Busy Background Removal in Photographs
5Jan2008 Filed under: Photography Author: Brad Huntsman
Being the only person in the local furniture store in which I work as a salesperson who understands (very slightly) graphic design and web design, I was volunteered to put together our last (Fall) sales flier for the newspaper. It was an interesting process.
Other than being last minute (which is the common practice in our store) no one new what was going on. It ends up I was also the photographer. The problem is, we have 1) too much merchandise on the floor 2) not enough floor space and 3) not enough help to move things around. When taking photos of a certain furniture piece or group becomes difficult because of all the other stuff surrounding the subject.
I remembered reading about an idea to crop out the subject and instead of completely removing the background, blurring and fading the background. Elizabeth West over at Photodoto.com wrote about this same technique today (I got the link from Lifehacker.com) so I thought I would write about my experience.
So I used that technique in editing for the flier. Other than taking forever to cut out the chair or what ever it was, it made a nice look. It brought the subject out of the picture and really made it pop.
The neat thing about it was that you could still tell it was taken in the store and not in a studio (to add some authenticity) but focused on the subject instead of the background.
Even though I told DG (the owner) what I was going to do, when I was showing him the proofs, his only comment was “Can you take the pictures again and get clearer shots. It looks like I forgot my glasses”. So, without trying to explain the countless hours I put into editing, and how it makes the sofa group stand out, I said “Yes sir” and unedited the pictures.
It is now time to do another flier and I’ve stood my ground about not touching the camera…
:: UPDATE :: Here are a couple more before and after pictures. Reading Poscos comments here, and on Lifehacker, I realized the above picture wasn’t the best example. Below are a couple more. Thanks for commenting. Keep ‘em coming
The picture above was for our back page that was paid for by Serta. It was intended to be a wide shot that showed that we had tons to choose from, but I only wanted to accent the Serta in the front. (Thanks again for your comments Rosco. Point taken)
Why are there boxes in the background anyway? Who knows…
You can see in this example that I wasn’t even blurring it much.
10 Responses to “Busy Background Removal in Photographs”
Leave a reply
About Lernr
Our lives are overflowing with information. Everywhere we look we are being screamed at by all sorts of media: books , movies, magazines, blogs, podcasts, newspapers, TV shows, and much more.
At some point we have to make a decision about what to do with it all. We have to either turn it off and throw it away, ignoring it all because we can't take anymore. Or we have to sort the wheat from the chaff, figure out what it is telling us, consider what we can learn from it, and implement that practices that can make us better.
Lernr is about that process of learning what we can from different sources and applying it to our lives.
The man who doesn’t read good books has no advantage over the man who can’t read them.
~ Mark Twain
Dave Worth
January 6th, 2008 at 11:22 am
For what it’s worth I like the edited version a lot better.
Brad Huntsman
January 6th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Thank you Dave. I do too. Most of my coworkers did as well. In the comments on Photodoto and Lifehacker, many of them were about just putting the time into composing better photos, but in this store (during opperating hours) it just would be impossible (not to mention isn’t not my job, nor did I get paid for it)
There were about 15 photos in total that where in the same incredibly messy store (as you can tell from the picture). Needless to say, it took much more time than I should have invested.
Posco Grubb
January 7th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Hi. I came here from Lifehacker. While I like photos with short depth of field (focused object, blurry backgrounds), in this case I think the unedited photo works better. Your subject in this photo seems to be the entire store, not a single product, so we want to see the mattresses AND the back walls in focus. If you want to take a picture of a single mattress set, then this angle doesn’t serve that purpose at all. (Instead, get close and capture details like stitching, corners and padding… don’t try to get the whole mattress in one frame, because you obviously can’t do that without getting all the other stuff in the store.)
The thing that would improve this photo is dealing with the lighting. You obviously can’t change the lighting in the store, so I would suggest using a tripod and trying a longer exposure time (and no flash). This will make the whole store appear brighter. (And don’t just think that using the computer to adjust the brightness level is the same thing.)
Brad Huntsman
January 7th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Thanks for commenting Posco. If you couldn’t tell, I’m pretty new at blogging and it is this sort of interaction that I’m most excited about. Your comment was thorough and thoughtful.
That picture I used wasn’t a good example (you can read the rest above).
The lighting comment is very true. For a furniture store, we have pretty poor lighting in general. (As another example that I’m not a photographer and shouldn’t have been asked to do this task) If you look closely at any of the picture, you can probebly see the tripods I used. Huge hot lights they were. You say a longer exposure would have helped?
Again, thanks for commenting.
Jauntly
January 10th, 2008 at 6:54 am
The newer pics are definitely better examples. The middle one (many beds) is the best.
Maybe it’s my monitor, but the edited photos don’t necessarily compare well when it comes to white balance. I find them quite cold, which for this purpose, and particularly for the sofa photo (where the emphasis seems to be on ‘cosy’) would seem to be negative.
Brad Huntsman
January 10th, 2008 at 10:04 am
@ Jauntly - I love comments. I’m finding the kind, thoughtful and very helpful.
I’m sure it’s not your monitor. White balance is something that I knew nothing about (still don’t know alot) when I took these. When the camera was shoved in my tight fist and told to take them, I understood photo editing much more than photo taking and was planning on using Photoshop and Fireworks to take care of any imperfections. I do feel I over did it, could have done it better, and if forced to do it again, would be better. Although I’m refusing to do it anymore at work (not my job, didn’t get paid for it, too much stress, lost money from not taking customers, ect. ect.), I do look forward to using some of the things I’ve learned, and the great advice I’ve been getting from guests here to take better pictures. Thanks again.
Crista
January 19th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Hi Brad! I was directed here through Joslyn’s “hot husband” link. I like your blog site…very cool. I have to say, I think your pictures turned out pretty darn good - great camera angles and composition. You could be an artiste! (but let me tell you - there’s no money in that either!) With your wife’s fancy new toy, you two will be pros in no time!
I also agree that you should probably not bother doing this anymore if you are not gettting paid and are losing out on sales in the process. BUT…if you should choose to do so, I thought I would share what I have recently learned about indoor photography. At work, I’ve discoved that if I need to shoot a pic indoors, without a flash, and under fluorescent lighting…it seems to work best to adjust ISO settings. I’ve been bumping mine up to 1000 (most cameras default to 100…which is the lowest sensitivity and best for most camera work). Bumping it up makes the “film” more sensitive to light and will give you a picture that is brighter and more true to color (esp. with white balance set to auto or fluorescent). A longer exposure also works on a lower ISO setting, but often results in some funky colors…esp. under fluorescent lighting.
Anyway, that might be more than you wanted to know, but I’ve been having so much fun learning about the wide world of photography, I thought I would share!
Hope all is well…give your wife a big hug for me! And Mark says ‘hey’!
Crista
January 19th, 2008 at 8:34 am
oh yeah….and I forgot to mention the other bit about higher ISO…the higher you go, the grainier the picture will become. At 1000, indoors, under fluorescent light and for a high resolution pic…it’s not too bad. And sometimes for non-work related pictures, I kinda like the grainy aspect (it can look really cool in b&w).
Okay, seriously I’m done now.
Shannon
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I am jealous that you and Crista can talk shop. I can only say “Picture. Purty….”
P.Lloyd
August 1st, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Its a great idea corresponding the background removal. Try to visit the website of clipapic. It can help you much in the different background removal problem. http://www.clipapic.com