which protects the value of a photographer’s images. But that’s a whole other topic.
To summarize, headshot photographers may be viewed as lowest of the totem pole, and some may even view themselves as such, and therefore not take their art seriously. I, on the other hand, really enjoy what I do and take my work seriously. By striving to become a well informed and better photographer every day, I aim to provide my clients the unique prospective of seeing my vision come to life from start to finish. For me, the process begins, from the minute I click the shutter, create the web galleries, CDs, proofs, etc., and ends with the final image processed, with all my little creative touches!
To uphold and to protect my reputation from bad or mediocre processing of my images, and for the sake of creative control, I feel strongly about not giving out my RAW files.
Enough examples of RAW images. Here are more from my shoot with Annie Ramsey, possibly the cutest redheaded actress in town!
Headshot
Headshots
Epson R2400 Watercolor paper grayed out
The other day I changed the Photo Black Ink for my Epson 2400 to Matt Black. I wanted to print one of my projects on watercolor paper. Unlike the old 2200, the 2400 does not require you to delete the printer from the printer list, turn off the printer, turn on the printer and re-add the printer again. Instead, the 2400 only requires that you “confirm” the new ink. On a Mac, all you have to do is go to the Printer Setup Utility, select the Stylus Photo R2400 from the list and click on Utility button. Then, click the Epson Status Monitor and click on the black ink cartridge to verify the new ink.
If after you have verified your ink, you are still unable to print on the appropriate paper, then Epson doesn’t make it easy to figure out why. When I went to print on Watercolor paper, the paper profile would show up (under “printer profile” when you hit print), however when I continued to print, and went to “print settings”, the watercolor paper was grayed out under “media type”. It took me a while to figure it out. Turns out that the printer driver the 2400 was printing from was somehow incorrect. Once I downloaded the correct driver, I was able to see all the media types in the drop down!
