Processing

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.

On 2014-10-20 13:27:48 +0000, philoÂ* said:

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.

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".

The original was in color and of not much interest.

Actually, beyond what you have done to it, it remains of not much interest.

This one was done in GIMP and is close to the old darkroom technique of
solarization.

So?

Filters
Edge detect
Edge

A five second editing job.

It shows. You definitely need more practice. Either that, or stick to
your tried and true “get it right in camera� technique. It takes more
than post processing the "rare image" to become in anyway proficient
with whatever software you choose to use. One of the reasons I return
to photographs I shot 12+ years ago, is I have learned other PP
techniques and I have moved on from those days of starting out with a
digital darkroom. That allows be to get to improved versions on older
photographs.

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


--
Regards,

Savageduck

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".

On 2014-10-20 14:29:02 +0000, philoÂ* 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.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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.

Such opinions do nothing to further the art of photography.

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.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/20/2014 10:29 AM, philo wrote:
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".

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



--
PeterN

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.


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.

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 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


--
PeterN