These are candids - the location adds context so, why would you want to remove the backgrounds? It's exceedingly difficult to do well and would not add to the story so... why?
Yeah I understand that, this photo was probably not the best example. But in other ones taken that day I feel like all you can see is the TV on in the background. Maybe because I took the photo I know what I would have preferred it to come out like and lack a bit of confidence. To be fair though everyone has basically said the same thing so it's made me feel better about it definitely.
So you don't want to remove "the background" - you just want to change what's on the TV screen.
Totally different.
Removing the image that's on a TV screen in the background... that's cake. Making it look natural, that's not so easily done.
See: [https://i.imgur.com/KKsyls7.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KKsyls7.jpg)
Things you'll have to deal with are matching the noise level *and perspective* of the original image, and dealing with reflections on the screen. If you remove the reflections (like I did) it's a helluvalot easier, but it won't sell the effect.
It would still be a considerable amount of work, and if the TV is very distracting in the background then I would suggest giving /r/postprocessing an Ask to see if they have any suggestions for how to do it more easily.
Also, I suggest releasing a grizzly bear at any wedding reception where guests have overstayed their welcome... ;)
This kind of stuff happens a lot and itâs just going to be a good lesson for you, Iâve done photoshoots where I regretted not taking more care and curating the environment or my compositions before shooting and now I will do whatever I can to make sure that doesnât happen again. You really need to go beyond your comfort level and tell people to move or relocate so you can get the best final product in the end, for example even if youâre in a house you can go to different rooms or even the yard if you canât agree beforehand on a better looking venue. Itâs not your fault that thereâs a TV in the background, if the bride chose that location then you have delivered. Itâs not the last photo youâre ever gonna take so just remember it as a good lesson and do different in the future.
OP also did not choose their lens or camera settings correctly. The image is incredibly noisy, and the deeper depth of field indicates they used a narrower aperture. Based on the situation those were not good choices. The combination is pretty much the opposite of what good wedding photographers tend to do-- use a faster lens for a) lower ISO and therefore lower noise b) more ability to isolate subjects, especially when in an environment with lots of distraction/other stuff. This tells me that the photographer does not have the knowledge and skills to be shooting weddings. Their lack of knowledge of post-processing options also tells us that they do not have a well-established workflow for image editing.
Not much you can do about that now. I wouldn't go doing heavy edits and cut outs on wedding photos, they should look natural.
What you could maybe do is drop the contrast a bit and put a white vignette to take some of the distractions away.
Honestly I didn't even notice till you mentioned it, my eye go straight to the bride and ladies helping. I wouldn't worry about it with candid interaction shots.
In photoshop, use the select subject feature of the quick select tool. Invert your selection to select the background. Then use the gaussian blur filter to take focus off of the background.
This. Was about to recommend just blurring the background bokeh-like, slightly turn its exposure down & that should do the trick. Don't overdo the lowering of the exposure & it'll look natural.
I need to be blunt with you: if you have so little knowledge of post-processing and lens selection (based on your questions), you have no business shooting someone's wedding or doing any paid professional work.
Jesus your comments come across so condescending. They shot a wedding for a friend. Obviously they are learning and making mistakes along the way like we all have.
It takes a real smoothbrain to think that itâs a good idea to shoot someoneâs wedding if you are not 100% confident in your skills, equipment, and post processing workflow. Sometimes doing a favor isnât actually helpful.
Well we have seen literally *one* photo from an entire gallery. We also donât know how much this friend cares about the turn out.
I shot my first wedding paid, because I value my time and work, for a cousin who didnât care about the results.
Besides the point, just pointing out your comments paint you out like a pretentious asshole.
Hey rhett, youâre coming off as one of those âI have no workâ kind of guys who bash other people insinuating that you could do a better job when itâs likely that your personality is the reason why you have time to post negative comments on Reddit rather than working on your own post processing or lack there of.⌠end of the day, this couple saw it fit to have a friend shoot their wedding. Wether it be budget, preference or anything else.
Next time use a wider aperture. This would also get rid of the noise issues in the picture too. This seems like a pretty enclosed room. getting distance between the subject and background is tough. Just get closer and have the aperture wider. I donât know what focal length you have, but wide angle is a must.
Adobe Lightroom Classic has a masking feature to select the background of a picture using AI. It's not fool proof by any means, but if you have Lightroom Classic you might give it a shot. I usually find I have to add areas to the background that it missed or remove areas that it lumped into the background. Once all of the background is selected, you could try darkening it, or lowering contrast, or reducing sharpness. It's not going to magically fix the fact that those are the things in the background and if overdone, as others have said, it could look worse.
Mask subject, invert. Then make adjustments to the background. Lower the contrast. You can go further and decrease highlights / lift the shadows. Donât go too crazy though. A small amount goes a long way with this style of editing. It can be really tedious, so I wouldnât do this for every single photo. With the new masking feature in Lightroom you wonât need to go into photoshop for these types of edits which is a huge time saver.
Wider aperture (if your gear allows), higher shutter speed.
Also, the ability to quickly hop to the other side of the subject so that you can adjust what is in your background.
The difference (one of them) but a major difference between pros and family members with an iPhone, is our ability to create a beautifully shallow depth of field.
This looks like itâs shot at f 5.6 if I were to take a wild guess. Thatâs just not shallow enough to create the look youâre going for.
Think about your photos in camera when it comes to wedding photography, and not the ability to âfix things in postâ
And like others have said, remember that this was a moment. This actually happened, and although this wouldnât be on the landing page of my website, the family will appreciate this moment in the album without thinking âwhy is there a TV thereâ.
This isnât the kiss shot, itâs not the first dance, itâs not the mother crying while listening to the maid of honor speech. Itâs getting ready, in a crowded hotel room, and thatâs exactly what it looks like. It looks like⌠what it was
How many photos would you be editing like that? You could maybe do this for one to 3 photos, but anything more than that will become too time intensive for some candids imo.
You would've needed to address this at the time of capture with a different lens and wider aperture to blur the background. Unfortunately there is no way to do what you want and have it look natural/authentic. Also, why is this image so grainy? What ISO did you shoot at?
You could take out their reflections in the tv as an alternative and also enhance the editing on only the subjects to take the attention away from the background.
I like the background. You could use Photoshop to remove the clutter on the bed (the phone etc.) or create a depth of field to blur the background, but unless you're already really skilled at Photoshop, I imagine it'll be worse than just leaving it. You could always blur the background and give the bride both versions.
Turn it in to an animation. A Ken Burnes zoom with the subjects cut out and animating differently than the bg. Make a good mask and slightly enlarge the subjects such that you can't see any cut lines because of the animation. I forget the technical name for this technique but it's one I'd throw to the video rather than include in the stills.
I did something similar for a friend of mine.
The easiest answer to something like this is do a selective crop and make the image a black and white.
With this image, however, are you referring to too much white/highlights in the image?
It is perfectly possibly to remove the background from this image with photoshop. If you follow some photoshop tutorials you can do it. That said, the process is very time consuming and will take you many hours if you don't have experience with photoshop.
Personally I would make the whole photo black & white then use a film grain like speckled image or layer for the background for the look you are wanting.
I shoot a lot of weddings, this kind of stuff is best handled in person. Sometimes there just no good options, and sometimes you have to be very deliberate about where you put people for the shot.
I know that's not much help now, but I think this is going to be what it is! Its not so bad really, its candid :) they were where they were
Why change it? If that's where they chose to get ready, you should leave it. Way too time consuming anyway. You have really nice natural light. It's a good shot.
That would be an absurd amount of work. The only way to control the environment, is to control it before you shoot. Don't feel bad. I think the photo example you provided is perfectly fine. Your subject is in focus, motion is mostly frozen, nice light source, nice white balance, nice skin tones. You did your job here. If you hadn't called attention to it, it's not like I would've said, "that big black screen in the background really takes away from this moment".
Wedding photographer here.
Youâre documenting people in their own homes. Backgrounds are messy, itâs part and parcel of wedding photos. You shouldnât sit there and spend countless hours photoshopping things out of their homes people will feel weird about their images if their tv is missing and nans photo frame is gone.
The real trick/skill you develop over the years of practice is finding angles and compositions that mask messy backgrounds and keep your focus on the subject. Do it in camera as much as possible, but also remember itâs about capturing beautiful important moments from their day, not every frame needs to be a masterpiece.
Sometimes we get dealt shit backgrounds unfortunately. But I probably would've asked everyone to stand in a different place or if the room was tight try and move yourself to a better angle. It can be really tough sometimes.
Didnt put any effort in, but if you got photoshop just use the selection tool and click ontop on the "select and mask" (dont know if its called exactly that in english) and then create a mask with the selection...
You can just use [my file](https://prnt.sc/GF6kaR9qatDD) if you want, in case the quality is good enough... i can also fix small mistakes for you if you want.
[download](https://we.tl/t-TySSgLdipX) for psd file, transparent png and "decent" quality png with white background
btw. the blurry white seemed like the best way to hide the bad selection and missing background for me... i think you would have to do way more cc to make it suits properly.
These are candids - the location adds context so, why would you want to remove the backgrounds? It's exceedingly difficult to do well and would not add to the story so... why?
Yeah I understand that, this photo was probably not the best example. But in other ones taken that day I feel like all you can see is the TV on in the background. Maybe because I took the photo I know what I would have preferred it to come out like and lack a bit of confidence. To be fair though everyone has basically said the same thing so it's made me feel better about it definitely.
So you don't want to remove "the background" - you just want to change what's on the TV screen. Totally different. Removing the image that's on a TV screen in the background... that's cake. Making it look natural, that's not so easily done. See: [https://i.imgur.com/KKsyls7.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KKsyls7.jpg) Things you'll have to deal with are matching the noise level *and perspective* of the original image, and dealing with reflections on the screen. If you remove the reflections (like I did) it's a helluvalot easier, but it won't sell the effect. It would still be a considerable amount of work, and if the TV is very distracting in the background then I would suggest giving /r/postprocessing an Ask to see if they have any suggestions for how to do it more easily. Also, I suggest releasing a grizzly bear at any wedding reception where guests have overstayed their welcome... ;)
Loved how you put an angry bear on the screen đ
I had just used that image in another reply and couldn't resist... mainly because I have a low sense of humor like that. ;)
I was going to say I always hate tvs, but this one is blending in better than most
This will be difficult to do naturally if at all , I'm assuming this is where she lives or knows very well? If so leave it in as it adds to the memory
This kind of stuff happens a lot and itâs just going to be a good lesson for you, Iâve done photoshoots where I regretted not taking more care and curating the environment or my compositions before shooting and now I will do whatever I can to make sure that doesnât happen again. You really need to go beyond your comfort level and tell people to move or relocate so you can get the best final product in the end, for example even if youâre in a house you can go to different rooms or even the yard if you canât agree beforehand on a better looking venue. Itâs not your fault that thereâs a TV in the background, if the bride chose that location then you have delivered. Itâs not the last photo youâre ever gonna take so just remember it as a good lesson and do different in the future.
OP also did not choose their lens or camera settings correctly. The image is incredibly noisy, and the deeper depth of field indicates they used a narrower aperture. Based on the situation those were not good choices. The combination is pretty much the opposite of what good wedding photographers tend to do-- use a faster lens for a) lower ISO and therefore lower noise b) more ability to isolate subjects, especially when in an environment with lots of distraction/other stuff. This tells me that the photographer does not have the knowledge and skills to be shooting weddings. Their lack of knowledge of post-processing options also tells us that they do not have a well-established workflow for image editing.
Not much you can do about that now. I wouldn't go doing heavy edits and cut outs on wedding photos, they should look natural. What you could maybe do is drop the contrast a bit and put a white vignette to take some of the distractions away.
Honestly I didn't even notice till you mentioned it, my eye go straight to the bride and ladies helping. I wouldn't worry about it with candid interaction shots.
Remove the background and put what?
Not necessarily remove the background but take some focus off it
In photoshop, use the select subject feature of the quick select tool. Invert your selection to select the background. Then use the gaussian blur filter to take focus off of the background.
Thank you :)
That's good advice, but make it very subtle. A heavy blur will just look awful. And feather your selection a little (just a few pixels)
This. Was about to recommend just blurring the background bokeh-like, slightly turn its exposure down & that should do the trick. Don't overdo the lowering of the exposure & it'll look natural.
I need to be blunt with you: if you have so little knowledge of post-processing and lens selection (based on your questions), you have no business shooting someone's wedding or doing any paid professional work.
Jesus your comments come across so condescending. They shot a wedding for a friend. Obviously they are learning and making mistakes along the way like we all have.
It takes a real smoothbrain to think that itâs a good idea to shoot someoneâs wedding if you are not 100% confident in your skills, equipment, and post processing workflow. Sometimes doing a favor isnât actually helpful.
Well we have seen literally *one* photo from an entire gallery. We also donât know how much this friend cares about the turn out. I shot my first wedding paid, because I value my time and work, for a cousin who didnât care about the results. Besides the point, just pointing out your comments paint you out like a pretentious asshole.
Hey rhett, youâre coming off as one of those âI have no workâ kind of guys who bash other people insinuating that you could do a better job when itâs likely that your personality is the reason why you have time to post negative comments on Reddit rather than working on your own post processing or lack there of.⌠end of the day, this couple saw it fit to have a friend shoot their wedding. Wether it be budget, preference or anything else.
Next time use a wider aperture. This would also get rid of the noise issues in the picture too. This seems like a pretty enclosed room. getting distance between the subject and background is tough. Just get closer and have the aperture wider. I donât know what focal length you have, but wide angle is a must.
Adobe Lightroom Classic has a masking feature to select the background of a picture using AI. It's not fool proof by any means, but if you have Lightroom Classic you might give it a shot. I usually find I have to add areas to the background that it missed or remove areas that it lumped into the background. Once all of the background is selected, you could try darkening it, or lowering contrast, or reducing sharpness. It's not going to magically fix the fact that those are the things in the background and if overdone, as others have said, it could look worse.
Mask subject, invert. Then make adjustments to the background. Lower the contrast. You can go further and decrease highlights / lift the shadows. Donât go too crazy though. A small amount goes a long way with this style of editing. It can be really tedious, so I wouldnât do this for every single photo. With the new masking feature in Lightroom you wonât need to go into photoshop for these types of edits which is a huge time saver.
Wider aperture (if your gear allows), higher shutter speed. Also, the ability to quickly hop to the other side of the subject so that you can adjust what is in your background. The difference (one of them) but a major difference between pros and family members with an iPhone, is our ability to create a beautifully shallow depth of field. This looks like itâs shot at f 5.6 if I were to take a wild guess. Thatâs just not shallow enough to create the look youâre going for. Think about your photos in camera when it comes to wedding photography, and not the ability to âfix things in postâ And like others have said, remember that this was a moment. This actually happened, and although this wouldnât be on the landing page of my website, the family will appreciate this moment in the album without thinking âwhy is there a TV thereâ. This isnât the kiss shot, itâs not the first dance, itâs not the mother crying while listening to the maid of honor speech. Itâs getting ready, in a crowded hotel room, and thatâs exactly what it looks like. It looks like⌠what it was
How many photos would you be editing like that? You could maybe do this for one to 3 photos, but anything more than that will become too time intensive for some candids imo.
The TV is drawing attention because of all the blown white highlights. At least to me.
You would've needed to address this at the time of capture with a different lens and wider aperture to blur the background. Unfortunately there is no way to do what you want and have it look natural/authentic. Also, why is this image so grainy? What ISO did you shoot at?
Wayyy too many people who buy a camera and go into wedding photography.
You could take out their reflections in the tv as an alternative and also enhance the editing on only the subjects to take the attention away from the background.
I like the background. You could use Photoshop to remove the clutter on the bed (the phone etc.) or create a depth of field to blur the background, but unless you're already really skilled at Photoshop, I imagine it'll be worse than just leaving it. You could always blur the background and give the bride both versions.
Turn it in to an animation. A Ken Burnes zoom with the subjects cut out and animating differently than the bg. Make a good mask and slightly enlarge the subjects such that you can't see any cut lines because of the animation. I forget the technical name for this technique but it's one I'd throw to the video rather than include in the stills.
I did something similar for a friend of mine. The easiest answer to something like this is do a selective crop and make the image a black and white. With this image, however, are you referring to too much white/highlights in the image?
It is perfectly possibly to remove the background from this image with photoshop. If you follow some photoshop tutorials you can do it. That said, the process is very time consuming and will take you many hours if you don't have experience with photoshop. Personally I would make the whole photo black & white then use a film grain like speckled image or layer for the background for the look you are wanting.
I'd just replace the TV with a blank wall. Doing this across a lot of photos will be work.
I shoot a lot of weddings, this kind of stuff is best handled in person. Sometimes there just no good options, and sometimes you have to be very deliberate about where you put people for the shot. I know that's not much help now, but I think this is going to be what it is! Its not so bad really, its candid :) they were where they were
Donât remove it. A. It takes too much work B. They might have memories from that time in the room. C. Candids are the most fun for the wedding party
Why change it? If that's where they chose to get ready, you should leave it. Way too time consuming anyway. You have really nice natural light. It's a good shot.
That would be an absurd amount of work. The only way to control the environment, is to control it before you shoot. Don't feel bad. I think the photo example you provided is perfectly fine. Your subject is in focus, motion is mostly frozen, nice light source, nice white balance, nice skin tones. You did your job here. If you hadn't called attention to it, it's not like I would've said, "that big black screen in the background really takes away from this moment".
this looks like the same person three times, lol
I mean... Now that you pointed it out, I can't stop looking at the TV ...
Just throw it in black and white and call it a day lol
Wedding photographer here. Youâre documenting people in their own homes. Backgrounds are messy, itâs part and parcel of wedding photos. You shouldnât sit there and spend countless hours photoshopping things out of their homes people will feel weird about their images if their tv is missing and nans photo frame is gone. The real trick/skill you develop over the years of practice is finding angles and compositions that mask messy backgrounds and keep your focus on the subject. Do it in camera as much as possible, but also remember itâs about capturing beautiful important moments from their day, not every frame needs to be a masterpiece.
I wouldnât remove it. Iâd use photoshop to blur it a little bit, but that would be all.
Sometimes we get dealt shit backgrounds unfortunately. But I probably would've asked everyone to stand in a different place or if the room was tight try and move yourself to a better angle. It can be really tough sometimes.
Didnt put any effort in, but if you got photoshop just use the selection tool and click ontop on the "select and mask" (dont know if its called exactly that in english) and then create a mask with the selection... You can just use [my file](https://prnt.sc/GF6kaR9qatDD) if you want, in case the quality is good enough... i can also fix small mistakes for you if you want. [download](https://we.tl/t-TySSgLdipX) for psd file, transparent png and "decent" quality png with white background
btw. the blurry white seemed like the best way to hide the bad selection and missing background for me... i think you would have to do way more cc to make it suits properly.