# There is an evil amonst us...



## manaheim (Aug 18, 2009)

And its name is Photoshop.

Original...







Fixed..






Can you see what I fixed?

Could you tell if you weren't looking?


----------



## manaheim (Aug 18, 2009)

Here's a hint...

(don't scroll down until you want the answer)









































 This is a 100% crop of a portion of the image... the portion that was altered.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Aug 18, 2009)

I caught it without looking at the hint, nice work my friend!

I think the reason I caught it is because sh** like that bugs me too 

You should have 'shopped TPF on there while you were at it


----------



## camz (Aug 18, 2009)

That's a clean edit.  I can't see any residuals of person you took out on the bottom right side.

I can also see that you cropped the image down just a tad.  Do I get a cookie now? 

I also like the exposure on the second image alot better. :thumbup:

Edit: Now that i'm looking at it more, I don't think there was any exposure edits were there?


----------



## invisible (Aug 18, 2009)

manaheim said:


> *There is an evil amonst us...*


Photoshop? I thought it was the spell checker! :lmao:

Where's the lady?


----------



## manaheim (Aug 18, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> I caught it without looking at the hint, nice work my friend!
> 
> I think the reason I caught it is because sh** like that bugs me too
> 
> You should have 'shopped TPF on there while you were at it


 
hehe, I thought about putting my website up there. 



camz said:


> That's a clean edit. I can't see any residuals of person you took out on the bottom right side.
> 
> I can also see that you cropped the image down just a tad. Do I get a cookie now?
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, no exposure diff, though initially the image I put up was in the wrong colorspace so you may have just caught it.  (and I didn't like that one)

Yeah, you caught the crop.  At some point I could only reconstruct so much of the chair so I had to crop a few pixels off the bottom.  I'll mail you a cookie! 



invisible said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > *There is an evil amonst us...*
> ...


 
Oh well CRAP on the spelling.  "amongst"  Sorry.    I should know better.

The lady...?  She was eaten by a grue.


----------



## skieur (Aug 18, 2009)

Why did you NOT straighten the distorted leaning in the photo?

skieur


----------



## manaheim (Aug 18, 2009)

skieur said:


> Why did you NOT straighten the distorted leaning in the photo?


 
Because it was distorted and leaning on purpose?


----------



## Jon_Are (Aug 18, 2009)

PTLens will fix that wagon. :mrgreen:

Jon


----------



## Jon_Are (Aug 18, 2009)

See if anyone can spot my edit (OK to edit so I took the liberty):


----------



## manaheim (Aug 18, 2009)

Jon_Are said:


> PTLens will fix that wagon. :mrgreen:


 
pfft... I'm a ptlens whore, but ain't no WAY I'm touching this image with PTLens. 



Jon_Are said:


> See if anyone can spot my edit (OK to edit so I took the liberty):


 
BAHAHAHAH...


----------



## Jon_Are (Aug 18, 2009)

In all seriousness, great shot. 

Aren't you tempted to give that computer screen (and the corner of the one in the center) the heave ho?

Jon


----------



## manaheim (Aug 18, 2009)

Jon_Are said:


> In all seriousness, great shot.
> 
> Aren't you tempted to give that computer screen (and the corner of the one in the center) the heave ho?


 
Thanks!

Yeah, in fact the intrusion of technology into the space annoyed me in a lot of ways.  In fact this shot started out as me trying to get a picture of the entire library... then it turned into "damn, can I get the shot without all these freakin' computers and xerox machines and crap in the shot?"  And then it finally turned into "You know, a wonky angle on this would probably be wicked cool!"

In the end, I've resigned myself to the fact that 1. There is no good way to remove that computer anyway, because all I could -really- replace it with would be the back of that yellow desk it's sitting on, which would be the only space in the entire image that isn't buried in clutter.   2. The fact is that it shows that technology _has _intruded, and that it is as much a member of the chaos as everything else in the space.

What I really should have done is tried to make the technology in the space a statement in itself in some of the shots.  Maybe I'll try that if I get to go back.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 19, 2009)

Indeed a clean edit. The metal bar isn't _quite_ straight at the edges though. I wouldn't notice it without the 100%, but then again, that's something that in PP would drive me absolutely bonkers. (Perhaps using the rectangular marquee tool to control your cloning better would produce a cleaner edge.)


----------



## Jeffro (Aug 19, 2009)

that is one of those shots you can have alot of fun with editing cause you could change so much with out people noticing unless they are really looking hard!


----------



## Jon_Are (Aug 19, 2009)

You've already got a statement of old vs. new technology, if you look closely.

You have all those old books and paintings contrasting with one of those new-fangled, float-in-midair lamps  (just to the left of the PC screen). :mrgreen:

Jon


----------



## manaheim (Aug 19, 2009)

Jon_Are said:


> You've already got a statement of old vs. new technology, if you look closely.
> 
> You have all those old books and paintings contrasting with one of those new-fangled, float-in-midair lamps (just to the left of the PC screen). :mrgreen:


 
True enough.  And most of those books are actually new.  I think I was just looking for a less extreme "high dynamic range" of technology.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 19, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Indeed a clean edit. The metal bar isn't _quite_ straight at the edges though. I wouldn't notice it without the 100%, but then again, that's something that in PP would drive me absolutely bonkers. (Perhaps using the rectangular marquee tool to control your cloning better would produce a cleaner edge.)


 
Oh that's an interesting idea.  But yes, I did agonize over the edges and such.  Creating a new edge from an old one (sometimes from another part of the scene entirely) is a harrowing affair.

That being said, all this took me probably about an hour... really not bad.  I may bring it up and tweak it again before I print it 24x36 as I currently intend to do.


----------



## JayClark79 (Aug 19, 2009)

You did a great job removing the girl... i must learn how this is done... is it all smudging?


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 19, 2009)

Smudging? Oh dear no. That's a tricksy tool to use effectively. Bah. Go play with your clone brush. 



manaheim said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed a clean edit. The metal bar isn't _quite_ straight at the edges though. I wouldn't notice it without the 100%, but then again, that's something that in PP would drive me absolutely bonkers. (Perhaps using the rectangular marquee tool to control your cloning better would produce a cleaner edge.)
> ...



Indeed. I don't like trying to reconstruct edges. Not a fun time at all. I've had varied success with the method I mentioned. It'll create a very hard, clear edge, but if you judiciously use the blur tool and a little healing, it can come out a little better. >.>


----------



## manaheim (Aug 19, 2009)

JayClark79 said:


> You did a great job removing the girl... i must learn how this is done... is it all smudging?


 
Combination of the cloning tool and the healing brush.  The cloning tool does the bulk of the work with use of the healing brush occasionally and lightly to randomize the textures a bit and make them a bit more like they're not just a dup from somewhere else.

It takes quite a bit of practice.



musicaleCA said:


> Smudging? Oh dear no. That's a tricksy tool to use effectively. Bah. Go play with your clone brush.


 


musicaleCA said:


> "tricksy"   SOMEONE has been watching Lord of the Rings.  WE HATES THE SMUDGE TOOL!  HAAAAAAAAAATES IT!!!!
> Indeed a clean edit. The metal bar isn't _quite_ straight at the edges though. I wouldn't notice it without the 100%, but then again, that's something that in PP would drive me absolutely bonkers. (Perhaps using the rectangular marquee tool to control your cloning better would produce a cleaner edge.)


 
Yeah, I'll definitely try to play with that.  You know you could feather the selection slightly...


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 19, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Yeah, I'll definitely try to play with that.  You know you could feather the selection slightly...



NO! Everything must be at 100% hardness! Bnasdaaaaagggg!!!!

...Um, yeah. Of course you can do that. D'oh! 

(You mixed up your quote tags manaheim. Took me a while to find what you had typed. :greenpbl: I think tricksy has become part of my vocabulary after watching those movies...oh...five or six times.)


----------



## manaheim (Aug 19, 2009)

I watch those yearly. 

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAATES THE QUOTING TAGS!  HATES THEM!


----------



## UUilliam (Aug 19, 2009)

Great edit, If i hadn't seen the original, I would have never known!


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 20, 2009)

^^^^^
:thumbup:


----------



## ocular (Aug 20, 2009)

I use the marquee tool all the time when I'm cloning, an yeh I noticed the person missing, nice and clean.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 20, 2009)

NICE job, UUilliam.    I may have to do that.


----------



## ToddLange (Aug 21, 2009)

i was wondering if yall knew if the clone and heal brushes are in elements 7?


----------



## skieur (Aug 30, 2009)

manaheim said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Why did you NOT straighten the distorted leaning in the photo?
> ...



I don't think they build libraries leaning inward and if the distortion does NOT contribute to the photo, which is the case here, then it should have been corrected. :mrgreen:

skieur


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 30, 2009)

Really? I thought the distortion contributes to the image.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 30, 2009)

skieur said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...


 


musicaleCA said:


> Really? I thought the distortion contributes to the image.


 
There are a whole heck of a lot of things I see in photography that I do not see in real life... libraries leaning inwards... bridges that look like they are inside of fishbowls... straight buildings that look more like pyrammids... etc.

It's clearly an artistic choice to either intentionally make these things do this or not correct them when the camera does it.

I very specifically chose this angle for a variety of reasons and deliberately picked the widest focal length on my Sigma 10-20 because I knew it would distort the image.  Skieur may not like what I've done, but this was EXACTLY what I wanted and I'm personally very pleased with it.

That being said, I'm only strengthening my statement of intent here.  I have a lot of respect for skieur and I appreciate his opinion.  I just don't happen to agree with it. 

I think it looks wicked cool. 

(glad you like it, music!)


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 30, 2009)

Well I don't agree with either one of you.

I believe it would benefit from being crooked/straight at the same time. Sorry to rain on anyone's parade.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 30, 2009)

LOL


----------



## manaheim (Aug 31, 2009)

Alternate reality photography!


----------



## inTempus (Aug 31, 2009)

Wow, that's some killer work my man.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 31, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Wow, that's some killer work my man.


 
Why thank you, sir!


----------



## skieur (Aug 31, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Really? I thought the distortion contributes to the image.



So, how does it contribute to the image......

skieur


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 31, 2009)

skieur said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > Really? I thought the distortion contributes to the image.
> ...



My feeling, is that if you corrected the leaning and the perspective, you'd make the library seem smaller, and less grandiose. Having that distortion, where the second story looks larger and more open than it actually is, gives it a big, open feeling, for what otherwise would be a very constricted and cluttered space.


----------



## Stormin (Aug 31, 2009)

I really like the image with the distortion. It does add a very neat feeling to the image. I can see how it would be a very personal choice (some liking it and others not).

As for the whole person being gone, I did spot it right away, but only because it was the first thing that I would have removed from the image in my own editing.
And I like the computer screen being there. It does show how that the technology intrudes into even the most simple of places.


----------



## J Rock (Sep 1, 2009)

I noticed her gone,  did a great job removing her.  I only WISH that I were that good.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 2, 2009)

Stormin said:


> I really like the image with the distortion. It does add a very neat feeling to the image. I can see how it would be a very personal choice (some liking it and others not).
> 
> As for the whole person being gone, I did spot it right away, but only because it was the first thing that I would have removed from the image in my own editing.
> And I like the computer screen being there. It does show how that the technology intrudes into even the most simple of places.


 
Thanks, Stormin, for your comments.  Yeah, as much as I loathed the PC being there I kind of thought the same thing myself... it shows the passage of time, much as the newer books on the slightly less new shelves in the very old room do.  Much as the electronic lighting does, for that matter.



musicaleCA said:


> My feeling, is that if you corrected the leaning and the perspective, you'd make the library seem smaller, and less grandiose. Having that distortion, where the second story looks larger and more open than it actually is, gives it a big, open feeling, for what otherwise would be a very constricted and cluttered space.


 
Oh I hadn't actually considered that, but that is an interesting point and I'm glad you got that feel.

What _I_ personally felt it contributed was a sense of disorientation.  The place was just so... chaotic... only organized.  There was stuff _everywhere_.  Anywhere you looked there would be like 14 different kinds of things... there would be a PC, a 300 year old lithograph of some historical figure made by a famous hand, and some law books... all within the space of 2 feet.  It was daunting, yet very beautiful.  The colors were beautiful, but when you looked closer you saw real damage from decay and overuse.  There was so much... more than I could ever effectively articulate in any reasonable amount of words.  I wanted to try to capture that.



J Rock said:


> I noticed her gone, did a great job removing her. I only WISH that I were that good.


 
hehe... I get a fair amount of press around here as a heck of a photoshop guy, but generally I don't think I know all that much.  _That_ little task, however, was _really_ challenging and I managed to do it in about 45 minutes or so.  I have to say I was pretty proud of myself for it.   Thanks for the compliment!


----------



## Wyjid (Sep 14, 2009)

wow! that's quite a shot, beautifuly taken! very good. agreed about the wobbly edges though, especially the electrical conduit. i think the best part is the right edge of the lamp and the left edge of the cart, very well done. i think the space that's supposed to look like empty books would look better with books. it looks a bit like a pixely censorship blob... what was there  ?

here's my contribution.


----------



## 5DManiac (Sep 15, 2009)

Very nice shot.  I spotted it.  hehe.  hmmmmmmm thats good editing! did you do that from scratch? or another frame?


----------



## 5DManiac (Sep 15, 2009)

I agree with the OP.  That's a great look and of course thats what he was aiming for.  That's the whole idea of a wide angle lens.  Fantasy land while retaining straight lines and getting your viewer immersed in the subject.


----------

