Processing

On 10/20/2014 1:53 PM, philo wrote:
On 10/20/2014 12:01 PM, PeterN wrote:

snip


I am incliuded in the large group that dpesn't like Jackson Pollack. But
those who buy it are the ones who count.




I like his stuff. I don't think he's a Van Gogh...but I like it.

Whenever I see someone doing abstract or conceptual work...I like to
review their whole body of work first.


For example...with Pollack, when I look at his earlier stuff I see he
did have artistic talent.


To my mind each piece stands on it's own. I really like abstract art,
and agree that JP is an artist. I simply do not appreciate his work.
Similarly, minimalism is generally accepted as art, but to me nit is
waste of valuable museum wal space.


OTOH: If someone who has never done art before and just decides to
splash a bunch of paint on the canvas...that does not mean they actually
have talent.


Warhol for example was quite an excellent illustrator...but my opinion
of the stuff that made him famous was that he was an excellent con artist.


Agreed. Sadly there are lots of con artists.

I



--
PeterN

On 10/20/2014 03:18 PM, PeterN wrote:



BTW:You posted that at way higher resolution that you needed to...20
megs or so. It made the page load slowly and someone could steal it from
you.

I realized that just after I pushed the send button. I will be very
happy if that is the worst mistake I make.




Yep!

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 08:57:35 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-10-20 15:27:15 +0000, philo* said:

On 10/20/2014 10:15 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-20 14:29:02 +0000, philo said:

On 10/20/2014 09:15 AM, Savageduck wrote:

X
Post processing is not a bad thing, but using any tool on rare occasions
can lead to questionable results.




snip


I don't agree with much of what you have posted but you are of course
entitled to your opinion. No two people have ever interpreted one of
my photos in the same way.


I consider myself fortunate in that all these years I have had
employment other than in the field of photography, so never had to
depend on sales. All photos I do are solely for my own enjoyment and I
am not swayed by opinion.


OTOH: If I do somehow stumble upon producing a photo that sells,
I am not too proud to take the money. This is one of my "sellers".

There is no accounting for taste.


" De gustibus non est disputandum."

True and no problem with that,
the only problem I do see however is that you have not demonstrated the
ability to /qualify/ your opinions. Your name "Savage Duck" implies
that you harbor a lot of anger and I see that it's clouding your
judgment.

Is taste quantifiable?
As for my NG nym, it is just that, a nym, and you can make of it what
you will. As for my judgement it is no more, or less valid than anybody
else's.

Such opinions do nothing to further the art of photography.

...and that is your opinion, which in my opinion does nothing to
further the art of photography, considering that you are not exactly
embracing the areas of post processing which actually further the art
of photography.

That's a rather astonishing statement.

What are you going to do when you exhaust the capabilities of Nik
software?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:44:59 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 10/20/2014 10:15 AM, Savageduck wrote:

snip

I guess this is where taste comes into play. This shot and your
treatment doesn’t work for me. Peter might find it to his liking. I can
see that it would “grab a lot of attention”, but whether that is a good
thing or not might be open to interpretation. Since you presented it at
20’’ x 30’’ that attention would have been unavoidable. This might well
be a case of the "Emperor's new clothes".


Yes it really all comes down to individual preference.
As I posted earlier, I made some changes to make the image more suitable
to my taste. Here is a similar treatment of a different subject.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/three%20cranes.jpg

When I saw the name of the file I was down loading I was expecting
more of your trademark birds. :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-10-20 21:35:10 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 08:57:35 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2014-10-20 15:27:15 +0000, philoÂ* said:
On 10/20/2014 10:15 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-20 14:29:02 +0000, philo said:
On 10/20/2014 09:15 AM, Savageduck wrote:

X
Post processing is not a bad thing, but using any tool on rare occasions
can lead to questionable results.

snip

I don't agree with much of what you have posted but you are of course
entitled to your opinion. No two people have ever interpreted one of
my photos in the same way.

I consider myself fortunate in that all these years I have had
employment other than in the field of photography, so never had to
depend on sales. All photos I do are solely for my own enjoyment and I
am not swayed by opinion.

OTOH: If I do somehow stumble upon producing a photo that sells,
I am not too proud to take the money. This is one of my "sellers".

There is no accounting for taste.


" De gustibus non est disputandum."

True and no problem with that,
the only problem I do see however is that you have not demonstrated the
ability to /qualify/ your opinions. Your name "Savage Duck" implies
that you harbor a lot of anger and I see that it's clouding your
judgment.

Is taste quantifiable?
As for my NG nym, it is just that, a nym, and you can make of it what
you will. As for my judgement it is no more, or less valid than anybody
else's.

Such opinions do nothing to further the art of photography.

...and that is your opinion, which in my opinion does nothing to
further the art of photography, considering that you are not exactly
embracing the areas of post processing which actually further the art
of photography.

That's a rather astonishing statement.

Oh! One of my statements astonished you, amazing.

What are you going to do when you exhaust the capabilities of Nik
software?

Why do you believe that I always use NIK plug-ins? Much of the time I
don't need plug-ins at all. However, there are times they are useful.

Then I don't restrict myself to what NIK has to offer, I also delve
into the OnOne Suite from time to time, and I have also picked up some
of the Mac only plug-in offerings from MacPhun; Intensify Pro, and
Tonality Pro, both of which offer a different approach to that of NIK
& OnOne.
https://macphun.com/intensify
https://macphun.com/tonality

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:10:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-10-20 15:57:00 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/20/2014 9:27 AM, philo wrote:
Since there are quite a few her who devote time to processing and I
generally do not, I thought I might as well post one of the rare images
that I did subject to considerable alteration:


https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...12762295_o.jpg



NOTE:

Before this was printed, the orientation was corrected and it was
cropped right at the fence line. (Each time it's printed I vary it
slightly.) The print is about 20" x 30" and in shows always grabs a lot
of attention. I don't think the original would have been more than
glanced at.


The original was in color and of not much interest.
This one was done in GIMP and is close to the old darkroom technique of
solarization.


Filters
Edge detect
Edge

A five second editing job.


I saw two pictures. Took your shot, cropped it, and ran a fid edge filter.
I was too lazy to clean the background:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/philo1%20left.jpg
and the right side:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/philo1right.jpg

Since folks are tinkering with it, try this for size:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Philo-01.jpg

I like the use of color but I think it would be better if the original
monochrome structure could stand out more clearly.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 10/20/2014 5:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:44:59 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 10/20/2014 10:15 AM, Savageduck wrote:

snip

I guess this is where taste comes into play. This shot and your
treatment doesn’t work for me. Peter might find it to his liking. I can
see that it would “grab a lot of attention”, but whether that is a good
thing or not might be open to interpretation. Since you presented it at
20’’ x 30’’ that attention would have been unavoidable. This might well
be a case of the "Emperor's new clothes".


Yes it really all comes down to individual preference.
As I posted earlier, I made some changes to make the image more suitable
to my taste. Here is a similar treatment of a different subject.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/three%20cranes.jpg

When I saw the name of the file I was down loading I was expecting
more of your trademark birds. :-)


Cranes are the official international bird of the construction industry.


--
PeterN

On 10/20/2014 04:35 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
snip

...and that is your opinion, which in my opinion does nothing to
further the art of photography, considering that you are not exactly
embracing the areas of post processing which actually further the art
of photography.

That's a rather astonishing statement.

What are you going to do when you exhaust the capabilities of Nik
software?




I'm more of a hardware person.

I build and troubleshoot computers but am not much of a software expert.

I will never even scratch the surface of the capabilities of GIMP.


Though Photoshop is better, GIMP is way more than what I need.


However...I usually let my wife do the processing on any of the color
shots I do...she's got essentially perfect color vision and is way more
capable in that area.

I process my own B&W however.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:37:12 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-10-20 16:40:20 +0000, philo* said:

On 10/20/2014 11:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-20 16:26:07 +0000, philo said:


Though I still prefer my own treatment...I do like your version better
than that of Peter N.

Though what he did was fine, I think your version is more dramatic.

Just keep in mind there is always more than one way to deal with an
image in post, and the familiar (your version) will always seem more
appealing to you. Consider that Peter and I only had your post processed
version to work with, not the original, so anything we did to your image
was constrained by your work.




Yep. Understood. I never posted the original anywhere as it was just
too mundane.

I have been trying to get my stuff organized and it would take me a
while to find it.

My point is, sometimes post processing is unavoidable if you want to
emphasize characteristics of the image you have captured. This was true
for you in that image, and it is true for others who use PP more
extensively, but avoiding it totally is not a good philosophy to hold.
This is another scene out on Carrizo Plain. Which of these two versions
best shows the bleak, desolate, wind blown landscape?
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_979.jpg

I would be tempted to try one over the other as an overlay and play
with the layer transparencies.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 10/20/2014 1:09 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 10/20/2014 10:35 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 08:27:48 -0500, philo wrote:

Since there are quite a few her who devote time to processing and I
generally do not, I thought I might as well post one of the rare images
that I did subject to considerable alteration:


https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...12762295_o.jpg



NOTE: Before this was printed, the orientation was corrected and it was
cropped right at the fence line. (Each time it's printed I vary it
slightly.) The print is about 20" x 30" and in shows always grabs a lot
of attention. I don't think the original would have been more than
glanced at.


The original was in color and of not much interest.
This one was done in GIMP and is close to the old darkroom technique of
solarization.


Filters
Edge detect
Edge

A five second editing job.

I rather like the effect. It shows that you can see what can be done
with a photograph you'd normally skip over. The result is strong and
eye-catching.

Sometimes going beyond just black and white and reducing the elements
starkly can work. This was a rather ordinary shot of one of my
grandsons that I like better than a lot of my regular shots.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Miscel...10-07-1-X2.jpg



I took an iPhone photo of the former president of our camera club. She
requested that I process the original so that it could be much larger.
Of course, I obliged.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Karen.jpg

Sometimes less is more.

Interesting processing. Wondering about the fractal plugin.
What did you use?

--
==
Later...
Ron C
--