Dramatic Seashell Series - B&W Focus Stacked

[FlyingSquirrel]

I'm working on these images still. The urchin shell is cut out, now on to the next

I think I know the answer to this but would like your opinion(s)... If I cut out the urchin, abalone, and coral so they have no shadows/halos, would it then be required to remove the shadow from the starfish? I guess it would look weird for those three to be on a perfect white background and then have the starfish with shadow and texture? Or could it work that way?

To be honest, cutting the starfish out will be a chore; I think regardless of the technique, it will take "forever" due to the extreme edge detail. Not looking forward to it...

*EDIT* I just had another thought, looking again at the quad image. The only part that is really bad is the offwhite halo around the two round shells. I actually kind of like the actual shadows beneath the shells. So maybe I can cut the shells out and then create very subtle drop shadows on the 3 other shells, thus making them fit in with the starfish. I think without the shadows the shells will blend into the bg too much, especially the coral at upper left.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I would use a soft brush to paint most of the area with the halo ... I would use a very small hard brush only in the area that is adjacent to the subject to ensure that I don't encroach on the subject.

If you don't mind, I'd like to give an unsolicited suggestion. You probably already know this and it may or may not be helpful, but it just occurred to me as I was editing a photo:

If you are going to paint in like that, I suggest you might want to enter Quick Mask mode...this will give you more payoff for your work. The technique will be the same (except you'll paint out the entire background, not just the adjacent areas), but after you exit quick mask mode you'll be left with a selection. You can then refine the selection if you wish with the refine selection dialog, and/or invert it to select the subject instead of the background. Save your selection and you can now load that up in the future. Now you have done about the same amount of work as before, but the result is that you can cut your object out with the selection and then replace the bg quickly, as desired for multiple versions instead of repainting the bg, etc. You probably knew this already but I thought I'd offer it up, and maybe it will help someone.

[teokf]

WOW! makes me want to try this too.

Great work!

[FlyingSquirrel]

Thank you, Steven. Whether you are talking about trying seashells, or focus stacking...I recommend either and/or both

Quick update for everyone... All 3 shells are cut out and ready to be edited again. Just the starfish remains.....

[Mike Buckley]

So maybe I can cut the shells out and then create very subtle drop shadows on the 3 other shells, thus making them fit in with the starfish.

That would work well. Don't forget that if you are simulating the use of one light source coming from the top left as indicated in the star fish, the shadow should appear in somewhat different positions in the other three subjects because of their different physical relationship with the light source.

If you wanted to present the four subjects in a collage that has borders, the concern for equal shadows would not be needed or at least would be less important.

[Mike Buckley]

If you are going to paint in like that, I suggest you might want to enter Quick Mask mode

My software doesn't have that capability. You really don't want me to get started on a rant about the fact that it also doesn't have an inverse selection tool.

[FlyingSquirrel]

That would work well. Don't forget that if you are simulating the use of one light source coming from the top left as indicated in the star fish, the shadow should appear in somewhat different positions in the other three subjects because of their different physical relationship with the light source.

If you wanted to present the four subjects in a collage that has borders, the concern for equal shadows would not be needed or at least would be less important.

Very good points. I am thinking that the farther away the lightsource is, the more consistent the direction of the cast shadows would appear to be? It seems the proximity of the light source would dictate how much the shadows would vary, considering the angles between each object and the light would be more severe when closer to it. I'm just basing these guesses off of principals from when I used to do a lot of drawing, but I could be way off. Either way, I wonder how I could emulate the correct variation in shadow directions...perhaps visualize the origin of the light and draw imaginary lines outward? If I could make the time I'd do some reading.

[FlyingSquirrel]

My software doesn't have that capability. You really don't want me to get started on a rant about the fact that it also doesn't have an inverse selection tool.

Oh, I'm sorry I guess I would have discovered that had I actually read your signature info. Well, based on the quality of your photos, I would have never known you don't have photoshop

[FlyingSquirrel]

Here we go. Reprocessed, larger, sexier versions. Cut out and placed on pure white, contrast cranked up. I decided to go with no drop shadows, as I liked the stark white, contrasty look without them. It kind of looks like the shells are floating in space (especially the starfish) but it doesn't bother me. Call me crazy, but I somewhat like it.

As it turns out, I had an idea for cutting out the starfish, and like a miracle it worked. I made a copy of the layer, did an extreme LCE adjustment, cranked up the contrast, etc until the starfish and background were very delineated. Then I grabbed the magic wand (which I generally avoid), tweaked the sensitivity, and had at it. The wand quickly and easily selected right up to the starfish, tightly around the tentacles and little nubby things. I couldn't believe how fast and easy it was. Then I cleaned up the selection a little bit and was off with the rest of the edits.

*EDIT (again)* - My monitors are 1600x900, and in fullscreen mode the lighbox is not expanding the photo to full size. To see maximum size and sharpness, click the box/arrow icon to the left of the "x" to expand to full size- you'll need to do it for each photo (I just learned that you can do that!).

Hope you enjoy. C&C if you would like. Always appreciated.

[Dave Humphries]

To see maximum size and sharpness, click the box/arrow icon to the left of the "x" to expand to full size- you'll need to do it for each photo (I just learned that you can do that!).

Even easier Matt;
Once you've clicked and got LyteBox, just tap the "F" key on your keyboard to 'Fullsize' it.

You can also use the arrow keys to navigate through the series, but when you reach then end, one more tap closes the LyteBox.
You will need to "F" each picture in turn.

These look more contrasty, for me, this doesn't suit the third and fourth.

Cheers,

[Mike Buckley]

I like the increased contrast on all of them. I don't have strong feelings about whether to include a shadow other than to mention that I like this floating look a lot for these particular subjects.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Thank you gentlemen for your feedback. Dave, great tip for viewing the fullsize pics! Mike, thanks for all the help on this series. I'm extremely happy with the results.

[Mike Buckley]

I'm extremely happy with the results.

As you should be!