I have been trying out different designs of flowering annuals but the annuals have been in pots. Here is a photo of one of them.
I took photos of them but the background is usually concrete and the pots are higher than the background.
I want to include these in an upcoming website for my landscape business so I
had a photoshop guy cut the flowers out from the background but now there is no background at all. He tried inserting them into a photo of grass but it didn’t look right. Undoubtedly, a Photoshop pro could create a harmonious mix of flowers and grass but I want to do quite a few of these so it would break my budget.
Is there another way? Can I use a solid green background or at least something that doesn’t look “Photoshop butchered”
Thanks
There’s not a good, easy, cost-effective and convincing way to do this — especially when you’ll need to do it with multiple photos.
I spent, maybe, five minutes on the following. As you can see, it just does not look real.
Getting things like this to look genuine is doable, but it takes lots of time to find (shoot or purchase) just the right background, with just the right detail, general color and focus and with the light coming in from just the right angle at the right intensity. It also requires a bit of experience with the software and a good eye for this kind of thing.
Then it requires carefully isolating and antialiasing the flower and manipulating the background by adding shadows and reflected light in just the right way to mimic an actual setting. It’s not a procedure that lends itself to dozens of images. And, of course, the background would need to be different and convincing for each photo if the objective is to make it look like a real setting. And if that isn’t the objective, whatever you come up with will look forced, fake and detract from the flowers and your business website’s credibility.
It would be far better, easier, more convincing, more professional and more truthful to reshoot the photos by placing them on an actual background of the kind you want. That might seem like more work, but in the long run it will be quicker and produce better results.
Ha, I just noticed the plants were still in pots too.
That particular combination of colors and shapes isn’t all that attractive nor will it stay that way without a lot of deadheading. Orange marigolds and fuschia-colored begonias? Not my particular cup of tea.
You’re a landscape company. Assumedly, you have some landscape jobs you’ve done?
Photos or it didn’t happen. Photoshopping is the LAST thing you want to be doing.
Hate to say it, but if you want custom design you have to pay a lot for it to be done right. For every 100 photoshop “guru’s” out there, maybe 2 of them deserve the title (especially on Youtube).
A piece of advise: DO NOT hire an inexpensive designer and then then take his files to an experienced one. The damage is usually already done and the process will be more expensive because the guru will have to “fix” the files. It’s much better to limit the scope of the job and pay to get it done right. Instead of doing 50 images, do 12 and pay the same $. Heck, do 2 if that’s what you have to.
The good news is that someone who REALLY knows how to do this will get it done quickly. The first one will go slow mainly because you will be going back and forth with him/her until they reach the look you want. Therefore, most of the design issues are solved in the first image, so the second goes quicker, third quicker than that…
Sometimes you just have to work with what you’ve got and that often means changing concepts midstream. Could you use the image in a different way? Maybe a stencil type cutout of the image to make words/shapes?
Suffice it to say that this entire ordeal is not the way to play this. Potential landscape clients do not want to see photoshopped anything in landscape design. It’s considered “shady” in the same way as a used car salesman retouching images of cars for sale or realtors putting instagram filters on house photos. You want clients to see what you have done and could do again for them; not show them something cheesy and half-baked like plants in pots silhouetted into an unrelated grass background.
Based on website photos, which landscaper would you hire:
Shooting a series of flowers from above is not the ideal thing to do — nice background or not.
The best way to have done it would have been to hire a good photographer to shoot nice-looking and real examples of how the products in question can be used.
When selling anything, from cars to soup, the best photos are not perfunctory products shots — instead, they’re shots of the products being successfully used and enjoyed.
I did not mean to impugn your 5-minute work of art.
But it is a legit question.
Anyone hiring a landscaper is going to look at his/her previous work. Would you hire someone that can make yellow Xs with potted plants and photoshop, or someone who can integrate plants into a visually engaging, harmoniously designed outdoor space?
Sure you did … that’s why you did it … and your sarcasm isn’t appreciated either.
Your post is misleading because the image on the left is has bedding material already bedded …unlike the Op’s image which is bedding material … not yet bedded.
Nothing wrong with showing a cluster or grouping of bedding material …especially those still in their pots.
Would you feel better if I used Just B’s bark image? Either or. Doesn’t matter. Maybe a moderator will remove it for you if your feelings are so deeply hurt. Just ask one of them. I don’t care. It’s all about you and your art as opposed to the OP and their question.
As for bedded vs raw materials, the gas station down the street can have a photo of raw materials. But as a landscaper it’s far more important what they can do with them. I have the OP’s optics in mind.
I will also be capturing before and after images for his site.