One for PeterN

https://www.dropbox.com/s/22z3xshv9o5klke/2014-01-12-47B.jpg

 

I like it. Beautiful effect. the pastel effect are, IMHO, nicely done.

BTW last night I went to a meeting of the Boynton Beach CC. There were
only about 4 to six birds, out of several hundred entries.)

 

While I would have gone for this effect without his urging, one of
Rick Sammon's "Rules" is: Make pictures, just don't take pictures.

While a table of milk bottles is a good starting point, it's in post
where an ordinary shot can be made a little more interesting.

 

Told ya. Rick Sammon is great.

Anticipation is part of making the image.

<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140114_Pompano buttefly birds_5757.jpg>

I have croped and made only minor adjustments in ACR.
To the extent that the image was made, I was watching them diving and
had the lens pointed to where I thought they might come up. I was lucky
to the extent that I was right.

Here is an earlier shoot in that series.

<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140114_Pompano buttefly birds_5756.jpg>

 

Nice... But you tend to be a bit heavy on the sharpening, IMHO.

 

On this one it's about perfect for me. Your monitor will make a
difference in how it appears.

 

Well, then mine would be better than yours since you need that extra
local contrast.

 

I don't mind the comment that it's heavy on the sharpening, but that
actually isn't the case. No extra sharpening was employed in the
processing. Just whatever sharpening is built ACR when opening a RAW
file.

The effect comes from other Photoshop adjustments. Mostly from
excessive - but deliberate - manipulation of sliders. It isn't
supposed to show the bottles in natural color.

There are times in post when the intent is to show the scene as
realistically as possible and replicate the scene as the eye sees it.
Then, there are times in post when the intent is to exaggerate for
effect. This is an attempt at the latter.

 

If you have a dim monitor, or dizzy eyes you will benefit from extra
sharpening... No monitor is identical to another, Mac or PC. And yes,
mine is hardware calibrated!

 

Well, artistic rendering is what we got then. Obviously your workflow is
ads sharpening somewhere.

That's the way you like it. Oki, but it's a strain on my eyes...

 

Well, artistic rendering is what we got then. Obviously your workflow
ads sharpening somewhere.

That's the way you like it. Oki, but it's a strain on my eyes...

 

It's one image, Android. While I may try something similar on another
image, this is basically a one-off attempt based on the subject matter
and what could be done with it. It's not a matter of liking the look,
but of liking the look for *this* image.

On other images, I do try for a realistic rendering. Depends on the
subject matter.

 

I'll let you go, for now... ;-)

 

Here's one that will *really* make your eyes burn:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Current-Shots/i-4p7DqWQ/0/X2/2014-02-01-5B-X2.jpg

There's a forum at Grin where "rustaholics" hang out. Any photograph
featuring rust meets with great approval. Not just rust, though,
*excessive* rust.

This Subaru was a little rusty to begin with, but the rust was
exaggerated in post and then a texture layer was added (as a mask with
only the car's body left in the mask) to grit it up.

I should have taken out that white halo on the tire on the right (as
you view it), though.

 

Well, it's not done quite that way. The color is all done in PS
before the texture's added. The texture, which is on a layer reduced
to 50% opacity, just adds the mottled appearance. The texture covers
the entire layer, but a mask was used to remove it from all but the
body. The actual texture was from my file of images of things I've
photographed for this purpose. It's actually mildewed wood.

This was done for the rustaholic group who don't like anything less
extreme.

This is *not* a photograph I expect anyone to like outside of the
group it was done for.

 

Thanks, but I shoot my own. Not that I'm shooting any better than
these downloads, but it's a challenge thing. Noticing things to shoot
that can be used as backgrounds, sky, textures, etc is part of the
chase that makes photography fun.

It's like when I go out all day and don't come home with a good shot
on the card. It's the chase.

Interesting, but not extreme enough for the group I follow. Actually,
it's a better shot than they usually post, but just not extreme
enough. Horses for courses.

 

On 2/6/2014 5:07 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

<snip)

We had a discussion about textures in my CC. It ws decided that for
competition purposes we should make our own textures. We know that the
rule may not be en forcible, but it's an honor sort of thing. We are
still waiting for a ruling on textures in inter-club competitions.

 

We have no such rules. If it's from two different sources, as an
image with a texture layer would be, it goes in "Creative". Anything
goes in Creative.

I like finding and making my own textures even though I use them very
infrequently. I do more with backgrounds, like a brick wall, where
I'll drop out the original background and put in a new background/

 

In creative (altered reality,) we are permitted to use incidental
objects, but the underlying image must be a photograph taken by the
photographer. However, third party textures are not permitted.

You mean like this? I could enter this image in either creative, or color.

<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/baboon bliss.jpg>