«

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:55:30 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
:
: OK!
: Tony shared his blue tinted guy and I thought it was better suited to a
: B&W treatment.
: So here is the Cooper "Blue" rendition compared with three versions
: created with Silver Efex Pro 2, from Tony's original dng.
: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...es/Cooper-Test

It's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, since your treatment involves
changes beyond simply getting rid of the blue tint. I definitely prefer your
cropping, but, like Peter, I also sort of like the blue tint. I think I'd take
your No. 4, tinted blue.

Bob

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:51:02 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:55:30 -0700, Savageduck
><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>:
>: OK!
>: Tony shared his blue tinted guy and I thought it was better suited to a
>: B&W treatment.
>: So here is the Cooper "Blue" rendition compared with three versions
>: created with Silver Efex Pro 2, from Tony's original dng.
>: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...es/Cooper-Test
>
>It's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, since your treatment involves
>changes beyond simply getting rid of the blue tint. I definitely prefer your
>cropping, but, like Peter, I also sort of like the blue tint. I think I'd take
>your No. 4, tinted blue.
>
Hmmm. The crop hasn't come up before. I sent the Duck the RAW image
from the camera with no edits at all. He didn't crop. My "blue"
version is cropped.

So you feel the wider view adds to the image?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:52:09 -0400, tony cooper <>
wrote:
: On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:51:02 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
:
: >On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:55:30 -0700, Savageduck
: ><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
: >:
: >: OK!
: >: Tony shared his blue tinted guy and I thought it was better suited to a
: >: B&W treatment.
: >: So here is the Cooper "Blue" rendition compared with three versions
: >: created with Silver Efex Pro 2, from Tony's original dng.
: >: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...es/Cooper-Test
: >
: >It's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, since your treatment involves
: >changes beyond simply getting rid of the blue tint. I definitely prefer your
: >cropping, but, like Peter, I also sort of like the blue tint. I think I'd take
: >your No. 4, tinted blue.
: >
: Hmmm. The crop hasn't come up before. I sent the Duck the RAW image
: from the camera with no edits at all. He didn't crop. My "blue"
: version is cropped.
:
: So you feel the wider view adds to the image?

Yes. The cropped version illustrates (by violating) the "rule" that the
subject of a portrait should usually be looking into, not out of, the picture.

Look at a current American $10 note. The first thing you notice is that Al
Hamilton should be facing in the other direction.

Bob

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:03:00 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
: On 2012-08-19 04:51:02 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
:
: > On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:55:30 -0700, Savageduck
: > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : OK!
: > : Tony shared his blue tinted guy and I thought it was better suited to a
: > : B&W treatment.
: > : So here is the Cooper "Blue" rendition compared with three versions
: > : created with Silver Efex Pro 2, from Tony's original dng.
: > :
: > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...es/Cooper-Test
:
: It's
: >
: > a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, since your treatment involves
: > changes beyond simply getting rid of the blue tint. I definitely prefer your
: > cropping, but, like Peter, I also sort of like the blue tint. I think I'd take
: > your No. 4, tinted blue.
: >
: > Bob
:
: Since the consensus seems to favor a "blue" treatment, I tried
: something a little more subtle, and because we are so far off the
: "street" path regarding PP, two different selective "blue" versions.
: Again with the original "Cooper Blue":
: <
: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7.../Cooper-Test-2

I still prefer the Cooper blue. The first of yours is too purple, and in your
others the face is too dark. By the last one, we're left to wonder why the
head is blue at all, since the blue is no longer a shading of the entire
picture.

My bottom line is that Tony exercised his artistic judgement pretty well,
except for what I consider an infelicitous (but easily corrected) crop.

Bob

On 8/19/2012 10:03 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-08-19 04:51:02 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:55:30 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> :
>> : OK!
>> : Tony shared his blue tinted guy and I thought it was better suited to a
>> : B&W treatment.
>> : So here is the Cooper "Blue" rendition compared with three versions
>> : created with Silver Efex Pro 2, from Tony's original dng.
>> :
>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...es/Cooper-Test
>>
>
> It's
>>
>> a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, since your treatment involves
>> changes beyond simply getting rid of the blue tint. I definitely
>> prefer your
>> cropping, but, like Peter, I also sort of like the blue tint. I think
>> I'd take
>> your No. 4, tinted blue.
>>
>> Bob
>
> Since the consensus seems to favor a "blue" treatment, I tried something
> a little more subtle, and because we are so far off the "street" path
> regarding PP, two different selective "blue" versions.
> Again with the original "Cooper Blue":
> <
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7.../Cooper-Test-2

#2 does it for me. It shows the world around the subject as blue and the
subject is part of that world. I had to to a mental crop on #1. Also,
you got rid of the objectionable highlights that Tony Cooper left in.


--
Peter

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:03:00 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-08-19 04:51:02 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:55:30 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> :
>> : OK!
>> : Tony shared his blue tinted guy and I thought it was better suited to a
>> : B&W treatment.
>> : So here is the Cooper "Blue" rendition compared with three versions
>> : created with Silver Efex Pro 2, from Tony's original dng.
>> :
>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...es/Cooper-Test
>
>It's
>>
>> a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, since your treatment involves
>> changes beyond simply getting rid of the blue tint. I definitely prefer your
>> cropping, but, like Peter, I also sort of like the blue tint. I think I'd take
>> your No. 4, tinted blue.
>>
>> Bob
>
>Since the consensus seems to favor a "blue" treatment, I tried
>something a little more subtle, and because we are so far off the
>"street" path regarding PP, two different selective "blue" versions.
>Again with the original "Cooper Blue":
><
>https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7.../Cooper-Test-2
>>

A bit difficult commenting on revisions to my own interpretation
because, of course, I'm biased to favor my own processing.

Duck's #2 - Too dark for me, and loses that statue/wax figure look
that I saw.

Duck's #3 - Too much variation in darks and lights. It makes my eyes
jump.

Duck's #4 - Again, it loses that statue/wax figure look that I saw.

I feel my "blue" version emphasizes the face and the statue/wax figure
look and makes the background truly a background. I see the point,
though, about the area on the right being too bright. That's the side
the sun was coming from, but it should have been toned down. As long
as significant changes are made in post, anything goes and that area
should have been toned down to get the image more in balance. I do
stand by my crop, though. The extra area doesn't add much as a
"leading area".

Now, to "Test 2":
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7.../Cooper-Test-2

Duck's #2 - Too blue. With everything blue, the man no longer stands
out.

Duck's #2 - Horrible. An affront to the eye.

Duck's #3 - Far too gimmicky. A blue head? Cyanotic? It may sound
hypocritical for the person who rendered an image blue to say that
another rendering is "gimmicky", but even "gimmicky" has a line not to
be crossed.

Duck made a comment in another post that there's something
"disturbing" about my image. That's good! That's what I saw, and
that's what I feel I emphasized in the processing. This wasn't
intended as photo-realism; it was intended as photo-surrealism.

I didn't show any bias in these comments, did I? <sarcasm intended

PS: Anyone who wants to take a shot at revising any image of mine as
Duck did is more than welcome to do so. I think it was a fun
exercise.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:02:39 -0400, Alan Browne
<> wrote:
: On 2012-08-19 10:26 , Robert Coe wrote:
:
: > Yes. The cropped version illustrates (by violating) the "rule" that the
: > subject of a portrait should usually be looking into, not out of, the picture.
: >
: > Look at a current American $10 note. The first thing you notice is that Al
: > Hamilton should be facing in the other direction.
:
: The portrait is not over the whole bill, it is a self standing vignette
: in the middle of it. He doesn't have to be facing in any particular
: direction. Indeed all dead presidents (and Franklin) should perhaps be
: facing left.

Alan, I know you recently spent some time in the U.S., but I guess you didn't
see a $10 bill. (Yeah, I know, U.S. money machines give out only 20's.) If you
had, you'd probably have noticed that the picture isn't in the middle.
Actually, it isn't in the middle of any of the commonly circulated bills
except the $1. It's displaced to the left, and it looks funny when the person
shown is looking in that direction.

: Why? There is a notion (in western art) that left looking (from the
: viewer's perspective) indicates an introspective or reflective mood and
: right looking means looking to future. So dead people should perhaps be
: looking to the left from our POV.

Yeah, yeah, "sinister" is the Latin word for "left", etc., etc. But all the
related mythology was discredited ages ago.

: In the end a portrait should be shown to make the client look good, the
: scoundrel look scandalous and the villain look evil. And so on.

So Republicans should be shown looking to the left? That won't fly, as they're
currently of the ultra-right wing of American politics.

: The challenge, when the subject is near the edge and looking to that
: edge is that the viewer imagine what is there. That's tough. But
: there's no "rule" unless the viewers are assumed to consume Pablum.
: That's easy.

Well, yes, there is a "rule". It's OK to break it if you know what you're
doing, but that doesn't make it go away. And most pictures do look better if
the subject is looking in, not out.

Bob

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:17:59 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
: On 2012-08-19 08:02:39 -0700, Alan Browne
: <> said:
:
: > On 2012-08-19 10:26 , Robert Coe wrote:
: >
: >> Yes. The cropped version illustrates (by violating) the "rule" that
: >> the subject of a portrait should usually be looking into, not out of,
: >> the picture.
: >> Look at a current American $10 note. The first thing you notice is that
: >> Al Hamilton should be facing in the other direction.
: >
: > The portrait is not over the whole bill, it is a self standing vignette
: > in the middle of it. He doesn't have to be facing in any particular
: > direction. Indeed all dead presidents (and Franklin) should perhaps be
: > facing left.
:
: Note that Hamilton got plugged by Burr before any thought of a run for
: the presidency could germinate in his Federalist mind. So there are two
: non-presidents on US bank notes.

Three.

Bob

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 13:09:36 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-08-19 09:52:11 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:03:00 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-08-19 04:51:02 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:55:30 -0700, Savageduck
>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>> :
>>>> : OK!
>>>> : Tony shared his blue tinted guy and I thought it was better suited to a
>>>> : B&W treatment.
>>>> : So here is the Cooper "Blue" rendition compared with three versions
>>>> : created with Silver Efex Pro 2, from Tony's original dng.
>>>> :
>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...es/Cooper-Test
>
>It's
>
>a
>>>>
>>>> bit of an apples and oranges comparison, since your treatment involves
>>>> changes beyond simply getting rid of the blue tint. I definitely prefer your
>>>> cropping, but, like Peter, I also sort of like the blue tint. I think I'd take
>>>> your No. 4, tinted blue.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>
>>> Since the consensus seems to favor a "blue" treatment, I tried
>>> something a little more subtle, and because we are so far off the
>>> "street" path regarding PP, two different selective "blue" versions.
>>> Again with the original "Cooper Blue":
>>> <
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7.../Cooper-Test-2
>
>
>A
>>>
>> bit difficult commenting on revisions to my own interpretation
>> because, of course, I'm biased to favor my own processing.
>>
>> Duck's #2 - Too dark for me, and loses that statue/wax figure look
>> that I saw.
>>
>> Duck's #3 - Too much variation in darks and lights. It makes my eyes
>> jump.
>>
>> Duck's #4 - Again, it loses that statue/wax figure look that I saw.
>>
>> I feel my "blue" version emphasizes the face and the statue/wax figure
>> look and makes the background truly a background. I see the point,
>> though, about the area on the right being too bright. That's the side
>> the sun was coming from, but it should have been toned down. As long
>> as significant changes are made in post, anything goes and that area
>> should have been toned down to get the image more in balance. I do
>> stand by my crop, though. The extra area doesn't add much as a
>> "leading area".
>>
>> Now, to "Test 2":
>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7.../Cooper-Test-2
>
>Duck's
>>
>> #2 - Too blue. With everything blue, the man no longer stands
>> out.
>>
>> Duck's #2 - Horrible. An affront to the eye.
>>
>> Duck's #3 - Far too gimmicky. A blue head? Cyanotic? It may sound
>> hypocritical for the person who rendered an image blue to say that
>> another rendering is "gimmicky", but even "gimmicky" has a line not to
>> be crossed.
>>
>> Duck made a comment in another post that there's something
>> "disturbing" about my image. That's good! That's what I saw, and
>> that's what I feel I emphasized in the processing. This wasn't
>> intended as photo-realism; it was intended as photo-surrealism.
>>
>> I didn't show any bias in these comments, did I? <sarcasm intended
>>
>> PS: Anyone who wants to take a shot at revising any image of mine as
>> Duck did is more than welcome to do so. I think it was a fun
>> exercise.
>
>The artist has spoken.

Would that van Rijn guy want "Son of Titus" to have a blue head?

Would Pete Rubens want "The Adoration of the Maji" done in selective
color?

Would Vinny Von G want "The Yellow House" done in spotty black and
white?



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 13:46:35 -0400, Alan Browne
<> wrote:
: On 2012-08-19 13:14 , Robert Coe wrote:
: > On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:02:39 -0400, Alan Browne
: > <> wrote:
: > : The challenge, when the subject is near the edge and looking to that
: > : edge is that the viewer imagine what is there. That's tough. But
: > : there's no "rule" unless the viewers are assumed to consume Pablum.
: > : That's easy.
: >
: > Well, yes, there is a "rule".

And I did say that it's OK to ignore it at times.

: No there isn't. Drop rules. They're killing you.

Then can I also drop the "Rule of Thirds"? That's the one I've always thought
to be the silliest. :^)

Bob