If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Processing
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 -- |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Processing
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Processing
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Processing
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 -- |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Processing
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 -- |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Processing
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Processing
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Processing
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Processing
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 -- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
T Max processing | Michael[_6_] | In The Darkroom | 4 | January 3rd 08 04:57 AM |
Processing | No Name | Large Format Photography Equipment | 15 | October 21st 07 01:50 PM |
Post-Processing RAW vs Post-Processing TIFF | Mike Henley | Digital Photography | 54 | January 30th 05 08:26 AM |
E6 Processing | Mike | In The Darkroom | 68 | December 8th 04 05:14 AM |
K14 Processing | Joe Thomas | Film & Labs | 1 | December 17th 03 10:04 PM |