Sky Blown Out

On Sat, 2 May 2009 05:12:01 -0700 (PDT), ""
wrote:

Hi

I have taken a photo outside which has my subject and background is trees and sky. Sadly the sky has blown out and is practically white. What I wold like to do is replace it with blue sky and clouds. I have my original photo, then created a layer of the same image to create a more rich in colour by using overlay which is fine. But now I need to improve the sky, but when I create a new layer (blank) and click filer, render, clouds it overlays over the top completely. Can anyone help me please?

🙂

Select only the from the horizon upwards (or the portion which you want to add the new sky to, of course) and do it. You can also (afterwards) use the eraser tool on order to erase portions of the new add-on if necessary.

On Sat, 02 May 2009 16:32:05 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Sat, 2 May 2009 05:12:01 -0700 (PDT), ""
wrote:

Hi

I have taken a photo outside which has my subject and background is trees and sky. Sadly the sky has blown out and is practically white. What I wold like to do is replace it with blue sky and clouds. I have my original photo, then created a layer of the same image to create a more rich in colour by using overlay which is fine. But now I need to improve the sky, but when I create a new layer (blank) and click filer, render, clouds it overlays over the top completely. Can anyone help me please?

🙂

Select only the from the horizon upwards (or the portion which you want to add the new sky to, of course) and do it. You can also (afterwards) use the eraser tool on order to erase portions of the new add-on if necessary.

and rendering clouds may not be what you need. Find ‘cloud brushes’ via your search machine which may be a better option.

You have to select the sky area and then with the selection active click on ADD LAYER MASK with the layer that has the clouds as the active layer. You need to make a really careful selection and then feather it slightly so it blends in properly.

Why finding an easier way to make thing more difficult? Or just use the exact same technique I have mentioned so many times before.

1. Making a dupe of the original

2. Adjusting one layer til happy with the sky

3. Selecting the Quick Mask then start masking it around.

That’s it! no need to create the masked file.

On Sat, 02 May 2009 22:18:05 -0500, Joel wrote:

Why finding an easier way to make thing more difficult?

Hi

I have taken a photo outside which has my subject and background is trees and sky. Sadly the sky has blown out and is practically white. What I wold like to do is replace it with blue sky and clouds. I have my original photo, then created a layer of the same image to create a more rich in colour by using overlay which is fine. But now I need to improve the sky, but when I create a new layer (blank) and click filer, render, clouds it overlays over the top completely. Can anyone help me please?

🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mboKiRHRYZg&feature=relat ed

"Fred" wrote:

Hi

I have taken a photo outside which has my subject and background is trees and sky. Sadly the sky has blown out and is practically white. What I wold like to do is replace it with blue sky and clouds. I have my original photo, then created a layer of the same image to create a more rich in colour by using overlay which is fine. But now I need to improve the sky, but when I create a new layer (blank) and click filer, render, clouds it overlays over the top completely. Can anyone help me please?

🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mboKiRHRYZg&feature=relat ed

This technique is replacing the sky, and it may only work (best) on some photo (like the sample photo) but not all. IOW, it’s a good masking example but it’s pretty much a showing off sample cuz.

– It may only work with some not all photo

– It may only good for displaying not printing.

Hi

I have taken a photo outside which has my subject and background is trees and sky. Sadly the sky has blown out and is practically white. What I wold like to do is replace it with blue sky and clouds. I have my original photo, then created a layer of the same image to create a more rich in colour by using overlay which is fine. But now I need to improve the sky, but when I create a new layer (blank) and click filer, render, clouds it overlays over the top completely. Can anyone help me please?

🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mboKiRHRYZg&feature=relat ed

This technique is replacing the sky, and it may only work (best) on some photo (like the sample photo) but not all. IOW, it’s a good masking example
but it’s pretty much a showing off sample cuz.

– It may only work with some not all photo

– It may only good for displaying not printing.

See "related" in the link and on the page. There are lot’s of techniques. Could you explain your quickmasking technique regarding branches and trees? Tedious work, IMHO.
Personally I would go for a channel mask.

improve the sky, but when I create a new layer (blank) and click filer, render, clouds it overlays over the top completely. Can anyone help me please?

Coming late to this party – I would like to recommend that you try out the "blend if" controls in layer properties. This, combined if necessary with a layer mask for minor brushwork, may be exactly what you want.

Another technique can be used to give a hint of blue to a washed out sky. Convert the image to Lab mode, and tweak the blue end of the b curve to give a touch of color to the sky. Ignore what happens to the rest of the image. Then double click on the layer in the Layers palette, select the Lightness channel, and adjust the black triangle to the right until the blue is confined to the sky only.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

You should try to make the picture properly.
No Photoshop would be necessary.

Photoshop is for non-photographers.

If it is someone else’s imaage, then let ’em hang with the crap output.

I find it amazing that anyone who can afford Photoshop cannot read the HELP documents.

Who wanna bet after all this replies,
this is one of those posters we will not hear from again. So, who are we talking to? To each other?

"Fred" wrote:

Hi

I have taken a photo outside which has my subject and background is trees and sky. Sadly the sky has blown out and is practically white. What I wold like to do is replace it with blue sky and clouds. I have my original photo, then created a layer of the same image to create a more rich in colour by using overlay which is fine. But now I need to improve the sky, but when I create a new layer (blank) and click filer, render, clouds it overlays over the top completely. Can anyone help me please?

🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mboKiRHRYZg&feature=relat ed

This technique is replacing the sky, and it may only work (best) on some photo (like the sample photo) but not all. IOW, it’s a good masking example
but it’s pretty much a showing off sample cuz.

– It may only work with some not all photo

– It may only good for displaying not printing.

See "related" in the link and on the page. There are lot’s of techniques. Could you explain your quickmasking technique regarding branches and trees? Tedious work, IMHO.
Personally I would go for a channel mask.

The technique using quick mask (my style) that you don’t have to make a Masked file to worry about the branches. Or trying to create a masked file out of a complex photo like hair, tree branches etc. isn’t easy, and it may only good for displaying but not for printing.

My technique is pretty simple.

1. Making the dupe of the original.

2. Adjusting one layer, blown out sky for example til you are happy with the result. Don’t worry about the other part which will become too dark, cuz you want the SKY *not* other part.

3. Then use Quick Mask command to Seal whatever you don’t want to see, and Review whatever you want to see. Using low Opacity and good Brushing skill then you will have a good blending.

Channel Mask is usually good for making a Masked File, but when you have a Masked File then you will have to deal with the edge, and you may need to master the blending command to be able to get to the next level. Channel Masking was what I started with many years ago, but I never like the edge so I have to develope my own style base on the commands I know.

Mike Russell wrote:

improve the sky, but when I create a new layer (blank) and click filer, render, clouds it overlays over the top completely. Can anyone help me please?

Coming late to this party – I would like to recommend that you try out the "blend if" controls in layer properties. This, combined if necessary with a layer mask for minor brushwork, may be exactly what you want.
Another technique can be used to give a hint of blue to a washed out sky. Convert the image to Lab mode, and tweak the blue end of the b curve to give a touch of color to the sky. Ignore what happens to the rest of the image. Then double click on the layer in the Layers palette, select the Lightness channel, and adjust the black triangle to the right until the blue is confined to the sky only.

I read in the news that the OP has already killed himself <bg>

The technique using quick mask (my style) that you don’t have to make a Masked file to worry about the branches. Or trying to create a masked file
out of a complex photo like hair, tree branches etc. isn’t easy, and it may
only good for displaying but not for printing.

My technique is pretty simple.

1. Making the dupe of the original.

2. Adjusting one layer, blown out sky for example til you are happy with the
result. Don’t worry about the other part which will become too dark, cuz you want the SKY *not* other part.

3. Then use Quick Mask command to Seal whatever you don’t want to see, and Review whatever you want to see. Using low Opacity and good Brushing skill
then you will have a good blending.

Channel Mask is usually good for making a Masked File, but when you have a Masked File then you will have to deal with the edge, and you may need to master the blending command to be able to get to the next level. Channel Masking was what I started with many years ago, but I never like the edge so
I have to develope my own style base on the commands I know.

Thanks for explaining, I don’t think I have the time nor the patience to do it like that,
even with a Wacom tablet, which I use a lot. (Even in quickmask mode 😉 But if it works for you, all the better.
To each his own style, I prefer to let PS do the hard work.

"Fred" wrote:

The technique using quick mask (my style) that you don’t have to make a Masked file to worry about the branches. Or trying to create a masked file
out of a complex photo like hair, tree branches etc. isn’t easy, and it may
only good for displaying but not for printing.

My technique is pretty simple.

1. Making the dupe of the original.

2. Adjusting one layer, blown out sky for example til you are happy with the
result. Don’t worry about the other part which will become too dark, cuz you want the SKY *not* other part.

3. Then use Quick Mask command to Seal whatever you don’t want to see, and Review whatever you want to see. Using low Opacity and good Brushing skill
then you will have a good blending.

Channel Mask is usually good for making a Masked File, but when you have a Masked File then you will have to deal with the edge, and you may need to master the blending command to be able to get to the next level. Channel Masking was what I started with many years ago, but I never like the edge so
I have to develope my own style base on the commands I know.

Thanks for explaining, I don’t think I have the time nor the patience to do it like that,
even with a Wacom tablet, which I use a lot. (Even in quickmask mode 😉 But if it works for you, all the better.
To each his own style, I prefer to let PS do the hard work.

I do that because I don’t want to waste too much energy on thing I don’t need, or I don’t want to waste any energy to fix the Masked File. I have to develope a quick and dirty technique because I don’t have much patience left to waste.

Joel wrote:

"Fred" wrote:

The technique using quick mask (my style) that you don’t have to make a Masked file to worry about the branches. Or trying to create a masked file
out of a complex photo like hair, tree branches etc. isn’t easy, and it may
only good for displaying but not for printing.

My technique is pretty simple.

1. Making the dupe of the original.

2. Adjusting one layer, blown out sky for example til you are happy with the
result. Don’t worry about the other part which will become too dark, cuz you want the SKY *not* other part.

3. Then use Quick Mask command to Seal whatever you don’t want to see, and Review whatever you want to see. Using low Opacity and good Brushing skill
then you will have a good blending.

Channel Mask is usually good for making a Masked File, but when you have a Masked File then you will have to deal with the edge, and you may need to master the blending command to be able to get to the next level. Channel Masking was what I started with many years ago, but I never like the edge so
I have to develope my own style base on the commands I know.

Thanks for explaining, I don’t think I have the time nor the patience to do it like that,
even with a Wacom tablet, which I use a lot. (Even in quickmask mode 😉 But if it works for you, all the better.
To each his own style, I prefer to let PS do the hard work.

I do that because I don’t want to waste too much energy on thing I don’t need, or I don’t want to waste any energy to fix the Masked File. I have to develope a quick and dirty technique because I don’t have much patience left to waste.

Lets count the time together <bg>

1. About 1-2 seconds to make a dupe or original layer

2. 5-10 seconds to darken the blown out

3. And for slow-hand on a little complex photo, it may take 2-5 minutes to mask out the blown out sky. For simple one like the video tutorial it may take around 1-2 minute for both oldbie and newbie, which is much faster than messing with the channel, not even talk about cleaning the edge.

John J was inspired to say

You should try to make the picture properly.
No Photoshop would be necessary.

Photoshop is for non-photographers.

Curious you are hanging around the PS group, then?

Mike
—
Michael J Davis

<><
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried, As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice: That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."
<><

On Mon, 04 May 2009 05:44:17 +0200, Dave wrote:

Who wanna bet after all this replies,
this is one of those posters we will not hear from again. So, who are we talking to? To each other?

Have you guys noticed, even after Mike’s excellent reply, the idiotic_OP never had the decency thanking him.
Are we not used to it?

Anyway Mike, more people appreciated your tutorial
than only the op who certainly saved it. Thank you.

On Sat, 16 May 2009 18:25:06 +0200, Dave wrote:

Have you guys noticed, even after Mike’s excellent reply, the idiotic_OP never had the decency thanking him.
Are we not used to it?

Anyway Mike, more people appreciated your tutorial
than only the op who certainly saved it. Thank you.

Thanks for your kind words, Dave. This happens a lot, particularly with new people who are not used to posting in the first place, and may not be confident about posting additional material after their first question. —
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

On Sat, 16 May 2009 11:40:42 -0700, Mike Russell in alt.graphics.photoshop wrote:

On Sat, 16 May 2009 18:25:06 +0200, Dave wrote:

Have you guys noticed, even after Mike’s excellent reply, the idiotic_OP never had the decency thanking him.
Are we not used to it?

Anyway Mike, more people appreciated your tutorial
than only the op who certainly saved it. Thank you.

Thanks for your kind words, Dave. This happens a lot, particularly with new people who are not used to posting in the first place, and may not be confident about posting additional material after their first question.

Yeah it was a good tutorial. I think the same question was posted on the Adobe Forums. Not sure if it was before or after the post here.

—
Regards,
S. Fishpaste