DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Photoshop question
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 24 of 24, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/24/2003 01:48:35 AM · #1
OK, how do you take an ugly white sky and turn it blue? Hopefully natural looking too.

Oh, look I have a sample picture to work on! (wink)


10/24/2003 02:09:02 AM · #2
I have a great video tutorial on that, but unfortunately it is from a CD on a photo mag, so I can't show you :(

There are a lot of ways you might manage that, what I would suggest is .....

Using selection tools select the sky area. You can then either mess around with colour, hues, saturations etc or else take a neat sky (I like ones with little fluffy white clouds for example) and in effect put it behind that photo, with the original sky removed.

If I get a chance over the weekend I'll have a play with that photo, just incase it is more complicated than I thought.
 10/24/2003 02:37:05 AM · #3
Does this look too weird?
10/24/2003 03:22:21 AM · #4
This simple technique only takes a few moments. It's not perfect and only one of many ways to change the sky colour in photoshop.

1 make a new layer over the background layer
2 on the new layer, make a selection roughly equivalent to the sky area
3 in the selection, draw a gradiation of 2 hues of blue then deselect the selection
4 reduce the opacity until you're happy with the overall colours
5 in the history palette, make a new snapshot
6 same place, click the small button to the left of the original
7 same place, make sure that the new snapshot is selected in the righthand column
8 in the tools palatte, click on the history brush
9 go over the image with the history brush to restore those non-sky areas which the gradiation cast blue. Start off with a large brush and reduced opacity, then continue with a smaller brush for branches and other smaller areas
10 continue until you're happy with the results

I'm far from being a photoshop expert but this



only took 2 minutes to put together. Unlike this post which took far, far longer.

[edited to add 'then deselect the selection'.]

Message edited by author 2003-10-24 03:35:02.
 10/24/2003 03:27:03 AM · #5
Ok, using the magic wand, lassoo, and a layer I got this. Maybe 2 mins for initial one and then 1 min per sky change.

These are quick and dirty, for instance I have not really tried to adjust the lighting on the house looking wrong for the sky.









Thanks for the trick on the thumbs there Konador & Faidoi :)

Message edited by author 2003-10-24 03:39:35.
 10/24/2003 03:33:24 AM · #6
There's a thumbnail button when you're writing your message. It looks like this:
10/24/2003 03:38:54 AM · #7
TooCool what settings did you use for the shot? What was the jpeg size you shot the picture at?

Message edited by author 2003-10-24 03:41:07.
 10/24/2003 08:22:33 AM · #8
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Does this look too weird?


Yes it does look kinda wierd. Whad did you do, borrow the color from the pontoon boat?
 10/24/2003 08:27:52 AM · #9
Originally posted by Koriyama:
This simple technique only takes a few moments. It's not perfect and only one of many ways to change the sky colour in photoshop.

1 make a new layer over the background layer
2 on the new layer, make a selection roughly equivalent to the sky area
3 in the selection, draw a gradiation of 2 hues of blue then deselect the selection
4 reduce the opacity until you're happy with the overall colours
5 in the history palette, make a new snapshot
6 same place, click the small button to the left of the original
7 same place, make sure that the new snapshot is selected in the righthand column
8 in the tools palatte, click on the history brush
9 go over the image with the history brush to restore those non-sky areas which the gradiation cast blue. Start off with a large brush and reduced opacity, then continue with a smaller brush for branches and other smaller areas
10 continue until you're happy with the results

I'm far from being a photoshop expert but this



only took 2 minutes to put together. Unlike this post which took far, far longer.

[edited to add 'then deselect the selection'.]


This one looks better but still has somewhat of a surreal feel to it. Thanks for all the instructions! I'll be able to play with it after work!
 10/24/2003 08:36:13 AM · #10
Originally posted by faidoi:
TooCool what settings did you use for the shot? What was the jpeg size you shot the picture at?


This was taken a couple of months ago and don't remember the exact settings. My camera doesn't give me a whole lot of control. It was shot just before twilight. The EXIF info is:

File: - P8202837.JPG

ImageDescription - OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Make - OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD
Model - C300Z,D550Z
Orientation - 1 (top left)
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - 2 (inch)
Software - v574u-78
DateTime - 2003:08:20 20:06:27
YCbCrPositioning - 2 (datum point)
ExifOffset - 284
ExposureTime - 10/500 seconds
FNumber - 3.5000
ExposureProgram - 2 (program normal)
ISOSpeedRatings - 146
ExifVersion - 210
DateTimeOriginal - 2003:08:20 20:06:27
DateTimeDigitized - 2003:08:20 20:06:27
ComponentsConfiguration - 1 2 3 (YCbCr)
CompressedBitsPerPixel - 1 (average)
ExposureBiasValue - 0.0000
MaxApertureValue - F 3.48
MeteringMode - 5 (multi-segment)
LightSource - 0 (auto)
Flash - 1 (flash used)
FocalLength - 9.9000 mm
UserComment -
FlashPixVersion - 100
ColorSpace - 1 (sRGB)
ExifImageWidth - 1984
ExifImageHeight - 1488
InteroperabilityOffset - 886
FileSource - 3 (digital still camera)
SceneType - 1 (directly photographed)

Maker Note (Vendor): -
SpecialMode - 1122
JpegQual - 1
Macro - 0
Unknown - 0
DigiZoom - 1.0000
Unknown - 6.9440
Unknown - 1150
Software Release - SX574
PictInfo - [pictureInfo] Resolution=1 [Camera Info] Type=SX574
CameraID - OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
DataDump - ;î% >u 4 =T 
q«Ô º@Ò$²Ð ^ ''%8 3> JØ

Does this help? Oh and file size originally was 706K
 10/24/2003 08:40:09 AM · #11
Oops, missed ya natator

Originally posted by natator:
Ok, using the magic wand, lassoo, and a layer I got this. Maybe 2 mins for initial one and then 1 min per sky change.

These are quick and dirty, for instance I have not really tried to adjust the lighting on the house looking wrong for the sky.









Thanks for the trick on the thumbs there Konador & Faidoi :)


The first one looks pretty good! What do ya do with the layer? I'm assuming you do the same to change the reflections in the windows and such...
 10/24/2003 12:59:15 PM · #12
You can also you the magic wand to select the sky, then select a big chunk of a good looking sky from another file and use the 'paste into' function. It's going to be a little more time consuming because of all the spaces betwen the trees, but then you can pick a sky that you want.

Here's a start...I just chose a sky that I had handy and didn't finish all the spaces between the trees.


10/24/2003 01:40:52 PM · #13
I did this in approx 2 minutes:
1. Add new layer > insert sky colour
2. Dupe base layer (the image) > blend mode 'multiply' > drag above sky layer
3. Layer Menu > Add layer mask: Hide All > airbrush over sky area on mask until satisfied

If sky layer is subtle, colour it red (or add a red coloured layer) so that you can see the changes then put your sky layer in.

It may help to vary brush size when getting close to textured branches so that you don't lose too much detail.



Message edited by author 2003-10-25 04:04:24.
 10/24/2003 03:29:00 PM · #14
While all are valid attempts, all of them leave a fingerprint. That's because the shot is over-exposed. So, while you can fake a blue sky, it'll cost you lots of editing time with the selection tool or fine brush tool. If you go this route, be sure to view at 100% or 200%.

The best answer, IMO, is to reshoot the image. ALWAYS error on the darker side as you can pull out detail/color from the shadows by simple curves and levels commands. But once the highlights are blown, kiss them good-bye as you'll be left with color replacement exercises.

BTW - I noticed the flash fired...I can't help but wonder how that effected the exposure. The on-camera flash is usually only good for subjects 10m (the manual would have information on it).

- Dave
 10/24/2003 03:34:21 PM · #15
The shot may be overexposed but the method I use can fix almost any problem like this with a little attention to detail.

I agree that getting the shot right first is the best policy but resolving problems need not be too daunting.

Edit: I'd like to know what you see as 'fingerprint' of my technique. As far as I'm aware the edit I've made is indiscernible, given the low-res original I've worked with (and the 2-minute attention I gave it!)

Message edited by author 2003-10-24 19:28:16.
 10/24/2003 04:39:35 PM · #16
Originally posted by toocool:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Does this look too weird?


Yes it does look kinda wierd. Whad did you do, borrow the color from the pontoon boat?

No, I just tried to push the lightest colors around with Curves on the Blue and Red channels, partly to avoid making any selection or mask. It's usually what I try first as it's very fast, and sometimes solves the problem right there.
 10/25/2003 12:23:21 AM · #17
Originally posted by toocool:
Oops, missed ya natator
The first one looks pretty good! What do ya do with the layer? I'm assuming you do the same to change the reflections in the windows and such...


Basically I did pretty much what others here are suggesting.

The layer was where I put the replacement sky basically.

More importantly .....

I used the magic wand to select the sky, and with a double click and the right tolerance managed to select all the little patches of sky between the branches as well.

However, initially it also selected parts of the house, the boat etc as they were the same (basically) colour. I got around this with the lassoo tool and selected only the general sky area of the photo, from just above the house (as I rushed it I caught a little of the roof, but hey). I then used the magic wand tool only WITHIN the selected area and thus deleted the entire sky, but nothing else.

Sky is now transparent, new layer with alternate photo of sky, et voila!

Lots of ways to do this, this was just one of many. There are maybe better ways, faster ways etc.
 10/25/2003 04:09:33 AM · #18
Many of the previous methods here will leave a wide margin for error.

When embarking on this kind of thing it's important to give it the attention it deserves - the 'click-the-magic-button' approach is sometimes too crude, where in fact a little manual work can yield more natural results.

It's quicker than correcting errors made my the automatic selection tools such as Colour Range and Magic Wand.
 10/25/2003 09:50:32 AM · #19
Thanks to all who've replied, tried, supplied possibilities. I knew that there would be many ways to do what I was hoping to achieve.

I will be playing with this, but probably not till after the weekend. I will post my results and ya all can tell me if I can improve on it!

Thanks again.

Oh yeah, I'm sure I should go back to the original and adjust then resize it again for here...

Message edited by author 2003-10-25 10:00:12.
 10/25/2003 04:01:52 PM · #20


There's my try.
1. New duplicate layer.
2. Selective color the whites - add blue to taste.
3. Erase the layer except the sky. (Makes the trees easier to do)
4. Merge and save.

If you wish to change the hue, just erase the layer, then Ctrl U hue shift it as necessary.

Mav

Message edited by author 2003-10-25 16:03:04.
 10/27/2003 07:33:33 PM · #21
Hey, before I forget, I wanna thank all who gave helped and especially to those who posted examples! I don't get a day off till Tuesday, but ya can bet good money I'll be playin' with it then and if I get results I like I'll be sure to post it here for all to see.

Oh yeah, one quick question, on all the examples posted the sky didn't look to natural right next to the house. I'm assuming that this is because the sample picture was already resized and sharpened... If I correct the sky first, then resize, sharpen, etc. will that help to make it more natural looking?
 10/27/2003 07:38:54 PM · #22
Originally posted by toocool:
Hey, before I forget, I wanna thank all who gave helped and especially to those who posted examples! I don't get a day off till Tuesday, but ya can bet good money I'll be playin' with it then and if I get results I like I'll be sure to post it here for all to see.

Oh yeah, one quick question, on all the examples posted the sky didn't look to natural right next to the house. I'm assuming that this is because the sample picture was already resized and sharpened... If I correct the sky first, then resize, sharpen, etc. will that help to make it more natural looking?


Possibly... the key will be getting the masking right and feathering it across the boundary, by only just as much as really needed. This really needs to be done at full resolution; when you downsample later it will only hide it even more effectively.
 10/28/2003 01:20:22 PM · #23
Originally posted by Jon Lucas:
Edit: I'd like to know what you see as 'fingerprint' of my technique. As far as I'm aware the edit I've made is indiscernible, given the low-res original I've worked with (and the 2-minute attention I gave it!)


- The white spots in the tree
- The upper right corner has light blue in it, though it's the dark blue sky
- There are slight halos around a few branches

Perhaps you'd normally take more time to correct these things, but it will cost a lot of time. And perhaps it's los-res, but nothing works as good as just plain not over-exposing the photo.

Finally, your sky is completely fake (no offense). If I take a photo of something, I'd prefer not to completely remove the sky. Fixing a sky is one thing, removing it is another thing - one I avoid. I'm not discrediting you or your photography by any means. I personally would never do it.
 10/28/2003 02:01:13 PM · #24
Here's my layering attempt!


Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 10:06:10 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 10:06:10 AM EDT.