I’ve had to make 15 substantial edits to this image, but three of them fall very short of my standards.
I am debating whether or not go ahead and use the image “as is” anyway, with the rationale that nobody is going to look at it as critically as I am, in the context it’s supposed to be in. (Webpage, at that size, as an incidental photo alongside some text.)
What’s wrong appears to jump out pretty glaringly to me, but I am lazy and don’t really want to get the camera out again. I figure nobody’s going to give it a “Where’s Waldo?” calibre lingering look, but I’m wondering if the flaws leap of the screen to a casual observer like they do to me.
(I’m also curious about whether or not the stuff that I’m actually satisfied with is all that, after all.)
I can’t spot a single thing wrong with it and I’m seeing it isolated from anything else.
If it’s going to be alongside some text, the vast majority of visitors are merely going to glance at it (unless your text refers to it or any part of it such as “suzie - third from the left on the top row”)
Nothing wrong on initial quick glance.
Loking more closely, the woman in green on the left seems to have her eyes closed, and the black woman in the center is partially hidden.
But that’s about it, and not bad for just about any group shot of this size.
Looks good to me–yes, one woman has her eyes closed, another is partly hidden, one bald guy on the left could lose the top of his head into the background, girl in pink pants should either wear grey or not be in the front row next time (or stand with her legs straight), but . . .
I’m voting it’s pretty good for a group photo of that many people. Yes, it is hard to see faces well enough to get much pleasure out of looking for Suzie, third from the left, but if that’s not the purpose of this picture . . .
I put those down to spontaneity. A perfectly composed image of many people looks more artificial than if a few of them weren’t ready when the shot was taken.
That’s what I’m seeing - back row, 5th from left looks added as does the chick with black hair in the middle, directly behind the barely seen black woman.
I think it may have been composed from a number of different shots.
That said, most of them are facing the camera as if it were one big shot.
In addition to the ones MissTake mentioned:
I don’t think the brunette in the middle back is that tall; the tall (vaguely Asiatic) guy in the middle back is iffy; the woman 6th from left, back (in between him & badly lit obvious-fake woman) is an interpolation. The four women in the back right look added, though I’m not sure about the one at the very end.
But most of them look like they were actually there. Don’t draw attention to the fact that there’s a problem, & most people won’t notice.
But if it has to look real, dumb “obv. fake woman.” Does anyone else have a strong second light on the right side of the head?
I agree with some other that one or more of the people were “photoshopped” into the photo because I guess they couldn’t be there on photo day or something? But unless asked to find flaws, no amateur would ever notice.
For the record, I have removed nine people from the photograph, and added in five more. (Staffing changes.) No easy trick to remove the folks from the middle of the group, either – had to redraw the obscured parts of remaining people, or paste in substitute clothing from web piccies.
I have a fix for closed-eyes lady, but opted not to use it since it stood out way too much as “wrong” to me. Maybe it is actually not as bad as leaving her eyes closed, based on comments.
The problem is that the group photo was taken outdoors with natural light and a long lens, and I have had to composite those five new people in using whatever happened to be handy - so the lighting is wrong wrong wrong. Also, the source photo as I received it is only twice the size as shown here, so it’s difficult to edit. No hope of drawing corrected shadows, at that scale. #5 & #6 from the left at the back look horrible to me - I was thinking about getting the camera out and hitting them with some directional light to try to reproduce the original lighting a little better. …but maybe that’s a little obsessive.
Nothing stands out at first glance aside from what’s already been mentioned.
But looking closely (with a ridiculous amount of overimagination thrown in), I want to say that the the guy in light blue, middle row, 1/4 from the left and the two women right behind him (especially the one with thick-framed glasses) look like they’ve been pasted in. But that probably has more to do with the lack of background. The guy in front of him unnaturally short too, but that maybe that’s just the way he is.
Looks pretty good, actually - unless someone is looking very very closely, it would probably be pretty hard to spot the substitutions.
It does seem to me that the colour is a bit washed out, which is pretty typical of outdoors shots taken in strong daylight. It may or may not work, but try duplicating the layer, then applying a Soft Light filter and dicking around with the layer opacity to see if it improves things somewhat (I sometimes boost the saturation on the Soft Light layer too… a little smidge will do wonders for the colour).
On first glance, I thought the lighting was a little funny, and noticed the woman with the closed eyes, but other than that, nothing jumped out at me at all. It really wasn’t until someone in the thread pointed it out that it occurred to me that it was a composite image.
I am having way too much fun flipping between the original pic and the one with the “fix” for the woman with the closed eyes. It’s making me giggle like crazy! Don’t use your fix…the face looks too small and you can see some hair on the right that clearly isn’t lit the same way.
Meh, you asked for criticism, we said “Hey, there’s a lady with her eyes shut”.
I’m not seeing anything wrong with the “fix” for that–yes, it’s a dramatic change if you swap back and forth between those two images, but the “fixed” shot is perfectly ok in its own right.
But if you didn’t post here asking for help, it would be less likely to be commented on–except probably by people who know the lady.
Thanks for your comments, folks. I’ll spend a little more time trying to fix closed-eyes lady, and I will take another pic of the one most obviously wrongly lit person. (The top that she’s wearing made it hard to place her in such a way that she didn’t look like the naked girl in the back, anyway.)
Thanks, Mahna Mahna - good suggestion about copying to a single layer to try to even things out a bit. I’ll try that tomorrow.
Also, Beadalin, you’re not crazy - blue collar lady lost her legs, I will try to find some more for her. (Won’t be the first pair of phony pins in there.)
The whole thing is starting to look a little bit Sgt. Pepper to me - I’m glad it’s not too bad.
