Exercise: Addition.

Outline: For this exercise you will be adding one element from a different image. The aim is to take a conventional landscape view and and render the sky so that is appears ideally exposed.

I have recently been out shooting sunsets at the seaside. With my camera on auto settings, I took the first image which of course was perfect for the foreground but it left the sky looking a little flat and completely underwhelming compared to the dramatic sky infront of me. So I decreased the exposure and altered the white balance to cloudy to try and better the image. These are the two images that were produced at the time:

lighter foreground image

darker for sky image

First step was to combine the two images, lighter on top of the darker image. As I use photoshop elements, I was able to layer the lighter image on top of the darker image with no problems.

Layering one image on top of the other

After I had successfully combined the images (the lighter was slightly smaller than the darker so it took a bit of time, my own fault for not using a tripod!) , I then used the eraser tool to 'erase' the sky from the top 'lighter' image to reveal the darker sky beneath.

erased sky from light top image - flattened

As you can see, the horizon isn't perfectly straight from using the eraser tool but it's done the job. We have the lighter foreground with that fabulous dramatic sky.
For the second part of this exercise, I had to complete exactly the same effect but using a selection tool instead of using the eraser tool. That way I could select the sky using the rectangle tool, perk of having a nice flat horizon, and then just delete the selection from the top layer.

selecting the sky with the rectangle tool

This then again gave the same outcome but with a straighter horizon line for me in this image. I can image though, how using the selection tool would be better to control the parts to be erased, as I find when using the eraser I tend to have to continuously alter the brush size etc to get all the bits deleted. Here is the final outcome using the selector tool:

sky deleted using selector tool - flattened

Yes, I can see that this again does not have a perfectly straight horizon but the actual horizon on the images was at a slight angle and had I deleted a straight line, there would've been some unwanted detail of the sky on that side of the image.

I decided to download the free trial of Photomatix to see what the adjustment would look like using an exposure-blending program, just to compare with the two attempts that I did. I made sure that I used the exposure blending procedure and the highlights & shadows - Adjust option and here is the outcome:

Photomatix blend outcome

It's tidier than my attempt but the sky isn't as fierce as it could be or as it was on the day. But the neatness and overall merge is very impressive.

So now to use a 'sky' from another image. I took a very fierce sky image one morning years ago, by hanging out my back window as I had never seen the sky like that. This is the photograph that I took that day :

alternative sky 1

I know this probably wouldn't work on a beach scene but thought I'd give it a go anyway. With a basic select and copy to the beach image, I got this image:

This looks weird but a successful attempt at altering the sky. I toned down the brightness off the selection twice to see if that made it look any more realistic:

I think this version is a lot better and out of the three versions (including the next one), I think this one works best. Reducing the brightness and contrast again brought me to this image:

I think this one is just as unsuccessful reality-wise as the first basic attempt.
But in a bid to try and keep the exercise as realistic as possible, I did it again with another beach sunset, but without the colour aspect.

alternative sky 2

This is a similar set up to the original sunset image I was working on with the sun in pretty much the same place. I had to be careful with the horizon of this image as it's not just water as there is land in the distance, but the outcome came out pretty well:

Final image

Conclusion:
And there it is, a sky taken from one image and transferred to another image. And I must say I m happy with it. But this is where I'd say we were misleading the viewer as this 'subject' never actually existed. The first part of the exercise, altering the sky to make it appear ideally composed is fine, as we are only enhancing what is already there. But to change one factor of an image for something different is falsifying the image.

Exercise: Enhancement.

Outline: Use a close up head-and-shoulders portrait, in available or natural lighting and without using flash. Make two selections, one at a time, each with it's own adjustment. First should be of the entire face and the second just of the eyes.

Looking through my image library I came across this image:

original

Ok, so firstly i used the magnetic lasso tool in photoshop elements around the little boys face, ears and neck:

Select face with magnetic lasso

I included the neck and ears so that it would look more realistic than just lightening the face itself. So then I just increased the brightness and increased the contrast to these areas:

Dodging to the facial area

And now we can see the selected areas have been emphasized to draw more attention to the face than before. I then reverted back to the original image and, one at a time, selected the eyes. Firstly, I selected the iris and as suggested in the notes, increased the saturation and brightness. Then I altered the hue to change the eye colour. Finally, I selected the whole eye (iris and the white of the eye) and increased the brightness and contrast to bring out the eyes even more.

Eye colour changed & eyes made more noticeable

 Yes, I am aware that the red eyes is not a natural eye colour but this is part of the reason why I chose it. And also, when dabbling with the hue setting, this colour was the one that actually looked most 'realistic' (ironically) as some of the other colours just didn't appear real.

Conclusion: 
I enjoyed this exercise, tampering within the realms of photographic reality. I am fully for the altering the face lightening because as I have said in the previous exercises, altering lighting and drawing attention to a subject I dont feel is misleading the viewer. Altering the eye colour, for me, is on the other end of the scale as we are altering the actual subject. That is why I chose the red eyes for my exercise above, because red is not a natural eye colour and by looking at the above image, it is blatantly obvious that the image has been tampered with and the viewer will know that straight away. I dont believe that misleading the viewer for 'profit' if you like is right. A portrait of someone, yes by all means brighten their eyes to highlight them as a beautiful feature but to highlight them in an advertising campaign to sell 'eye brightening' product?? Not at all.

Edward Weston & Imogen Cunningham.

The first thing that strikes me when viewing Weston's work is his fantastic use of curves. I have looked through a good twenty or so images so far and I have not come across a singles straight line. And to be honest, I like it. Lines can make images very symmetrical, not that i think that's bad. Take the photographer Joel Tjintjelaar I noted previously in this course. I love his work and he focuses on curves and straight lines and this image is a fantastic example of lines making images look symmetrical. Weston's use of curves make his images almost look 'erotic' no matter what the subject. This is very fitting though considering some of his work is of the naked body.
Form is a big factor in Weston's work. It's almost as though he wants you to question what the image is of, like this image is a perfect example. Weston uses lighting to very effectively enhance the form and texture of his subjects and now I can see why my tutor compared some of my assignment three images to Weston though. My pepper image has the same qualities if you like, using the lighting and shadow to highlight the natural curves and texture of the pepper.

When it comes to Imogen Cunningham, I have a different perspective viewing her images in comparison to Weston. Although there are the same qualities of using the lighting and shadows to highlight the form of the subject and again with strong use of curves. I particularly like Cunningham's botanical photography and can tell she likes pattern and texture. It shows through beautifully in her images and the detail is highlighted really well through her use of shadows. I really like the calm simplicity of this image, the silkiness of the petal visible as though you can almost feel it, compared to this one which appears rough and almost prickly.

The use of tones within the monocrome images of both these photographers is fascinating and has really highlighted to me the effect of shadow, lighting and different tones when using black and white photography to enhance the texture,shape and form of any given subject.