Processing

On 10/20/2014 10:50 AM, philo wrote:
On 10/20/2014 09:35 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:

snip

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.


Thank you very much. I did not post the original as there is just not
much to look at.

The effect "saved the day".


Don't sell yourself short. My guess is that few have had photo books
published, and sold individual photos. It doesn't matter that your wife
insisted you. There was someting in your image for her to assist you with.

--
PeterN

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


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/20/2014 12:01 PM, PeterN wrote:

snip


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




I like his stuff. I don't think he's a Van Gogh...but I like it.

Whenever I see someone doing abstract or conceptual work...I like to
review their whole body of work first.


For example...with Pollack, when I look at his earlier stuff I see he
did have artistic talent.


OTOH: If someone who has never done art before and just decides to
splash a bunch of paint on the canvas...that does not mean they actually
have talent.


Warhol for example was quite an excellent illustrator...but my opinion
of the stuff that made him famous was that he was an excellent con artist.

On 10/20/2014 11:44 AM, PeterN wrote:
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





That's a good one...I personally would have made even more contrast to
give it a pure while background....but it's a good image.


BTW:You posted that at way higher resolution that you needed to...20
megs or so. It made the page load slowly and someone could steal it from
you.

On 10/20/2014 12:37 PM, Savageduck wrote:


snip



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





Yep.,.,the B&W is a great shot!

On 10/20/2014 12:22 PM, philo wrote:
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.

That's fine. It would be a boring world if people did not see things
differently.

--
PeterN

On 10/20/2014 12:14 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 10/20/2014 10:50 AM, philo wrote:
On 10/20/2014 09:35 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:

snip

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.


Thank you very much. I did not post the original as there is just not
much to look at.

The effect "saved the day".


Don't sell yourself short. My guess is that few have had photo books
published, and sold individual photos. It doesn't matter that your wife
insisted you. There was someting in your image for her to assist you with.




Thanks for recalling that I had book published...I've now sold over 150
copies and have made a little money in the process. Was the book
perfect? Hardly so. I even was too lazy to correct a couple of minor
errors before I approved the publication...and now a few years
later...when I look at it I see more that I could have done better ...

however...

I learned years ago that it is better to do something than just talk and
think about it and keep working at it until it is perfect. For those who
do that, they will never finish or share their work with the world.

As to selling photos...yes I am very fortunate that my wife runs an art
gallery. I have sold exceedingly few photos through other venues.

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

Here's an old example of stark reduction from my wet darkroom days.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7nlds8lb9a...1A%5D.jpg?dl=0

http://tinyurl.com/peknffa

This started as a day time photo of the aftermath of a fire. That picture
wasn't very interesting as taken, but is much more dramatic as a high
contrast negative. It took hours of work in the darkroom, could probably
do a better job with Photoshop in a several minutes.

==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 10/20/2014 01:46 PM, Ron C 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


Here's an old example of stark reduction from my wet darkroom days.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7nlds8lb9a...1A%5D.jpg?dl=0

http://tinyurl.com/peknffa

This started as a day time photo of the aftermath of a fire. That picture
wasn't very interesting as taken, but is much more dramatic as a high
contrast negative. It took hours of work in the darkroom, could probably
do a better job with Photoshop in a several minutes.



Yes I like that...for some reason I've always liked hi-contrast.


Looking back to my early years in the darkroom, I've had to reprint all
any of the images I liked. I had way to little contrast simply because I
did not know any better.

On 10/20/2014 1:57 PM, philo wrote:
On 10/20/2014 11:44 AM, PeterN wrote:
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





That's a good one...I personally would have made even more contrast to
give it a pure while background....but it's a good image.


Thank you.


BTW:You posted that at way higher resolution that you needed to...20
megs or so. It made the page load slowly and someone could steal it from
you.

I realized that just after I pushed the send button. I will be very
happy if that is the worst mistake I make.

--
PeterN