Monster truck

[jujitsu1]

Before.
This is my sons toys and thought it would be a laugh to add them together.


After.


Dont know about you but I'm not to fussy on the altered one as its still abit rough.
Blurred the background first.
I used ps to mask and alter the eyes and nail colours.
I also tryed to alter the teeth too to make them a bit more pointy.
Then I just darkened the whole photo.

[jujitsu1]

Dont anybody have anything to say about my monster truck...lol

[Cemil97]

Good motive, but the post processing is a bit too rough for my taste. Personally I would have taken the picture with a larger aperture to get the background blur directly in the picture and then gone to work on the nails, eys, etc. in Paintshop or Photoshop. That would avoid the halos around Sully and the truck.

[wulf]

Another way to avoid haloes is to work with different layers. Create a cut out version of what you want to remain sharp, which goes at the top. Also create a duplicate of the original scene to sit below that. On the duplicate, use the clone tool to roughly paint away the edges of the subject with the colours from the surrounding. When you add the blur, you won't then have a ghostly image of the subject to contend with.

It does look too overdone to me though. If you haven't got a camera that makes it easy to get a shallow depth of field, I can see the attraction of this kind of work (I've done it myself in the past) but I think subtlety is normally the best approach.

Wulf

[windrider86]

try to think about how this might look in real person. You wouldnt see the floor blurred out if you had taken this shot for real. I guess what I am trying to say is to duplicate dof in post processing try and make it seem as tho you had done it with your camera. Blur the background but not the floor. It wont seem so overdone that way

[jujitsu1]

Thank you for your comments. I find no matter what f number i put my camera i never seem to be able to get a blurred back ground.

[windrider86]

the way I remember is that f22 is everything in focus. The bigger the number the more is in focus

[wulf]

Flickr suggests this was at f/3.6. With a DSLR at this setting and range you probably wouldn't get all of the toys in focus, let alone the background. However, I suspect the camera used has a smaller sensor - it allows a lighter, cheaper device but with the drawback of making it hard to get blurred backgrounds on purpose.

Often that can be a boon, for example when taking macro shots where DSLR pics often suffer from too narrow a depth of field, but not in this case. You could try taking a picture of the same toys but with the background increasingly far away and see what distance is needed to start to get the kind of blur you are after.

Wulf

[jujitsu1]

My f numbers go from f3.3 up to f 8 but not sure they work tidy or am I doing some thing wrong ?

[wulf]

You don't get the same dramatic effect as you switch between them as you would on a camera with a larger sensor. However, do some testing (the same scene but with a range of apertures) and you should be able to pick up some difference.

Wulf