Here at Photokonnexion we try hard to provide simple explanations for the things we all want to learn about our favourite subject. If you think anything is too complicated let us know on our Contact Us page or leave a comment below the article.
Well, here is a video in the spirit of simple explanations. I really do not need to explain before you see it… just watch and enjoy.
More after this…
Photokonnexion tips by email Enjoying this article? Please sign up for our Tips by email service.
Find out more…
Don’t forget to check out our Light and Lighting resource pages and especially the links on Hard Light and Soft Light. These are essential to the understanding of light.
All our resources can be found in the menu at the top of the page.
Damon is managing editor of Photokonnexion.com with professional experience in photography, writing, image libraries, and computing. He is also an experienced, webmaster and a trained teacher. Damon runs regular training for digital photographers who are just starting out. See also: Editors ‘Bio’ By Damon Guy :: Profile on Google+
• Copyright Tarnished • Is the time approaching when copyright protection will fade away.
Photographers copyright is under attack.
In general, copyright protects the creator of an original work allowing them to control their interests in the work. However, most countries recognise copyright limitations giving users some rights. These “fair” exceptions have mostly been related to “personal use” and contained situations…
“Fair use” or “fair dealing” describes acts permitted under the international copyright agreement – the Berne Convention. It allows for a certain degree of copy freedom for users (normally copies of parts of a work) without infringing copyright, these acts are:
Private and research study purposes.
Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
Criticism and news reporting.
Incidental inclusion.
Copies and lending by librarians.
Acts for the purposes of Royal Commissions, statutory enquiries,
Judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.
Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to, or
viewing, at a more convenient time. This is known as “time shifting”.
Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.
Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society.
(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)
Modern digital media and network technology has challenged “fair use” exceptions. The concept of copyright is becoming difficult to enforce when it is so easy to fully copy and pass on a digital file of an original work. Unintentional copies, digital theft, viral passing of files and the ease with which the creators’ identifying-metadata can be stripped from a file make the creation of orphan works a frequent event.
For photographers this is a huge problem. There are literally billions of online images, and millions more being added to the Internet daily. Loss of control over copyright is implied by the sheer volumes involved. The difficulty of searching for orphaned, stolen or inadvertent copies is almost insurmountable. Such volumes make it normal for copyright owners to be unaware of a vast number of copyright transgressions. It also makes it easier for copyright thieves to steal and use images without the owner profiting from its use.
The best search engines are unable to effectively search all images online. Additionally, search engines are confounded by images that have had the identifying data of the copyright holder stripped out. Many social networking websites strip data in this way. The lack of internal identifying data in an image file, and the sheer volume of online images make it very difficult to trace your works once they have been “released into the wild”.
Search engines can only match images by matching the code that describes the image within the file. Images are created digitally by a large volume of such code. Digitally changed files will no longer match to the original file. Copyright normally protects the image even if it is changed. Although search engines have adapted to being able to match to certain changes, that adaptation does not necessarily cover the full extent of copyright protection. This is another way an orphan work can be created.
Copyrighted images online are also incredibly easy to steal. In Will I get my images stolen online? I pointed out that it is impossible to provide online protection of images. If you can see it you can download it and save it. Equally you can upload it to another site, either as your own image, or as an orphan work, so it is effectively in an unknown location as far as the author is concerned.
The problem
While most of the “fair use” actions are not in themselves problematic in an obvious way, it is long term abuse and publicly held assumptions that do the damage. I have argued above that in very real terms photographers have difficulty tracking their images online. What is in practical terms very easy to do is often assumed to be legal too.
The fact that images can be downloaded and uploaded so easily means that public ignorance of the copyright laws make it almost a fact of life that people will down/up load images, treat them as their own and generally abuse them.
My image “Wolf!”, for example, now warrants three pages of links to websites that use the image – most without any permission to do so. These are the ones Google can find. It is probably impossible to identify all the computers that hold a copy of that image now.
In the future “Wolf!” is almost certain to become disconnected from the attributions to me that most of the links currently carry. I am sure that in the years to come I will see that image all over the Internet and some people will be using it for commercial gain.
In 1999 I published a true story called “Matthew Sails” about a young disabled boy I once worked with. It was published as the second story down on this page… Heroic Stories, Sample stories. Since that time that article has been published on at least 100 different websites. At different times I have counted it translated into seven languages.
As I write “Matthew Sails” indexes on Google with more than four pages of dissimilar links. On a good number of sites it is attributed to me. On about a quarter of the sites it is unattributed. On a small percentage of sites it is unashamedly claimed by other people. The only site that has my permission to publish this story is the original site. A large number of the sites that re-publish my story (illegally) are religious sites. I am sure there is no intent to commit an unlawful act, but if religious sites are doing it then what hope is there?
If you replicate the experience of “Matthew sails” for the approximately two thousand images I have online you can see the magnitude of the problem I face personally. There are millions of people in this position.
So, is copyright protection an effective mechanism? No. In real terms it is completely disregarded by a significant percentage of online users. We know that the music industry has been devastated by digital theft. We also know that professional photographers are losing out because of digital transmission and broadcast theft. Where once we sold on a large numbers of prints to wedding attendees, now one CD does the rounds and all that revenue is lost.
In effect the mechanisms of copyright have lost their teeth and there is no practical control method online.
Now we see governments making the situation worse
The latest UK Act of Parliament to affect this issue is the subject of my article Will I get my images stolen online? We know the answer to that question is, “yes – your images will be stolen”. We know that copyright is something that needs more protection not less. Yet open-door legislation (like the new UK copyright legislation) is going to make things worse.
Help us raise awareness by signing the petition below and tell your friends too. Find out about the issues so you will be able to fight bad secondary legislation on this issue. Visit this UK Government petition at:
Damon is managing editor of Photokonnexion.com with professional experience in photography, writing, image libraries, and computing. He is also an experienced, webmaster and a trained teacher. Damon runs regular training for digital photographers who are just starting out. See also: Editors ‘Bio’ By Damon Guy :: Profile on Google+
Copyright legislation may allow legalised theft of your images
UK Government lets down photographers.
In an unprecedented move a recent piece of UK legislation threatens photographers’ ownership of their own image. The Act potentially legalises online theft of images from amateur and professional alike. The legislation, which gained Royal Assent on the 25th of April 2013, will enable “orphan works” to be claimed on the basis of a copyright search. The person claiming the image will be able to re-licence it and claim full compensation for its use or resale if the copyright owner is not found.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act
The new Act, which comes into force early 2014, is a “framework” Act addressing various legislative issues. The copyright section of the Act provides the power for the Government to introduce licensing of orphan works. The Act leaves detail to be inserted later through secondary legislation. Photographers are angered that this small section of the Act has allowed this rights-changing Act to be sneaked in under the radar.
The new licensing powers will be an important re-mapping of UK copyright law. The existing emphasis on assumed copyright ownership will be shifted toward the users of copyrighted works. This represents a change of copyright ownership from a “property right” under author control to a new condition where copyright becomes a licensing/sales tool with the owner having less control over end use.
The detail of this shift in emphasis is yet to be determined. The secondary legislation will define a “diligent search” which will be needed to find the originator/copyright owner. Also to be clarified is how orphan works will be re-registered to new owners; to what extent images will be under the control of new copyright owners and how the transfer of copyright might occur.
One concern is how the process of monitoring, transferring and re-licensing orphaned images would be administered and the sort of organisation to do the work. This also raises other spectres…
Will works need to be registered to avoid them becoming orphaned?
What sort of costs are going to be involved?
Will artists and photographers working alone be able to register or bear the cost?
To what extent will amateurs be protected?
There are many more questions that need answers too.
Photographers concerns…
Last year a backlash occurred against the photography social networking site Instagram. The site implemented terms and conditions potentially passing usage rights to Instagram. In the end Instagram backed down in the light of public and user anger. Many people have seen a similar rights grabbing move in this new UK Act.
The cost of litigation against copyright abusers is prohibitive. Small photography businesses and amateurs do not have resources to fight expensive court battles. So corporations rip people off and smaller organisations hide in the tide of online images.
Photographers are worried that tide will make this legislation a free-for-all thieves charter. The concern is that anyone could claim “diligence” when searching for a copyright holder by simply doing a Google search. No immediately obvious copyright owner being found would enable them to apply for a licence to take over the copyright.
This legislation seems likely to create a new market for third party organisations to move in and manipulate the ownership of creative works. That represents a money-making bonanza for big business interests in the creative industries. It will also be a total disaster for the little guy trying to protect their life’s work and income. Amateur interests in particular are likely to be badly hit. Great images will be ripped off because amateurs will not be in a position of knowledge or resources to protect themselves.
The social media area is a particular concern. There are very real fears that the volume of images online are so huge that carrying out effective copyright searches in social media websites will not identify most image creators. This will make copyright takeovers the norm, rather than the exception, a position reinforced by weak protection for image creators.
What every UK photographer can do
This new Act is the start of a long road where the nature of copyright in the UK could change for the worse. At the moment the new landscape is shrouded in fog. However, the fact that this Act has been implemented in this way, under the radar, does not suggest a great outcome.
On the HM Government website a petition has been posted that tackles the issue. Help us raise awareness by signing the petition and telling your friends about it too. The more photographers who understand the issues the more likely we will be to ensure we have a voice in future secondary legislation on this issue. Visit this UK Government petition at:
Damon is managing editor of Photokonnexion.com with professional experience in photography, writing, image libraries, and computing. He is also an experienced, webmaster and a trained teacher. Damon runs regular training for digital photographers who are just starting out. See also: Editors ‘Bio’ By Damon Guy :: Profile on Google+
So what is it that makes great food photography? I love to cook and make tasty food. But great cooks also have a skill with presentation. It is the presentation which really makes great food shots too.
Food photography seems to be centred on three things – good looking food composition; great light and picking the right focus/centre of interest. Duh! Wait a minute, isn’t that pretty much photography summed up all over? OK, I jest. Good food photography does seem to require a particular approach.
Here are some of my observations on food shots. You should look to achieve…
Understanding and practice with small-sized and table-top compositions.
A working knowledge of lighting at the table-top scale.
Simple natural light from one source (window).
Able to use reflectors/black cards to shape the light.
Simple centre of interest in the shot.
Carefully chosen depth of field.
And with the food itself…
Natural and where possible bright colours.
The colour mix should work together.
Avoid odd clashes of colour.
The food combinations should be simple and few.
Focus on the main interest.
Use bokeh sparingly.
Avoid highlight bokeh spots where possible.
Try to emphasis the texture of the food.
Use simple but eye catching cutlery and plates.
Avoid cluttering the shot with too much food.
More after this…
Book recommendation:
Food Photography: From Snapshots to Great Shots Simple advice on lighting including great diagrams. The pictures include camera settings. Excellent advice on setting up a table-top studio which was also inexpensive to do. Lots of tricks and techniques like the pros use. Great presentation ideas.
Food Photography Tips – Video
In this video we look a range of ways to look at and shoot food. It is a great introduction to the basics and covers a wide range of important points.
Damon is managing editor of Photokonnexion.com with professional experience in photography, writing, image libraries, and computing. He is also an experienced, webmaster and a trained teacher. Damon runs regular training for digital photographers who are just starting out. See also: Editors ‘Bio’ By Damon Guy :: Profile on Google+
• Transparent Covers • The picture shows a transparent image slightly lifted off the page demonstrating how a transparent image can be stacked on top of the image below. It is normally invisible when set up properly – it’s shown lifted here only for effect. If you right click/copy the on an actual transparency you only copy a transparent shape not the image you want below.
Can images be protected online?
There are a number of ways to steal an image off of a website. And, yes, there are a number of ways to protect an image on a website. How effective is that protection? When it comes down to it we lose sleep over our images being stolen. So if that protection is not 100% we have a problem.
What protection is available?
Probably the most common protection for images on a website is a programmed solution. A small piece of code detects a right mouse click over an image. The code disables the right click preventing you saving or copying the image or the image address.
The picture above shows another method of protecting images. It is possible to place images on top of each other on a page. If the top image is transparent the image below it can still be seen. When you right click the image you are actually only able to get the top transparent image not the image below. This is an interesting method because it also masks the internet address of the image below. If you try to copy the location of the image you get the location of the transparent image.
Press and grab!
Both the methods above, and similar ones, are sufficient to prevent the casual, non-technical user from stealing images. However, they are absolutely ineffective against one simple theft method – the screen grab. If you click on the window where an image is displayed, hold down [Alt] & press [PrtScrn] the image selects a copy of the window that is currently selected. You can then paste that image into an image editor. If you use [Ctrl] & [PrtScrn] you grab the whole screen as an image. Some web designers have used code to disable these button combinations but it is not reliable. It is also completely ineffective against selection tools. There are many little applications that you can download which will give you the ability to select any section of your screen and copy it. The copy is then pasted into an image editor for saving.
The ultimate solution…
When it comes down to it there is no full-proof method of preventing image theft. If you can see it online, you can steal it. The ultimate solution to preventing image theft online is not to put your images onto a website.
Of course this is not an answer really. If we cannot publish then we cannot get sales, acclaim, support… whatever. These days, if you are not online then your images are not seen. Are there other practical methods of protecting images?
Water marking
One of the more common methods of protecting images is to put a watermark on it. This effectively renders the image unusable on another website or for printing. However, it also makes it difficult to fully appreciate the art in a picture if it has a trade mark or copyright symbol plastered across it.
• Little Langdale • Watermarks can be rather obtrusive like the large one here (centre). Less obtrusive placement and size is easily cloned out or cropped out (the small watermark bottom right).
Generally speaking the smaller or less obtrusive a watermark is on an image the less effective it is against theft. On the other hand the more obtrusive it is the more impact it has on the viewer looking at the image. Writing in particular draws the eye very strongly. So you are in danger of the viewer having to peer around/behind your watermark because the eye is drawn to the watermark before the subject of your image. This is not satisfactory and rather destroys the point of putting the image online.
Copyright and copyright registration
Copyright refers to the established right of the author of a picture to maintain control over the image. However, the law of copyright differs worldwide. So how it applies in your country is something you will have to research. In basic terms a country like the UK has an assumed right of copyright ownership. So the original image file would stand as proof of ownership. In this case it is best to ensure that you also embed your copyright data in the image data (see: Exif data). The Exif data will then reveal the owner. However the data is not secure so the method is not full-proof.
In a country like the USA copyright owners can protect themselves against theft by registering their image with the Library of Congress .
Copyright is good protection in that the force of the law lies on the side of the copyright owner. However, in many countries a dispute over copyright involves a lengthy and expensive legal process. This may be beyond the means of the small artist/photograph. This renders it an ineffective method of protection. However, recent legislation in the UK has made it easier for authors to make small claims for disputes covering them for up to £5000 pounds fine. This could change the balance in favour of the photographer/artist seeking remedy for stolen images.
Show the useless image!
It sounds daft, but if you present your images as a low resolution small size image this is a simple and effective protection against most theft. Image thieves want a quality image to use on their own site or to print or to sell to others. If you limit your image longest side to 500 pixels as a *.jpg image compressed to around 60% you will provide partial protection for your image. This size and compression is an acceptable size on a web page for the purpose of viewing. However, the thief cannot blow the image up larger without damaging it. The low resolution at 500 pixels will make print sizes too small. In effect this makes the image perfectly viewable for your site users, at the same time it renders it pretty useless for the image thief. This is a practical and simple method of protecting against theft. It is not full proof – since thieves can still use it small size. However, it does at least limit the possibilities for commercial exploitation by others.
There is no 100% protection – its about risk
When it comes down to it you have to take a risk. There is no method of absolutely protecting your images online. However, there are enough different types of protection to be able to protect most images enough to feel confident that your images ‘probably’ will not be stolen. In the end you have to decide if you are going to gain more by displaying online than you would lose by having an image stolen. It is a very personal decision.
Damon is managing editor of Photokonnexion.com with professional experience in photography, writing, image libraries, and computing. He is also an experienced, webmaster and a trained teacher. Damon runs regular training for digital photographers who are just starting out. See also: Editors ‘Bio’ By Damon Guy :: Profile on Google+
I had cause to consider the nature of several photographs this evening. A judge was discussing the photographs in a competition. On several occasions he referred to photographs he was judging as “record shots”. This is not a negative term.
I have made several references to this type of shot in past posts. Here is a definition from the PhotokonnexionPhotographic Glossary… Record Shot. This is a type of shot that you might use to remember something as it was. It is a type of shot that is a legitimate representation of the subject but without any deliberate artistic interpretation. But, there is the rub. What on earth is artistic interpretation?
It surprised me when a judge in a competition called the photograph above a record shot. I enjoyed taking this photograph. I had seen the aircraft on a previous visit to The Imperial War Museum at Duxford . It is a replica of one of the wonderful fighter aircraft of World War II – a Spitfire. I had considered it for some time and had lined up this shot in my head for some weeks before my arrival. I was fortunate to be blessed with a great sky. The angle of the shot was in line with the movement of clouds in the sky. I put on a wide angle lens and took about 10 shots along the lines I had planned. I wanted to make the wing disproportionate to the fuselage to give it foreground weight and invest depth in the picture. With a wide-angled lens this would make the wing seem really wide and long.
I may not be an artist in the traditional sense. I know I tend to take a rather geometric view in my pictures. It’s my signature, my style and my pleasure. However, it is also my interpretation. In this shot I really took my interpretation to some length. The body is distorted, the wing out of proportion. The sky deliberately elongated by the perspective of the wide angle lens. But to me this view showed the plane off in a unique way and presented a powerful perspective. I think this picture is heavy on interpretation and personal vision. Call it what you will, one thing it was not, is a record shot.
So, this evening when I was considering a judges words on what he called a record shot I was suddenly reminded of my picture above. It struck me that very often the viewer reads into the photograph more than the author has to say on a particular subject. In the case of my picture above the viewer saw a straight forward representation of a great aircraft. I on the other hand saw an opportunity to display, in a unique way, the wonderful geometry that made this aircraft great – its superb flying design.
The two views, my geometric tribute and the judges record of a great aircraft, may not seem too far apart to you, the reader. Yet, to me it signalled that I had failed in my duty as a photographer to represent my vision. I had not convinced the judge that I had invested my personal view, my artistic impression, in this photograph.
As photographers we are communicating a point of view with every shot. It may be appropriate to devote time and effort to faithful reproduction, equivalent proportion and careful exactitude to create a record shot. That is a worthwhile endeavour.
It is equally important that at other times we express our interpretation of our subject in a manner that brings out our unique view, comment or observation about a subject. There are two issues to keep in mind. First, we should always have a clear vision about what we are trying to achieve with a shot. Second, we should be finding the strongest and clearest way to express that intention, lest our viewers miss the point of the shot.
More after this…
Photokonnexion tips by email Enjoying this article? Please sign up for our daily email service.
Find out more…
Yes, throughout the ages art has been misinterpreted. And, we must sometimes acknowledge that the viewer may not understand our point of view. You will never convey your meaning to 100% of the viewers. However, I believe that viewers have a right to expect that you make every possible effort to communicate your intention for the photograph and make your point as clearly as possible.
The difference between a record shot and an artistic impression may be a thin line. But if your photograph is to succeed there should be no such lack of clarity when conveying your communication or meaning.
Damon is managing editor of Photokonnexion.com with professional experience in photography, writing, image libraries, and computing. He is also an experienced, webmaster and a trained teacher. Damon runs regular training for digital photographers who are just starting out. See also: Editors ‘Bio’ By Damon Guy :: Profile on Google+
• Winchester Cathedral • Chroma key work is quite easily done in Adobe PhotoShop and a range of other quality photo-editors.
When you want to be somewhere else…
There are places we would rather be than where we are now. I would like to be on an island paradise …not going to happen! But you can do it photographically. The secret is something called Chroma Key photography or green screening.
Substitution
In chroma key photography the subject is photographed against a uniformly lit green background. Then, in post production the subject is easily selected out from the green background. The selection can then be pasted into any other photographic background.
Any uniform colour can be used as a backdrop for the chroma key shot. The picture above is selected from a blue background and pasted into a picture of Winchester Cathedral in SE England. The two pictures were taken on different days.
To make the selection of the subject from the background it is important to light the background evenly. When the colour is even the selection is easy and can be completed in one operation. Colour variations from uneven light make it more technical to isolate the subject.
Green is the most frequently used colour in chroma key photography. The colour is very easily separated from human skin tones. Where the subject has green tones, blue is often used as the chroma key alternative. Blue is a common colour for clothing. It is therefore less suitable than a strong bright green which is not so popular as a fashion colour. However, green does have other advantages. The human eye is able to see more shades of green than any other colour. This makes it easy to see variations in the green when setting up the lighting. Green sensitivity is also built into software applications to match the abilities of the eye. This helps us to work with the background when doing awkward selections.
Fun and games
The substitution of a subject into any other photographic background provides great opportunities for doing fun things. Film stars can be placed in your garden. You can apparently travel the world without leaving your front room. Just find the right pictures and substitute yourself into the background of your choice.
Of course there are also opportunities for advertising, graphic art, product photography, still life, portraiture, action shots and many other false situations. Of course we should be careful not to be immoral about such things! Feel free to have fun though. You can really make it look like you have travelled the world.
How is it done?
Basically you need a chroma key background, lighting to illuminate it evenly, a camera and a subject. On a small scale this is easy to do. A lot of people doing chroma key work for the first time start with still life or table-top photography to get the technique right. Probably the most common use of the technique is for portraiture. Take a picture of yourself or your friends and then start playing. For this you need a larger screen…
The video is a complete introduction to the use of chroma key photography. You can take the same techniques and scale them to any size. The video introduces the ideas you need to grasp and shows how to set up the lights and the equipment. It also shows one of the software applications. After the video I will briefly look at that software for you.
There is a whole range of software that is capable of doing chroma key. In essence chroma key software has two jobs. The first is to select the subject off the green background (or whichever colour you are using). The second is to successfully blend the abstracted subject with the new background.
The software from the video is called PhotoKey from FXHome . It has been produced specifically for chroma key compositing. It is not alone in the market. However, there are not many applications specifically aimed at this work. Instead there are plenty of applications that do chroma key blending as part of a general suite of editing tools.
The website advertises a “try for free” download system. I did download the editor and install it on my computer. However, the try out does not produce a viable picture. The watermarking is so heavy the try out is really just to have a go at using the tools. So don’t expect to get something for free in reality. Here is the same picture from the top of the page done in Photokey…
• Winchester Cathedral • Produced in PhotoKey from FXHome. The watermark is put onto the image when you use the trial download version of the application for free.
As you can see the result is similar to my Photoshop version at the top of the page – except for the heavy watermarking ruining the picture.
The actual process for producing the final blended image is relatively quick and easy. The tools are quite self explanatory if you have some editing experience. On the right are the main steps of the process arranged in order of use. Starting at the top you can created a final blend of the two images by clicking on each step in turn and working your way down. As you select a step the tools for the import, selection, blending and finishing of the image become available. As with any editor the blending tools manage colours, contrasts, edging and so on. The order of work is simple and the use of tools quite easy. Most tools are simple sliders. I did like the reset button on each which allowed you go back to the default for that tool if you made a mistake.
At the end of working through the blending process you final image is on screen. You can make further changes to it if you wish. If you are satisfied with it you can export it to make a .png, .jpg or .tiff image. If you are not satisfied with the final output you can go back to the blend left in the editor and do further work.
I liked the application interface. It was simple and easy to use. However, it had some tools that were a little difficult to understand. I think those would become clear with practice. This is not an application you can use immediately – it requires practice.
On balance I liked the application. However, for a beginner in chroma key work it is hugely expensive. At £119 (around $180 US) for the basic version it seems prohibitive. I think I would rather spend that amount of money on a full blown editor like Adobe Elements which could do the same work, and a lot more, for substantially under £100. An editor like GIMP could also do the same work and a lot more and it is free.
The one benefit that makes it worth investing in this application is the simple and fast processing. If you have a lot of chroma key work the use of this software would save a lot of processing time. If you happen to be doing a lot of it professionally then it would be worth investing in the Pro version at £229 (at time of writing).
While I was not impressed with the basic price, the application was useful and could fill a niche in the market. However, it is not worth it for the beginner. Instead, it would be better to invest in a decent image-editor and broaden the work you do overall. However, if you are specialising then it may be worth considering providing you return income to cover your investment.
The way to do it in Adobe PhotoShop
The general photographer is most likely to have use of a quality image editor like PhotoShop, Elements, GIMP, PaintShopPro and others. All these are able to do the type of work that PhotoKey can do. Admittedly it takes longer. But for beginners it is better to save your money for more general photography kit. For those who are interested, here is a short video explaining the Photoshop method of doing a chroma key composite. It is a simple technique using standard photoshop tools.
Isolating with a Chroma Key Background
This tutorial is aimed at Photoshop intermediate level users.
Chroma key work is fun. There is quite a lot to learn, but it adds flexibility to your photographic work and post processing. The use of up to date quality image editors is probably better than splashing out on expensive specialist applications. Nevertheless specialist applications do a great job, saving time in post processing.
Photokonnexion tips by email
