Processing

On 2014-10-20 15:27:15 +0000, philoÂ* said:

On 10/20/2014 10:15 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-20 14:29:02 +0000, philo said:

On 10/20/2014 09:15 AM, Savageduck wrote:

X
Post processing is not a bad thing, but using any tool on rare occasions
can lead to questionable results.




snip


I don't agree with much of what you have posted but you are of course
entitled to your opinion. No two people have ever interpreted one of
my photos in the same way.


I consider myself fortunate in that all these years I have had
employment other than in the field of photography, so never had to
depend on sales. All photos I do are solely for my own enjoyment and I
am not swayed by opinion.


OTOH: If I do somehow stumble upon producing a photo that sells,
I am not too proud to take the money. This is one of my "sellers".

There is no accounting for taste.


" De gustibus non est disputandum."

True and no problem with that,
the only problem I do see however is that you have not demonstrated the
ability to /qualify/ your opinions. Your name "Savage Duck" implies
that you harbor a lot of anger and I see that it's clouding your
judgment.

Is taste quantifiable?
As for my NG nym, it is just that, a nym, and you can make of it what
you will. As for my judgement it is no more, or less valid than anybody
else's.

Such opinions do nothing to further the art of photography.

....and that is your opinion, which in my opinion does nothing to
further the art of photography, considering that you are not exactly
embracing the areas of post processing which actually further the art
of photography.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-10-20 15:57:00 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/20/2014 9:27 AM, 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 saw two pictures. Took your shot, cropped it, and ran a fid edge filter.
I was too lazy to clean the background:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/philo1%20left.jpg
and the right side:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/philo1right.jpg

Since folks are tinkering with it, try this for size:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Philo-01.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/20/2014 10:58 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

snip


Such opinions do nothing to further the art of photography.

But there is also the opinion of whether or not phpotpgraphy should be art.
I don;t think it should art is about creating something that either doesn;t exist in teh real world or changing ones percepeption of something that does exist, whereas photography is more a way of capturing something in light.

You also shouldn't take much notice of peoples nicknames as a sign of much.
Otherwise you could find trouble if you picked a fight with little john.
Thre's a couple of real 'ankers on here that think that way too.



Even though I have subscribe to this group for a long time, I rarely
post here. Obviously I can never know what goes on inside someone else's
mind however I have noted that when one gives criticism without being
able to back up what they are saying, it's typically done from anger.

Had "SD" stated specifically what could have done better I would have
attributed more validity to his statements.


As to "little john" who I don't recall seeing,
I'd make the assumption that he was a big guy.

On 10/20/2014 10:57 AM, PeterN wrote:



snip

I saw two pictures. Took your shot, cropped it, and ran a fid edge filter.
I was too lazy to clean the background:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/philo1%20left.jpg
and the right side:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/philo1right.jpg





I like the one I posted considerably better.

Each to his own.

On 10/20/2014 11:10 AM, Savageduck wrote:


snip

I saw two pictures. Took your shot, cropped it, and ran a fid edge
filter.
I was too lazy to clean the background:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/philo1%20left.jpg
and the right side:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/philo1right.jpg

Since folks are tinkering with it, try this for size:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Philo-01.jpg




Now we are getting somewhere. Thank you Savage Duck.

I was not terribly impressed when you did little more to tell me you
thought I did a poor job with the image...but now you have backed up
your statement with results and I respect that.


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.

On 2014-10-20 16:26:07 +0000, philoÂ* said:

On 10/20/2014 11:10 AM, Savageduck wrote:


snip

I saw two pictures. Took your shot, cropped it, and ran a fid edge
filter.
I was too lazy to clean the background:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/philo1%20left.jpg
and the right side:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/philo1right.jpg

Since folks are tinkering with it, try this for size:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Philo-01.jpg




Now we are getting somewhere. Thank you Savage Duck.

I was not terribly impressed when you did little more to tell me you
thought I did a poor job with the image...but now you have backed up
your statement with results and I respect that.


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.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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.

On 10/20/2014 10:15 AM, Savageduck wrote:

snip

I guess this is where taste comes into play. This shot and your
treatment doesn’t work for me. Peter might find it to his liking. I can
see that it would “grab a lot of attention�, but whether that is a good
thing or not might be open to interpretation. Since you presented it at
20’’ x 30’’ that attention would have been unavoidable. This might well
be a case of the "Emperor's new clothes".


Yes it really all comes down to individual preference.
As I posted earlier, I made some changes to make the image more suitable
to my taste. Here is a similar treatment of a different subject.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/three%20cranes.jpg


--
PeterN

On 10/20/2014 10:29 AM, philo wrote:
On 10/20/2014 09:15 AM, Savageduck wrote:

X
Post processing is not a bad thing, but using any tool on rare occasions
can lead to questionable results.




snip


I don't agree with much of what you have posted but you are of course
entitled to your opinion. No two people have ever interpreted one of my
photos in the same way.


I consider myself fortunate in that all these years I have had
employment other than in the field of photography, so never had to
depend on sales. All photos I do are solely for my own enjoyment and I
am not swayed by opinion.


OTOH: If I do somehow stumble upon producing a photo that sells,
I am not too proud to take the money. This is one of my "sellers".

I am incliuded in the large group that dpesn't like Jackson Pollack. But
those who buy it are the ones who count.



--
PeterN

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.

--
PeterN