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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |