An actual photo in r.p.d.

On 2014-11-08 03:03:59 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

If you guys will forgive an actual photo here, this wagon wheel was
spotted at a Flea Market, but the ground under it was full of trash
and clutter. Next to it was a rusty hood panel, so I combined the two
by changing the background.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...11-05-2-X2.jpg

You have a nerve showing an image here to disrupt the flame wars. Good
luck with that. For what it's worth I have tried to little effect ;-)

I finally killed the Västerås/London 7D thread, which has cleaned up my
feed considerably.

Anyway, on to your wagon wheel shot.
Using the rusty hood as a texture background is a good idea. Just
remember that the same thing could be done using a stock
texture/background with the appropriate blending mode.
There are quite a number to be found via Google, or Adobe Exchange.

I tried a quick modification using all your elements + a texture from
an Adobe Exchange panel.
Once again, I won’t post it here, but I will email it to you.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-11-08 13:03:35 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 21:52:48 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-11-08 03:03:59 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

If you guys will forgive an actual photo here, this wagon wheel was
spotted at a Flea Market, but the ground under it was full of trash
and clutter. Next to it was a rusty hood panel, so I combined the two
by changing the background.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...11-05-2-X2.jpg

You have a nerve showing an image here to disrupt the flame wars. Good
luck with that. For what it's worth I have tried to little effect ;-)

I finally killed the Västerås/London 7D thread, which has cleaned up my
feed considerably.

Anyway, on to your wagon wheel shot.
Using the rusty hood as a texture background is a good idea. Just
remember that the same thing could be done using a stock
texture/background with the appropriate blending mode.
There are quite a number to be found via Google, or Adobe Exchange.

I tried a quick modification using all your elements + a texture from
an Adobe Exchange panel.
Once again, I wonÂ’t post it here, but I will email it to you.

Go ahead and post it since you've done it. I don't see it as any
better or worse.

I didn't use a blending mode. I used a Layer Mask and cut out the
spaces between the spokes.

I used my own shot as a background because I wanted to capture that
rusty car hood as my own texture/background. If cooking interested
me, I would like to make my own crust as well as the pie filling
instead of buying a pie crust shell.


What didn't work for me with your original was that the background
rusty hood seemed to my eye to be more of a uniform color field than a
sheet of rusty metal from a hood or elsewhere. It could have been lying
on muddy ground and most folks would have been hard pressed to say that
was a rusty hood. You knew because you took the shot. From what I was
looking at something else was needed.

Anyway, for a guy who used to work in a microbiology lab, I don't mind
tinkering in the kitchen, it can be a place to experiment and then
feast on the results. Though taking that back to the post processing
analogy, sometimes I choke on the results.

Here is a side-by-side of the two versions:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_1015.jpg

Thanks for letting me play.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 11/8/2014 12:14 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2014 08:01:55 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-11-08 13:03:35 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 21:52:48 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-11-08 03:03:59 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

If you guys will forgive an actual photo here, this wagon wheel was
spotted at a Flea Market, but the ground under it was full of trash
and clutter. Next to it was a rusty hood panel, so I combined the two
by changing the background.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...11-05-2-X2.jpg

You have a nerve showing an image here to disrupt the flame wars. Good
luck with that. For what it's worth I have tried to little effect ;-)

I finally killed the Västerås/London 7D thread, which has cleaned up my
feed considerably.

Anyway, on to your wagon wheel shot.
Using the rusty hood as a texture background is a good idea. Just
remember that the same thing could be done using a stock
texture/background with the appropriate blending mode.
There are quite a number to be found via Google, or Adobe Exchange.

I tried a quick modification using all your elements + a texture from
an Adobe Exchange panel.
Once again, I won?t post it here, but I will email it to you.

Go ahead and post it since you've done it. I don't see it as any
better or worse.

I didn't use a blending mode. I used a Layer Mask and cut out the
spaces between the spokes.

I used my own shot as a background because I wanted to capture that
rusty car hood as my own texture/background. If cooking interested
me, I would like to make my own crust as well as the pie filling
instead of buying a pie crust shell.


What didn't work for me with your original was that the background
rusty hood seemed to my eye to be more of a uniform color field than a
sheet of rusty metal from a hood or elsewhere. It could have been lying
on muddy ground and most folks would have been hard pressed to say that
was a rusty hood. You knew because you took the shot. From what I was
looking at something else was needed.

Anyway, for a guy who used to work in a microbiology lab, I don't mind
tinkering in the kitchen, it can be a place to experiment and then
feast on the results. Though taking that back to the post processing
analogy, sometimes I choke on the results.

Here is a side-by-side of the two versions:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_1015.jpg

Thanks for letting me play.

Sorry, Duck, but I don't think yours is an improvement. It's too busy
and conflicts with the texture and detail of the spokes. The
background shouldn't be what the viewer sees and thinks about. I
don't want the viewer thinking "What is under the wheel?". Your
version splits the viewer's interest into the wheel and the
background.

This is why I don't really like letting others play. I have an idea
in mind when I process an image, and I more-or-less achieve that
concept if I post the image. Sometimes, as in the case of PeterN, the
concept doesn't get across to anyone except the originator of the
image. That's OK, though. It's the getting there that's the fun.


If the concept of my image doesn't come accross to others, it's due to
my failure to communicate.

I'm not saying that my version is better or the best. I'm just saying
that mine is what I want to show. We either go for stark realism and
leave the warts or we remove the warts and try to focus the viewers
attention. It's not good to create new warts.

Sorry I disagree. Some viewers like the warts.


This is a simple image...detailed hub and spokes. It shouldn't be
made to be a complicated image.




--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I'm not saying that my version is better or the best. I'm just saying
that mine is what I want to show. We either go for stark realism and
leave the warts or we remove the warts and try to focus the viewers
attention. It's not good to create new warts.

Sorry I disagree. Some viewers like the warts.

perhaps you can answer your own question:

In article , PeterN
wrote:
Please explain in detail the factual basis for your conclusion.

On 11/9/2014 10:25 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I'm not saying that my version is better or the best. I'm just saying
that mine is what I want to show. We either go for stark realism and
leave the warts or we remove the warts and try to focus the viewers
attention. It's not good to create new warts.

Sorry I disagree. Some viewers like the warts.

perhaps you can answer your own question:

In article , PeterN
wrote:
Please explain in detail the factual basis for your conclusion.


WTF are you blabbering about.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I'm not saying that my version is better or the best. I'm just saying
that mine is what I want to show. We either go for stark realism and
leave the warts or we remove the warts and try to focus the viewers
attention. It's not good to create new warts.

Sorry I disagree. Some viewers like the warts.

perhaps you can answer your own question:

In article , PeterN
wrote:
Please explain in detail the factual basis for your conclusion.


WTF are you blabbering about.

whoosh!

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I'm not saying that my version is better or the best. I'm just saying
that mine is what I want to show. We either go for stark realism and
leave the warts or we remove the warts and try to focus the viewers
attention. It's not good to create new warts.

Sorry I disagree. Some viewers like the warts.

perhaps you can answer your own question:

In article , PeterN
wrote:
Please explain in detail the factual basis for your conclusion.

WTF are you blabbering about.

He only enters a thread to create dissension. Never to link to a
photograph he's taken or to critique one. I don't know why he bothers
to read a photo newsgroup.

you're wrong as usual.

and then there's you, who enters a thread solely to attack, as you've
done here. peter is also guilty of that too.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:08:10 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:11:26 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 11/9/2014 10:25 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I'm not saying that my version is better or the best. I'm just saying
that mine is what I want to show. We either go for stark realism and
leave the warts or we remove the warts and try to focus the viewers
attention. It's not good to create new warts.

Sorry I disagree. Some viewers like the warts.

perhaps you can answer your own question:

In article , PeterN
wrote:
Please explain in detail the factual basis for your conclusion.


WTF are you blabbering about.

He only enters a thread to create dissension. Never to link to a
photograph he's taken or to critique one. I don't know why he bothers
to read a photo newsgroup.

I don't think that you are quite correct. nospam is very knowledgable
about some subjects and does have something to contribute to the news
group. However, when focussed on a problem his field of view is very
narrow and this, coupled with his inability to explain what he
actually means even the third or fourth time around, results in some
enormous misunderstandings. Further, once he has said something he
will not budge from those words in any way. This is why so many of the
arguments in which he becomes engaged turn into arguments about the
exact meaning of what has been discussed. Unfortunately its now got to
a stage where he is prepared for battle and comes out fighting with
his first article. It didn't use to be that way.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
He only enters a thread to create dissension. Never to link to
a photograph he's taken or to critique one. I don't know why he
bothers to read a photo newsgroup.

Eric Stevens:
I don't think that you are quite correct. nospam is very
knowledgable about some subjects and does have something to
contribute to the news group.

But when has he ever contributed a photo or a critique or comment
about a photo?

And this is the only valid way to participate in this group, is it Mr
Moderator? Haha.

When has he ever entered a thread about a subject where he wasn't
entering to argue with someone about something?

Or correcting someone's misinformation, usually from the local troll group.


--
Sandman[.net]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:51:52 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 17:02:12 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:08:10 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:11:26 -0500, PeterN wrote:

On 11/9/2014 10:25 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I'm not saying that my version is better or the best. I'm just saying
that mine is what I want to show. We either go for stark realism and
leave the warts or we remove the warts and try to focus the viewers
attention. It's not good to create new warts.

Sorry I disagree. Some viewers like the warts.

perhaps you can answer your own question:

In article , PeterN
wrote:
Please explain in detail the factual basis for your conclusion.


WTF are you blabbering about.

He only enters a thread to create dissension. Never to link to a
photograph he's taken or to critique one. I don't know why he bothers
to read a photo newsgroup.

I don't think that you are quite correct. nospam is very knowledgable
about some subjects and does have something to contribute to the news
group.

But when has he ever contributed a photo or a critique or comment
about a photo?

Never, to my (time) limited knowledge.

When has he ever entered a thread about a subject where he wasn't
entering to argue with someone about something?

I won't say 'never' but I will say 'hardly ever'.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens