Processing

On 2014-10-20 21:56:27 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

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

On 2014-10-20 16:40:20 +0000, philoÂ* 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.

Something along these lines?
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_980.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/20/2014 6:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-20 21:56:27 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

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.

Something along these lines?
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_980.jpg


Following the "processing" subject, here are two of my heavily processed
versions (saturated and B&W):

http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/Ed...65d63.jpg.html



http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/Ed...2390c.jpg.html


--
[Note:dot sig Duck delimited] ;-)
==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 2014-10-20 23:55:15 +0000, Ron C said:

On 10/20/2014 6:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-20 21:56:27 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

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.

Something along these lines?
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_980.jpg


Following the "processing" subject, here are two of my heavily processed
versions (saturated and B&W):

http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/Ed...65d63.jpg.html



http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/Ed...2390c.jpg.html


Yup! Different versions indeed. I must say I had not considered using a
paint brush effect.

This is one different rendition I had in mind:
https://db.tt/h18XDNjw

....and just for you painterly folks among us, my oil paint filter rendition:
https://db.tt/Ky6fqppi


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-10-20 23:55:15 +0000, Ron C said:

Le Snip

--
[Note:dot sig Duck delimited] ;-)
==
Later...
Ron C


BTW: You didn't get that sig delimiter quite right. You didn't enter a
space before the carriage return.

The sig delimiter is: dash, dash, space, then return. (-- ) not (--).

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/20/2014 8:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-20 23:55:15 +0000, Ron C said:

On 10/20/2014 6:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-20 21:56:27 +0000, Eric Stevens
said:

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.

Something along these lines?
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_980.jpg


Following the "processing" subject, here are two of my heavily processed
versions (saturated and B&W):

http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/Ed...65d63.jpg.html



http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/Ed...2390c.jpg.html


Yup! Different versions indeed. I must say I had not considered using a
paint brush effect.

This is one different rendition I had in mind:
https://db.tt/h18XDNjw

...and just for you painterly folks among us, my oil paint filter
rendition:
https://db.tt/Ky6fqppi


I'm not sure what paint brush effect you're talking about with my
variations. I only used a few layers of basic filters. I'm guessing
the paint brush factor was from an emboss effect overlay.

I haven't used the oil paint filter much, but find it can get old fast.

--
;-)
==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 10/20/2014 9:00 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-20 23:55:15 +0000, Ron C said:

Le Snip

--
[Note:dot sig Duck delimited] ;-)
==
Later...
Ron C


BTW: You didn't get that sig delimiter quite right. You didn't enter a
space before the carriage return.

The sig delimiter is: dash, dash, space, then return. (-- ) not (--).

Odd. My sent file archive says otherwise.
Seems some rogue delete white space
thingy killed the trailing space. :-(

~~
(I thus give up on that one and revert)
==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 10/20/2014 6:16 PM, Ron C wrote:
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?

Thanks

I played around with Topaz Simplify Adjust and Restyle. and adjusted the
layers until I got something I liked.



Here are a couple that I did with Fractilius. For $29 bucks you get a
lot of flexibility.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/6Nubble%20%20impression.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/swooper.jpg
--
PeterN

On 2014-10-21 01:14:18 +0000, Ron C said:

On 10/20/2014 8:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-20 23:55:15 +0000, Ron C said:

On 10/20/2014 6:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-20 21:56:27 +0000, Eric Stevens
said:

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.

Something along these lines?
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_980.jpg


Following the "processing" subject, here are two of my heavily processed
versions (saturated and B&W):

http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/Ed...65d63.jpg.html





http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/Ed...2390c.jpg.html




Yup! Different versions indeed. I must say I had not considered using a
paint brush effect.

This is one different rendition I had in mind:
https://db.tt/h18XDNjw

...and just for you painterly folks among us, my oil paint filter
rendition:
https://db.tt/Ky6fqppi


I'm not sure what paint brush effect you're talking about with my
variations. I only used a few layers of basic filters. I'm guessing
the paint brush factor was from an emboss effect overlay.

I haven't used the oil paint filter much, but find it can get old fast.

The oil paint filter was available up to the release of Photoshop CC
(2014) so to use it you have to open the image in PS CC, or PS CS6.
That filter removal did not make Peter happy.

That said Photoshop has many more paint effects in the filter gallery
of all editions.
So dropping the oil paint palette and picking up a different brush, you
could easily end up with this sort of thing:
https://db.tt/LAV8Rxc2

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/20/2014 9:14 PM, Ron C wrote:


snip


I haven't used the oil paint filter much, but find it can get old fast.


Yes, but only if you use the same filter at the same setting for alll
images.
One member of my club only does flowers, and for the creative entries,
he only uses the extrude filter. He transferred from another club, and
enters images that have already been entered in other CC eompetitions.
I don't understand how he expects to grow doing that. If it makes him
happy, lack of growth is his problem.


--
PeterN

On 10/20/2014 9:40 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-21 01:14:18 +0000, Ron C said:

On 10/20/2014 8:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-20 23:55:15 +0000, Ron C said:

On 10/20/2014 6:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-20 21:56:27 +0000, Eric Stevens
said:

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.

Something along these lines?
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_980.jpg


Following the "processing" subject, here are two of my heavily
processed
versions (saturated and B&W):

http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/Ed...65d63.jpg.html






http://s1351.photobucket.com/user/Ed...2390c.jpg.html





Yup! Different versions indeed. I must say I had not considered using a
paint brush effect.

This is one different rendition I had in mind:
https://db.tt/h18XDNjw

...and just for you painterly folks among us, my oil paint filter
rendition:
https://db.tt/Ky6fqppi


I'm not sure what paint brush effect you're talking about with my
variations. I only used a few layers of basic filters. I'm guessing
the paint brush factor was from an emboss effect overlay.

I haven't used the oil paint filter much, but find it can get old fast.

The oil paint filter was available up to the release of Photoshop CC
(2014) so to use it you have to open the image in PS CC, or PS CS6. That
filter removal did not make Peter happy.

That said Photoshop has many more paint effects in the filter gallery of
all editions.
So dropping the oil paint palette and picking up a different brush, you
could easily end up with this sort of thing:
https://db.tt/LAV8Rxc2

I'm running CS6. Seems I'm in need of a brush tutorial.

==
Later...
Ron C
--