Help request for digital action photography

Thank you so much for you kind words and support, where you are quite right that this highlights my initial questions. Especially with my pictures showing that the bottom is cut off due to my figures being stood on a piece of card that I edited out of the shot.

Indeed, the background is displayed on a TV so I'm looking for a simple digital solution like printing an extended floor area so gives a more natural three dimensional effect.

I also like the idea kindly outlined by londonroadhog, where if I understand the steps correctly there are two pictures. The main backdrop, and a picture taken of the characters. Using Photoshop, the characters are then isolated from the rest of the image and can then be rescaled and superimposed on the backdrop.

Please can you confirm if my understanding is correct?

Thank you all once again, Paul

Ghost_Rider_1970 wrote:Thank you so much for you kind words and support, where you are quite right that this highlights my initial questions. Especially with my pictures showing that the bottom is cut off due to my figures being stood on a piece of card that I edited out of the shot.

Indeed, the background is displayed on a TV so I'm looking for a simple digital solution like printing an extended floor area so gives a more natural three dimensional effect.

You are welcome (and I think I can say that for all). I figured a backdrop this massive must be displayed on a TV. That makes pixellation even more of a possible concern, although in general focusing on the figure(s) and having a slightly blurrier background is not going to a bit problem. So you have two basic options, fairly advanced digital editing apart.

1 - simulate the ground cover on the screen with something you can put the figure(s) on top of. It can be a material that looks more or less like the same color or texture or maybe a few sheets of paper printed to look that way and arranged carefully.
2 - introduce a somewhat sensible additional element that does not have fit what you have on the screen but can make sense with it - for example, a ramp, a sidewalk, a platform, a balcony, a different surface of the same kind (e.g., another road/street, but at a slightly different "level") - of course your options would be limited by the context.

For the photo you shared, I think it would be easier perhaps to go with option 1.

As for adding something digitally, I will leave that to the gods of PhotoShop. I would guess that short of digitally cutting out your figure(s) and inserting them into a digital backdrop as a composite (and then you don't have to take the photo against a projected digital backdrop on a screen), perhaps place your figure(s) on more limited ground area (again, maybe paper with an appropriate printed design on it), and then use a clone tool to extend that digitally in the various directions (left, right, backwards) you need to make it "join" the image. Alternately, with a dark street surface like in your photos, maybe clone the background's ground area (but it would have to be high enough resolution) forward, carefully enveloping your figure(s), you will have to do some cutting or masking to keep it from overlapping them.

GubernatorFan wrote:

Ghost_Rider_1970 wrote:Thank you so much for you kind words and support, where you are quite right that this highlights my initial questions. Especially with my pictures showing that the bottom is cut off due to my figures being stood on a piece of card that I edited out of the shot.

Indeed, the background is displayed on a TV so I'm looking for a simple digital solution like printing an extended floor area so gives a more natural three dimensional effect.

You are welcome (and I think I can say that for all). I figured a backdrop this massive must be displayed on a TV. That makes pixellation even more of a possible concern, although in general focusing on the figure(s) and having a slightly blurrier background is not going to a bit problem. So you have two basic options, fairly advanced digital editing apart.

1 - simulate the ground cover on the screen with something you can put the figure(s) on top of. It can be a material that looks more or less like the same color or texture or maybe a few sheets of paper printed to look that way and arranged carefully.
2 - introduce a somewhat sensible additional element that does not have fit what you have on the screen but can make sense with it - for example, a ramp, a sidewalk, a platform, a balcony, a different surface of the same kind (e.g., another road/street, but at a slightly different "level") - of course your options would be limited by the context.

For the photo you shared, I think it would be easier perhaps to go with option 1.

As for adding something digitally, I will leave that to the gods of PhotoShop. I would guess that short of digitally cutting out your figure(s) and inserting them into a digital backdrop as a composite (and then you don't have to take the photo against a projected digital backdrop on a screen), perhaps place your figure(s) on more limited ground area (again, maybe paper with an appropriate printed design on it), and then use a clone tool to extend that digitally in the various directions (left, right, backwards) you need to make it "join" the image. Alternately, with a dark street surface like in your photos, maybe clone the background's ground area (but it would have to be high enough resolution) forward, carefully enveloping your figure(s), you will have to do some cutting or masking to keep it from overlapping them.

Thank you so much for your wonderful advice GubernatorFan. Your excellent ideas really do give me more diverse options to explore for which I am so very grateful. I'll definitely be experimenting with these and see what wizardry I can come up with, haha!

I really do appreciate all your time and help, Paul

Ghost_Rider_1970 wrote:Thank you so much for your wonderful advice GubernatorFan. Your excellent ideas really do give me more diverse options to explore for which I am so very grateful. I'll definitely be experimenting with these and see what wizardry I can come up with, haha! I really do appreciate all your time and help, Paul

You're very welcome, I hope it works and you will show us the results. I will just note, again, that my experience is with Corel PhotoPaint. But I'm certain PhotoShop has corresponding functions and indeed more capabilities, as the leading graphics software.

Below, see an example of a partly (I didn't bother doing it completely) digitally extended background -- onto the real foreground surface. See how the gravel of the road extends unevenly (and naturally?) over the dark surface (actually slate slab) on which the figure stands? That was for a quick solution (don't look too closely at the shadows).

Ghost_Rider_1970 wrote:Thank you so much for you kind words and support, where you are quite right that this highlights my initial questions. Especially with my pictures showing that the bottom is cut off due to my figures being stood on a piece of card that I edited out of the shot.

Indeed, the background is displayed on a TV so I'm looking for a simple digital solution like printing an extended floor area so gives a more natural three dimensional effect.

I also like the idea kindly outlined by londonroadhog, where if I understand the steps correctly there are two pictures. The main backdrop, and a picture taken of the characters. Using Photoshop, the characters are then isolated from the rest of the image and can then be rescaled and superimposed on the backdrop.

Please can you confirm if my understanding is correct?

Thank you all once again, Paul

For some reason I've not been getting notifications of updates... Anyway... Yes, you are correct. For my image, there were two pictured. One the figures, and one the background. Photoshop Select Subject really does a very good job most of the time, so that's what I use. Then if there's some tweaking, I'll either use the Auto Select tool, or use a layer mask on the figures to remove unwanted parts with a brush (Black brush brings the background into the figures, or a White brush brings the figures back)

Photoshop is a complex tool and there are many ways to reach the same goal. I used to be daunted by the program, however, the first C19 Lockdown we had, I spend time "playing" with the program, and discovered even though it seem complex, once you realise how it works, it works really very well.

Understanding Layers is the best way to get going with photoshop. Most of the tutorials I saw didn't explain why I needed layers. It was something that I just started playing around with, that suddenly it clicked.

Somebody mentioned Shadows and how they are done.

Shadows can be a little tricky. If I am working on a shadow of a person. I'd first decide how much of the person needs to be represented in that shadow.

Then I'd use the Polygonal Lasso, or the magnetic lasso tool, and select the area that will be shadowed from the figure. If there are multiple figures, it might be best to do each one in turn.

Once I've got the area selected, I'll do a copy and paste into a new layer. I'll rename it shadow, or [figure name] shadow. Next, with that new layer selected, I'd go to Edit > Transform > Flip Vertical. Then use the move tool to position it. Next, depending on the direction of the light, I might need to move the angle/length of the shadow. So, I'd go to Edit > Transform > Warp. Then using the little points, I'd move things about until I had the shadow placed correctly. Next, I'd use Filter > Blur > Gaussian Blur, and select an amount. Normally this can be quite low, anything from about 3 onwards. Depending on how blurred you need the shadow.

The final step would be to add a new layer to get rid of colour. So, Layer > New Adjustment Layer > Hue/Saturation. Then slide the saturation down until it was how I liked it.

Now, sometimes, because I am merging multiple images, the colour cast isn't correct, so I'd add an Adjustment Layer for the Color Balance.

It really is all just playing with things, until you get the effect you want. I use the above techniques for object shadows too. Like the Helicopter shadows. It seems to give a good effect in my mind.

Hope it helps. Plus maybe I'll be notified of updates next time, Sorry it took so long to respond.

Londonroadhog, the notification system of the site is quirky, although some of it may have to do with your junk/spam settings. I verified that you have enabled the options for notifications, but that's about all I can do regarding this.

Good advice on shadows. When I isolate figures from a background and superimpose them over a different background, I sometimes create a separate intermediate layer in which I basically create a hand-drawn polygon approximating the original shadow (using the unedited original image), then make it transparent and blurred. Of course, this presupposes your light source is from the same direction and you don't need to alter that. The example below illustrates this, but I made the shadow very faint because the environment didn't suppose much light (in fact I allowed for too much light and color, but it was a review of the figure so I didn't want to manipulate its appearance too much).

GubernatorFan, Yes that works too. I didn't mention that on occasions, i'd just create a new layer, and select a brush and paint a shadow. It is very inaccurate, and needs the opacity adjusting (which I forgot to mention in the prior post), along with some blurring.

Sometimes, the images are so lacking in light, that a shadow isn't worth working on. However most of the time, it just looks as though the figures are hovering in space, if you don't anchor them down with a shadow.

The shadows for the below image, aren't perfect, but at least it does give a little bit more realism. I really quite struggled with the figure on the left, But as he is walking, or trying to portray walking, it is fairly close.


The beach scenes below, didn't have a lot of shadow, but still had some, and had their own challenges for blending multiple images.



As I mentioned before, there are so many ways to do the same thing. No one method is the only method. Any one of them can be right for different people.

As for notifications, perhaps what happened was I got one notification, and checked the post, but didn't respond, and so I didn't get any further notifications. I obviously got the one for your update just now.

Londonroadhog, thanks for the confirmation that will also work in PhotoShop (I use Corel PhotoPaint). Your shadows look great, the beach ones are completely natural -- what I found surprising was that you said there wasn't much of them, in a beach scene. I see what you tried to do with the walking figure on the left in the first photo, it makes sense.

Well, notifications work in mysterious ways.

GubernatorFan, thank you for the kind comments. Many years ago, I used Corel's PaintShopPro. I think that has died a death by now. Not sure though. Photoshop is a huge unwieldy beast. As my main hobby is photography, I've got the adobe photographers bundle because it made sense. If I wasn't heavily invested in photography, there's probably no way I'd even contemplate Photoshop. Especially before it became subscription based, as it just cost too much. Now it costs me less than £10 a month for such an expensive product, with continual updates, I've never looked back.

1/6th really is a relatively new thing for me. I discovered Phicens by mistake, and as a photographer saw tons of potential. Then it just all kind of took off. I've now got about 20+ Phicens, and counting. Got into making dioramas, and stories, and it just now has a mind of its own. Lockdowns meant I was stuck at home, but never bored, as I can make a dio, take some Phicen pictures, or edit those pictures. The last 18 months have just flown by without any wondering what will I do during lockdown. Of course, nobody told me how much clothing cost for these 1/6 figures, and the quantity of clothing I'd end up with (Three huge drawers full!).

londonroadhog wrote:GubernatorFan, thank you for the kind comments. Many years ago, I used Corel's PaintShopPro. I think that has died a death by now. Not sure though. Photoshop is a huge unwieldy beast. As my main hobby is photography, I've got the adobe photographers bundle because it made sense. If I wasn't heavily invested in photography, there's probably no way I'd even contemplate Photoshop. Especially before it became subscription based, as it just cost too much. Now it costs me less than £10 a month for such an expensive product, with continual updates, I've never looked back.

1/6th really is a relatively new thing for me. I discovered Phicens by mistake, and as a photographer saw tons of potential. Then it just all kind of took off. I've now got about 20+ Phicens, and counting. Got into making dioramas, and stories, and it just now has a mind of its own. Lockdowns meant I was stuck at home, but never bored, as I can make a dio, take some Phicen pictures, or edit those pictures. The last 18 months have just flown by without any wondering what will I do during lockdown. Of course, nobody told me how much clothing cost for these 1/6 figures, and the quantity of clothing I'd end up with (Three huge drawers full!).

You are very welcome, and thank you for sharing your beautiful work. I hope you do more of that down the line, if you feel like it. Yes! It is an expensive hobby. Not just the head sculpts and figures, but also the clothing and accessories. But it is definitely fun, and certainly a way of passing time (if one needs to). My Corel suite is several years old, but makes do for me. In fact I do far more (and know more about) the regular Corel Draw program, with only occasional recourse to Corel PhotoPaint. The software is still going strong, although PhotoShop is the industry standard. I have seen too little of that to be comfortable trying more of it, and given my limited needs I will probably stay with Corel for now. But I suppose the subscription is a viable option for PhotoShop (although in principle I'd rather own something than lease it), and I'm glad it makes this awesome software more readily available.

I am always working on something 1/6th these days. I need to look around OSF a little more. But there's a couple of other forums I normally post most of my work. Some of the things I've done are:
Phicen Female Posing Guide
Phicen Posing (does include some nude) Includes a Window diorama
Phicen Spy Training Camp (comic stories) - dioramas of various things relating to spy training, and martial arts training, weapons training, etc.
Phicen Blacksmith Diorama

And a few other bits and pieces.

If you want to see a guy who has toy photography down, check out Johnny Wu in these video tutorials:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqxZ_VpwEd8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qawJndVSJ4

Here’s tutorials for shooting on a budget that might be useful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xjpp3NxYXk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZlOnW8ovjc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w8mR25ITKQ

Interesting videos Stryker. Thanks. I use a lot of the same equipment. But some of the effects look interesting.

That´s a fantastic brainstorming here. Thanks for the thread. I use many times the pictures of my calendar with some real stuff in front of it.



....to use pictures in the net by showing them on your tv screen is not so easy. Gube found a great way to reduce the " Rays ". I love to do it in that way, because of the tons of pictures You will find in the net for every single style you want.



Thanks for the great ideas here so far

londonroadhog wrote:Interesting videos Stryker. Thanks. I use a lot of the same equipment. But some of the effects look interesting.

Second that. I know this photographer from Instagram I think (and many using the same "firework, fog or dust whirl effects" as shown in the vids) but great to see more behind the scene stuff.
I also got my hands on Fog Aerosol sprays and stuff, but rarely had the chance to use them so far.

Some projects for the future.

Wish I could find some of those special effect stuff in the UK. Aerosol fog? Nope, I can only find fog machines. The sparklers, just don't seem to be able to find here. Normal ones, yes, but not those tank low level ones. Perhaps there are just too many restrictions of those sort of things entering this country.

I orderd one of this little foggers you place inside water from a china seller. It really works, oh wonder. But it´s not much fog, nearby nothing. You can have one for eight bucks

It is available in the UK:
https://www.atmosphereaerosol.com/pages/retailers

But this stuff is expensive and didn't impress me so far. I think the light source must be located in a way to make the best out of the fog spray. Otherwise it is barely visible. I bought two cans when they had a special offer.

I think a fogging machine is the best thing u can use at home. But for outdoors, there aren't too many options.


@Ephiane: Ok cool, that is another option i didn't know. But eh, still not too much fog effect...

I also bought some smoke pellets for outdoor photography, but they are also not easy to use and either too much smoke or the smoke is going stright up and not wavering around the ground where your figures are.

Ephiane: I was looking at those pond foggers earlier today. Look pretty cool, but limiting I think. But nice idea.

Valiarde: Those do look expensive for what they are. My friend has a smoke machine, and she said it can be used indoors, just have it pump for a few seconds... Smoke pellets I've used on a big 1:1 scale model shoot, and are great, but wind can cause issues.

Any idea on where to get those tank sparklers from?

That fog effect is really cool!

Ephiane, these are great images -- some I recognize from before, others not.

While I generally would favor actual 3D objects and real effects captured on camera (except of course for anything that would damage us or our figures), things like fog and smoke can be very easily superimposed on our images as PNGs with transparent backgrounds.