|
|
Roger Skinner
{K:81846} 8/8/2009
|
ahh ya learn somthin' every day.. I had put the explanation of what I had done with the attachment.. did'nt register.. here it is.. that is this is waht I did to the other pic
this one on the other hand has been tricked up.. started as three images stitched together then I got rid of the spec that is the crap on the sensor using the Healing Brush Tool.. then I selected an elliptical selection then inversed the selection feathered the edges 250pixeld then increased the saturations using the Levels tool. I then selected the water immediately around the rock using the Edit in Quick Mask tool to make my selection then turned that off and blurred the water selection using Gaussian Blur at about 10 pixels. I then darkened the sky area by using the Polygonal Lasso set to a saw tooth pattern just to smack the selection really hard when I feathered it and adjusting the levels down then whilst that selection was still active I tweaked the contrast and Brightness.. Brightness about 10 lighter and trast about 15 or maybe 25. I treated the landward side of SLR by using the Magic Wand Tool and I adjusted the levels to a tad lighter to bring some detail out and then the Brightness and Contrast Tools the same as the above.. I may have adj the colours I cant remember.. I did it this morning and its now afternoon. I then selected the shoreline rocks using the Polygonal Lasso Tool and feathered the selection to 150 then adj the levels to bring out a smidge more details then with the same selection live I adjusted the colour increasing the red tones by +5 then out of curiosity I hit the Auto Colour to see what would happen and boing!!.. the shoreline came to life as rich red.. but I thought it looked too much like you know who’s you know what so I pulled the Levels or was it Brightness Contrast the nit looked good except that there was not enough light coming from the sky to illuminate the shore side of SLR and the shore rocks so I hit up the small break in the clouds on the top RHS where a small hint of crepuscular ray was evident .. I drew a saw tooth selection around it feathered it to 250 and really went for the Levels Tool adj the levels to lighten the area. I then reduced the Halo effect around SLR because it was too strong by doing a polygonal lasso around the sky periphery of the rock.. and I think that was about it.. it took about 20-30 minutes…Oh yeah an I tried reducing the light blue bit of the sky on the LHS.. I cant remember what I did there but I was trying to reduce the punch it had.. but whatever I di it didn’t work.. so yeah.. bummer
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Skinner
{K:81846} 8/8/2009
|
umm yeah heres a trickt up one for ya matey
|
this one on the other hand has been tricked up.. started as three images stitched together then I got rid of the spec that is th |
|
|
|
Liz Wallis
{K:26133} 8/8/2009
|
You missed my point, but......
If I told you that you can't tweak AT ALL, not even like we would in a darkroom, then that would be okay with you. You would wholey and soley use natural, available light, and not a flash, to fill in what isn't there?
Dodging, burning, and "little tweaks" (darkroom or PS etc) are still artifice....you have added, subtracted or manipulated something that wasn't that way when you took the photo. It's like lying, you can't tell a "little white lie"...because a lie, is a lie, is a lie :). I do understand that some people push the point and move well beyond the original picture that was...but you know, a lump of clay was just that, before someone turned it into the beautiful statue, or object d'art.
I get your point though...and as always we are all entitled to our opinions
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Skinner
{K:81846} 8/8/2009
|
well not really Liz.. that is a choice of media.. and maybe we should call it photomedia instead of photography becuase it anit photgraphy anymore and it will never be accepted as art.. becuase its not.. its artiface...Charcoals silverpoint, watercolurs oils etc are media as photography used to be.. but I maintain my point giving nature a kick in the pants is not as bad as slapping her in the face and treating her like a s&^t.. sorry but reality must rule tweaked but not tumbled
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Skinner
{K:81846} 8/8/2009
|
hehe yeah.. I was gonna do the whole naked mermaid thingy but my plunger broke.. hmm sounds obscure.. well it was meant to be... thanks for the look and the comment Tosh...
|
|
|
|
Ian McIntosh
{K:42997} 8/7/2009
|
wish i was here now is much more poetic
Davids suggestions too opportunity lost I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Skinner
{K:81846} 8/5/2009
|
yep.. hence I used two different terms when describing Christian's work... pictures everywhere and not a photograph in sight..
|
|
|
|
david henderson
{K:16659} 8/5/2009
|
I like all these Roger but this is my favourite, a fish leaping would add a bit of interest or perhaps you could stitch in the ass end of a sunken japanese battleship, there must be one in your toolbox somewhere, c'mon man, have a bit of a go, adobe don't make that stuff to have you leave it in the box! cheers, david.
|
|
|
|
Jim Loy
{K:31373} 8/5/2009
|
You are singing my song....... I have always been and will continue to be... just see, shoot and share. Liz is close... ya canna tell an artist what they see... but, and this is pivitol....... when meddling in photography... too much meddlin' equals graphic art... and photography slips by..... The "artist" may see and shape and bend... but kiss my arse on main street... that is NOT photography. Nice work ole man.....
|
|
|
|
|
Liz Wallis
{K:26133} 8/4/2009
|
It's like telling an artist he can only use charcoal to create his artistic works Rog...you can't and people will always do as they please
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Skinner
{K:81846} 8/4/2009
|
you mean there now Maja?? yeah its not a bad little spot
|
|
|
|
Maja Š
{K:17951} 8/4/2009
|
ou I wish I was here now..
|
|
0 
