Wired article

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:21:02 -0400, Ron C wrote:

On 3/19/2015 11:02 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:03:51 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-19 21:10:14 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:31:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-03-19 16:32:01 +0000, PeterN said:
On 3/14/2015 10:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-03-15 02:40:53 +0000, Mayayana said:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/penelope-umbrico-range/

Not very inspiring work, but perhaps an interesting
development. It's an article about a woman applying
so many filters to photos that they become little more
than abstract patterns.

Why is it I am unimpressed?

Although you deny liking abstract, your sense of composition proves you
have an inate feel for abstractionism. You simply prefer realism to
pure essence. I have a strpng preference for abstract.

This:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140726_4926.jpg

became this:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/swirl.jpg

Which became this:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/swirl2.jpg

The maker can go as far as they want to. Unless you're being
commissioned, only the maker has to like the image.

All well and good, that is your shot and you are free to do with it as
you please. My issue with the images featured in this book is the fact
that they were not originals they were cheap snapshots of classic Adams
& Weston images which were then udulterated. At best you might call
them derivative, but certainly not original or pleasing.

Just like you, I can take any of my images and apply motion blur or any
variety of filters to come up with something which might or might not
work for all sorts of reasons. It just isn't my thing.
http://adobe.ly/1x5brtX

Quite good. You should try doing that to a similar image of multiple
cars.

Something such as this?
http://adobe.ly/1OaQgw2

Yes, but I feel that all cars should be equally blurred.You probably
need layers to do it.

Hmm, I was thinking sequentially blurred. [YMMV]

That's what I meant.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-03-20 04:17:18 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2015-03-20 03:02:11 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:03:51 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-03-19 21:10:14 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:31:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-03-19 16:32:01 +0000, PeterN said:
On 3/14/2015 10:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-03-15 02:40:53 +0000, Mayayana said:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/penelope-umbrico-range/

Not very inspiring work, but perhaps an interesting
development. It's an article about a woman applying
so many filters to photos that they become little more
than abstract patterns.

Why is it I am unimpressed?

Although you deny liking abstract, your sense of composition proves you
have an inate feel for abstractionism. You simply prefer realism to
pure essence. I have a strpng preference for abstract.

This:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140726_4926.jpg

became this:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/swirl.jpg

Which became this:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/swirl2.jpg

The maker can go as far as they want to. Unless you're being
commissioned, only the maker has to like the image.

All well and good, that is your shot and you are free to do with it as
you please. My issue with the images featured in this book is the fact
that they were not originals they were cheap snapshots of classic Adams
& Weston images which were then udulterated. At best you might call
them derivative, but certainly not original or pleasing.

Just like you, I can take any of my images and apply motion blur or any
variety of filters to come up with something which might or might not
work for all sorts of reasons. It just isn't my thing.
http://adobe.ly/1x5brtX

Quite good. You should try doing that to a similar image of multiple
cars.

Something such as this?
http://adobe.ly/1OaQgw2

Yes, but I feel that all cars should be equally blurred.You probably
need layers to do it.

OK!
I have added another rendition to that Collection. I used the "Path
Blur" using a seperate masked layer for each car.
I kept the criteria for each path the same:
Speed: 170%
Taper: 20%
End Point Speed: 155%
Strobe strength: 20%
Strobe Flashes: 6

OK! For Peter, I added one more as an attempt to render something a tad
on the abstract side and to over-use filters.
It is in the same LR Collections folder, which is quickly becoming my
favorite method of sharing this type of stuff. Straight into the LR
Mobile synced Collection with sharing enabled and the Adobe generated
URL is right there.
http://adobe.ly/1OaQgw2

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 3/19/2015 11:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-03-20 03:02:11 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:03:51 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-19 21:10:14 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:31:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-03-19 16:32:01 +0000, PeterN said:
On 3/14/2015 10:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-03-15 02:40:53 +0000, Mayayana said:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/penelope-umbrico-range/

Not very inspiring work, but perhaps an interesting
development. It's an article about a woman applying
so many filters to photos that they become little more
than abstract patterns.

Why is it I am unimpressed?

Although you deny liking abstract, your sense of composition
proves you
have an inate feel for abstractionism. You simply prefer realism to
pure essence. I have a strpng preference for abstract.

This:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140726_4926.jpg

became this:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/swirl.jpg

Which became this:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/swirl2.jpg

The maker can go as far as they want to. Unless you're being
commissioned, only the maker has to like the image.

All well and good, that is your shot and you are free to do with it as
you please. My issue with the images featured in this book is the fact
that they were not originals they were cheap snapshots of classic
Adams
& Weston images which were then udulterated. At best you might call
them derivative, but certainly not original or pleasing.

Just like you, I can take any of my images and apply motion blur or
any
variety of filters to come up with something which might or might not
work for all sorts of reasons. It just isn't my thing.
http://adobe.ly/1x5brtX

Quite good. You should try doing that to a similar image of multiple
cars.

Something such as this?
http://adobe.ly/1OaQgw2

Yes, but I feel that all cars should be equally blurred.You probably
need layers to do it.

Probably. That was iust a down & dirty quick rendition to meet your
challenge. ;-)

I think the type of action blurring you used should be blurs should be
more subtle.

--
PeterN

On 2015-03-22 01:00:00 +0000, PeterN said:

On 3/19/2015 11:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-03-20 03:02:11 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:03:51 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-19 21:10:14 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:31:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-03-19 16:32:01 +0000, PeterN said:
On 3/14/2015 10:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-03-15 02:40:53 +0000, Mayayana said:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/penelope-umbrico-range/

Not very inspiring work, but perhaps an interesting
development. It's an article about a woman applying
so many filters to photos that they become little more
than abstract patterns.

Why is it I am unimpressed?

Although you deny liking abstract, your sense of composition
proves you
have an inate feel for abstractionism. You simply prefer realism to
pure essence. I have a strpng preference for abstract.

This:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140726_4926.jpg

became this:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/swirl.jpg

Which became this:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/swirl2.jpg

The maker can go as far as they want to. Unless you're being
commissioned, only the maker has to like the image.

All well and good, that is your shot and you are free to do with it as
you please. My issue with the images featured in this book is the fact
that they were not originals they were cheap snapshots of classic
Adams
& Weston images which were then udulterated. At best you might call
them derivative, but certainly not original or pleasing.

Just like you, I can take any of my images and apply motion blur or
any
variety of filters to come up with something which might or might not
work for all sorts of reasons. It just isn't my thing.
http://adobe.ly/1x5brtX

Quite good. You should try doing that to a similar image of multiple
cars.

Something such as this?
http://adobe.ly/1OaQgw2

Yes, but I feel that all cars should be equally blurred.You probably
need layers to do it.

Probably. That was iust a down & dirty quick rendition to meet your
challenge. ;-)

I think the type of action blurring you used should be blurs should be
more subtle.

Well they were blurs.
As for being subtle, you are a fine one to say that!

Basically that sort of stuff isn't really what I like to do with my
images, but from time-to-time I enjoy playing with some of the tools I
don't usually touch. At least it is a way to learn about little used PS
features, and it is fun after all.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 3/21/2015 9:29 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip

Well they were blurs.
As for being subtle, you are a fine one to say that!


My statement was made in the context of the poster images. IMHO most
blurs don;t work, for various reasons. About 95% of mine, and possibly
more are unages atat will never see the light of day. If you liked those
blurs, fine. But I don't think they worked, for the reason I stated.


Basically that sort of stuff isn't really what I like to do with my
images, but from time-to-time I enjoy playing with some of the tools I
don't usually touch. At least it is a way to learn about little used PS
features, and it is fun after all.

Yes indeed it is the sort of thing that takes one out of the "usual"
processing work flow.


--
PeterN

In article , Savageduck wrote:

Savageduck:
OK! I have added another rendition to that Collection. I used the
"Path Blur" using a seperate masked layer for each car. I kept
the criteria for each path the same: Speed: 170% Taper: 20% End
Point Speed: 155% Strobe strength: 20% Strobe Flashes: 6

OK! For Peter, I added one more as an attempt to render something a
tad on the abstract side and to over-use filters. It is in the same
LR Collections folder, which is quickly becoming my favorite method
of sharing this type of stuff. Straight into the LR Mobile synced
Collection with sharing enabled and the Adobe generated URL is
right there. http://adobe.ly/1OaQgw2

You need to mask them, you blurred the background and ground as well!

But I like them, number 3 is my favorite.

--
Sandman

In article , Savageduck wrote:

PeterN:
I think the type of action blurring you used should be blurs
should be more subtle.

Well they were blurs. As for being subtle, you are a fine one to say
that!

Basically that sort of stuff isn't really what I like to do with my
images, but from time-to-time I enjoy playing with some of the tools
I don't usually touch. At least it is a way to learn about little
used PS features, and it is fun after all.

It is, indeed. Here's my take on a masked version of motion blur on your cars:

http://jonaseklundh.se/files/duck_cars-exp.jpg

I realize, in hindsight, that the shadows from the cars should be equally blurred
of course. Ah well.

I added some vintage look to it, since why the hell not?

--
Sandman

On 2015-03-23 16:42:23 +0000, Sandman said:

In article ,
Savageduck wrote:

PeterN:
I think the type of action blurring you used should be blurs
should be more subtle.

Well they were blurs. As for being subtle, you are a fine one to say
that!

Basically that sort of stuff isn't really what I like to do with my
images, but from time-to-time I enjoy playing with some of the tools
I don't usually touch. At least it is a way to learn about little
used PS features, and it is fun after all.

It is, indeed. Here's my take on a masked version of motion blur on your cars:

http://jonaseklundh.se/files/duck_cars-exp.jpg

I realize, in hindsight, that the shadows from the cars should be
equally blurred
of course. Ah well.

Yup!

I added some vintage look to it, since why the hell not?

Why not? Once the leap is made from attempted reality to artistry,
anything goes. ;-)



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-03-24 10:56:46 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Monday, 23 March 2015 17:06:47 UTC, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-03-23 16:42:23 +0000, Sandman said:

In article ,
Savageduck wrote:

PeterN:
I think the type of action blurring you used should be blurs
should be more subtle.

Well they were blurs. As for being subtle, you are a fine one to say
that!

Basically that sort of stuff isn't really what I like to do with my
images, but from time-to-time I enjoy playing with some of the tools
I don't usually touch. At least it is a way to learn about little
used PS features, and it is fun after all.

It is, indeed. Here's my take on a masked version of motion blur on your cars:

http://jonaseklundh.se/files/duck_cars-exp.jpg

I realize, in hindsight, that the shadows from the cars should be
equally blurred
of course. Ah well.

Yup!

I added some vintage look to it, since why the hell not?

Why not? Once the leap is made from attempted reality to artistry,
anything goes. ;-)


I just noticed that the car in front is lefthand drive and the other
two righthand.

Yup!
The lead car is a 1965 Huffaker Genie Mk.10B (#17) built in the USA.
The other two are a 1964 Lotus 23 (#25) and a 1965 Lotus 23B (#23), a
Colin Chapman classic, and very English righthand drive.

--
Regards,

Savageduck