A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Processing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old October 21st 14, 07:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default Processing

On 10/21/2014 1:13 PM, philo wrote:
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...


You missed the point. His neighbor's name is Art.

--
PeterN
  #62  
Old October 21st 14, 08:30 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default Processing

On 10/21/2014 2:11 PM, Ron C wrote:
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



I like to play with abstracts. IRC, The original, effect done by
rotating the camera during the exposure.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/dahlplosion.jpg

I Then used a find edge filter, with some cropping and a color inversion
layer:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/dahlplosion2.jpg

The same image after applying the following filters:, twirl, sharpen
edges, levels, and unsharp mask.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/dahlplosion1.jpg
--
PeterN
  #63  
Old October 21st 14, 10:06 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Processing

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 22:21:09 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

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).


Oops! Rather like *this* one ....

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC6466.jpg
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #64  
Old October 21st 14, 11:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Processing

On 2014-10-21 21:06:37 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 22:21:09 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

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, 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


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).


Oops! Rather like *this* one ....

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC6466.jpg


If we are going to iron work for examples, here is one to ponder. Geo
tagged if you are interested.
https://db.tt/X2vuYDG1


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #65  
Old October 22nd 14, 02:30 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default Processing

On 10/21/2014 3:30 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 10/21/2014 2:11 PM, Ron C wrote:
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



I like to play with abstracts. IRC, The original, effect done by
rotating the camera during the exposure.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/dahlplosion.jpg

I Then used a find edge filter, with some cropping and a color inversion
layer:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/dahlplosion2.jpg

The same image after applying the following filters:, twirl, sharpen
edges, levels, and unsharp mask.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/dahlplosion1.jpg


Um, the psychedelic 70's are calling......
Like, so totally retro!!! 8-)

==
Later...
Ron C
--
  #66  
Old October 22nd 14, 04:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Processing

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:32:44 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-10-21 21:06:37 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 22:21:09 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

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).


Oops! Rather like *this* one ....

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC6466.jpg


If we are going to iron work for examples, here is one to ponder. Geo
tagged if you are interested.
https://db.tt/X2vuYDG1


The Eiffel tower is built of wrought iron (puddling iron to be
correct). The bridge you have photographed almost certainly is steel.
It occurs to me to wonder, is it still standing?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #67  
Old October 22nd 14, 05:45 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Processing

On 2014-10-22 03:52:07 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:32:44 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-10-21 21:06:37 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 22:21:09 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

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, 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

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).

Oops! Rather like *this* one ....

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC6466.jpg


If we are going to iron work for examples, here is one to ponder. Geo
tagged if you are interested.
https://db.tt/X2vuYDG1


The Eiffel tower is built of wrought iron (puddling iron to be
correct). The bridge you have photographed almost certainly is steel.
It occurs to me to wonder, is it still standing?


Yup!

Iron work has applied to construction steel interchangeably in the USA,
regardless of whether that is correct terminology or not. So I will
concede, it is in all likelihood steel.

As I said that shot is geo tagged and you should be directed directly
to the "I" Street two tier swing bridge crossing the Sacramento river.
Rail below, road traffic on top.
https://db.tt/PDXx82aj

....and it is still standing, here is its location using the Lightroom
Map Module.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_983.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #68  
Old October 22nd 14, 03:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default Processing

On 10/21/2014 9:30 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 10/21/2014 3:30 PM, PeterN wrote:



snip

I like to play with abstracts. IRC, The original, effect done by
rotating the camera during the exposure.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/dahlplosion.jpg

I Then used a find edge filter, with some cropping and a color inversion
layer:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/dahlplosion2.jpg

The same image after applying the following filters:, twirl, sharpen
edges, levels, and unsharp mask.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/dahlplosion1.jpg


Um, the psychedelic 70's are calling......
Like, so totally retro!!! 8-)



Every so often I look through one of our Kaleidoscops.

To change I ran accross this link. I have not tried it, but it looks
interesting.

http://nkurence.com/blog/2012/06/nks5-natural-media-toolkit-for-photoshop-cs5-cs6/



--
PeterN
  #69  
Old October 23rd 14, 12:11 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Whiskers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 188
Default Processing

On 2014-10-20, philoÂ* 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 can't comment on the actual print, as I haven't seen it and probably
never will. From the jpeg viewed on my laptop, I can say that the image
has artistic potential. (In my opinion, at least).

Consider whether or not you want the small flashes of colour, and how
noticeable you want them to be, and try getting some subtle tonal
variation in the dark areas. If it were mine, I'd experiment with tonal
'fades' and even reversing the tones in one area compared with another.
Play with introduced colour too; black-with-a-hint-of-something instead
of pure black, perhaps?

Combining that image with paint or ink or some other medium could be
fun.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
T Max processing Michael[_6_] In The Darkroom 4 January 3rd 08 05:57 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 09:26 AM
E6 Processing Mike In The Darkroom 68 December 8th 04 06:14 AM
K14 Processing Joe Thomas Film & Labs 1 December 17th 03 11:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.