Processing

On 10/20/2014 9:27 PM, Ron C wrote:
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

For what little it's worth, here's a slash code
of the dot sig from that post:

--\s\r\n\r\n==\r\nLater...\r\nRon\sC\r\n--\s

==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 2014-10-21 01:50:00 +0000, Ron C said:

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.

In this case a filter tutorial.

Go to Filters and in CS6 you will find the oil paint filter as a stand alone.
For those other effects go to filters-filter gallery and they will be
there for you to play with.

For brushes select the brush tool and right click on the image to open
the brush palette.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-10-21 01:54:13 +0000, Ron C said:

On 10/20/2014 9:27 PM, Ron C wrote:
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

For what little it's worth, here's a slash code
of the dot sig from that post:

--\s\r\n\r\n==\r\nLater...\r\nRon\sC\r\n--\s

Hmmm... Perhaps an issue with thunderbird.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/20/2014 9:37 PM, PeterN wrote:
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

Thanks. Looks like an interesting thing for one's tool box.

Yes, I recall seeing " .../swooper.jpg" in a recent thread.
~~
I nearly dropped the group after the first few weeks of
pedantic ad hominem noise I'd encountered.
~
Glad I didn't bail from first impressions of the group.

==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 10/20/2014 10:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-21 01:50:00 +0000, Ron C said:

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.

In this case a filter tutorial.

Go to Filters and in CS6 you will find the oil paint filter as a stand
alone.
For those other effects go to filters-filter gallery and they will be
there for you to play with.

For brushes select the brush tool and right click on the image to open
the brush palette.



Um, you said "paint brush effect" and I'm not sure how that fits
the context of filters and brush tools.

Put another way: what "paint brush effect" were you thinking
I had applied?

==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 2014-10-21 02:25:56 +0000, Ron C said:

On 10/20/2014 10:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-21 01:50:00 +0000, Ron C said:

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.

In this case a filter tutorial.

Go to Filters and in CS6 you will find the oil paint filter as a stand
alone.
For those other effects go to filters-filter gallery and they will be
there for you to play with.

For brushes select the brush tool and right click on the image to open
the brush palette.



Um, you said "paint brush effect" and I'm not sure how that fits
the context of filters and brush tools.

Perhaps I am using the incorrect terminology, my suggestion is go to
menu --filters--filter gallery, or menu--filters--oil paint and see
for yourself.

Put another way: what "paint brush effect" were you thinking
I had applied?

It look like the oil paint filter to me.

There are all sorts of things you can do in PS CS6, PS CC, & PS
CC(2014). For example in the two earlier versions you can use
menu--edit--fill to render 21 different trees with different branch
and leaf configurations. In PS CC (2014) in is in the filter menu under
render.

So then I can take my desolate image and add a few trees. All it takes
is a little exploring and checking on a tutorial or two to find some of
this hidden stuff.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_982.jpg



--
Regards,

Savageduck

philo* wrote in :

On 10/20/2014 10:00 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:


snip
yes people always argue as to which photos are best.
Whn you search for such things, I prefer to look at the images and
then decide rather than the photographers name or the camera they
used. or you could argue that the best photo is the one that makes
the most money. I wonder hgow much that photo of the women tennis
playing scratching here arse is worth, and is it a good photo.






There is just too much of that going on.

I've seen so many critics raving about stuff that I think is junk that
I'd almost be worried if they liked my stuff.



Ok you say, isn't this subjective?


Sure...but :


One of the local critics is always raving about a certain gallery here
in town...so what the heck my wife and I decided to check it out.

On display were those old wooden tennis rackets with novelty store
"doggy doo" glued to them.


Now you tell me if that is art.


Maybe I did not get enough education?


sheesh


Now I know what to do with the old wooden racket in the back of the
closet. I can get the neighbor's dog to supply some "the real thing".
THAT would be art!


--
IBA #55224

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:59:03 -0700, 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

Yep, The monochrome version with just a hint of the original color:
maybe just a tich more than you have used. Rather like this one (where
if you look carefully you can just see where I have used a mask to
keep the skin colour on the faces).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 10/20/2014 11:56 PM, Jeff wrote:


One of the local critics is always raving about a certain gallery here
in town...so what the heck my wife and I decided to check it out.

On display were those old wooden tennis rackets with novelty store
"doggy doo" glued to them.


Now you tell me if that is art.


Maybe I did not get enough education?


sheesh


Now I know what to do with the old wooden racket in the back of the
closet. I can get the neighbor's dog to supply some "the real thing".
THAT would be art!





I'm sure our local art critic would love it...

On 10/20/2014 11:11 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-21 02:25:56 +0000, Ron C said:




Um, you said "paint brush effect" and I'm not sure how that fits
the context of filters and brush tools.

Perhaps I am using the incorrect terminology, my suggestion is go to
menu --filters--filter gallery, or menu--filters--oil paint and see
for yourself.

Put another way: what "paint brush effect" were you thinking
I had applied?

It look like the oil paint filter to me.

For what it's worth, oil paint doesn't run on the XP machine
I did those renditions on, though it does run on my Win7
machines.
Now, from what I've seen, the oil paint filter doesn't change it's
texture according to the amount of detail in the picture/layer.
It seems to apply the effect uniformly to the whole image.
Maybe I've missed some parameter?
I need to do some more experimenting on my other machine.
Ah, but that seems to be what this thread is about. :-)

There are all sorts of things you can do in PS CS6, PS CC, & PS
CC(2014). For example in the two earlier versions you can use
menu--edit--fill to render 21 different trees with different branch
and leaf configurations. In PS CC (2014) in is in the filter menu under
render.

So then I can take my desolate image and add a few trees. All it takes
is a little exploring and checking on a tutorial or two to find some of
this hidden stuff.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_982.jpg



Yes, there are all sorts of things one can do in Photoshop.
Seems trees started in CC, I have CS6 ...on trees, I checked. :-(
I'm still exploring CS6, probably will continue finding new
stuff for a long long time.

Anyway, thanks for pointing out other stuff to try.

==
Later...
Ron C
--