Processing

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.

On 2014-10-20 13:27:48 +0000, philoÂ* said:

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.

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".

The original was in color and of not much interest.

Actually, beyond what you have done to it, it remains of not much interest.

This one was done in GIMP and is close to the old darkroom technique of
solarization.

So?

Filters
Edge detect
Edge

A five second editing job.

It shows. You definitely need more practice. Either that, or stick to
your tried and true “get it right in camera� technique. It takes more
than post processing the "rare image" to become in anyway proficient
with whatever software you choose to use. One of the reasons I return
to photographs I shot 12+ years ago, is I have learned other PP
techniques and I have moved on from those days of starting out with a
digital darkroom. That allows be to get to improved versions on older
photographs.

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


--
Regards,

Savageduck

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".

On 10/20/2014 09:26 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 October 2014 14:27:48 UTC+1, 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:


I quite like it.


Thank you.
When I put this one in shows, even the critics who normally don't care
for my stuff...like this one.


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.

Was going to mention the tilt.

Yeah, I put this one on-line and only realized it was not the final cut
after I posted it...but it's close enough.


This one was done in GIMP and is close to the old darkroom technique of
solarization.

That was one of my first attempts at solarization, in order to make something out of an otherwise quite borring photo.


Filters
Edge detect
Edge




This info was put there for those old school folks who used
solarization. Should save any GIMP user some trial and error as GIMP has
no setting specifically marked "solarize".

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".

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




Yes...such things can really save what would otherwise be a "nothing" image.

Many years ago my wife and I taught a photography class for adults who
have experience mental illness. Unfortunately many were over-medicated
and could not do much more than walk out the door and just take a quick
snap shot of the first thing that hit their eye.


The results were disappointing until we got an idea.

The one that started it all was a guy who just took a photo of a sewer
cover in the side walk.


We printed it out on plain paper just as you have done with your
example. A strict black and white with no gradation.

That made the boring image of /some/ interest.


This was along time ago in the pre-Photoshop days and done on a photo
copier.

We could have left it at that but we added another level:


We'd give the image back to the original photographer and have them
color it in with pastels, crayon or colored pencil.

Again we got interesting results...but the images were of course not
archival.

So, we took the images to a color photo-copying center and had them
enlarged and printed on semi-gloss.

We were astounded that the brilliance was brought out in such a way that
they were considerably better than the original. The ended up putting
the photos in their gift shop and selling them.


My wife did her own rendition of the sewer cover photo and it looks like
the planet Jupiter setting over Lake Michigan.


To this day, my wife and I still teach out xerography classes...but
thanks to the computer can shrink a three week process down to an hour
or so.

On 10/20/2014 10:00 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:


snip
yes people always argue as to which photos are best.
Whn you search for such things, I prefer to look at the images and then decide rather than the photographers name or the camera they used.
or you could argue that the best photo is the one that makes the most money.
I wonder hgow much that photo of the women tennis playing scratching here arse is worth, and is it a good photo.






There is just too much of that going on.

I've seen so many critics raving about stuff that I think is junk that
I'd almost be worried if they liked my stuff.



Ok you say, isn't this subjective?


Sure...but :


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

On 2014-10-20 14:29:02 +0000, philoÂ* 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.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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.

Such opinions do nothing to further the art of photography.

Took me a while but here is the xerograph of the sewer cover

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...6318c2b9b314e8

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


--
PeterN