Author Topic: 7-Point System for PhotoShop (Read 1070 times)

Sandman · « **on:** January 21, 2008, 12:30:51 PM »

For the past few weeks, I've been going through Scott Kelby's book, 7-Point System for PhotoShop CS3

The results in the lessons were often striking. Here are a few from the book. These were Kelby's images. I simply did the editing along with the book:

So... after stepping through all 21 of the lessons, I went back and took shot at some older images of mine:

--

--

On this last one, I pushed it beyond anything real, but generally followed the steps.

Anyway... it was a fun book. I learned a lot. Well worth the $30.

Yknurd · « **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2008, 12:37:50 PM »

amazing effects but we are blurring the lines between pictures and computer generated pictures aren't we?

amazing pictures still.

Sandman · « **Reply #2 on:** January 21, 2008, 12:41:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yknurd
amazing effects but we are blurring the lines between pictures and computer generated pictures aren't we?

Not really. For the most part, I did little more than tweak the colors and contrast. Any of these changes could be done in a lab. It's just quicker and less messy with PhotoShop.

Certainly, Photoshop can be used to create images from scratch, but many of the tools have their roots in lab techniques.

JB88 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 21, 2008, 12:52:22 PM »

gonna go check that out this afternoon.

thanks for the heads up sandman!

forHIM · « **Reply #4 on:** January 21, 2008, 01:26:09 PM »

Thanks for the info. Looks like I may have a book to read/work through this next business trip.

JB88 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 21, 2008, 01:36:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yknurd
amazing effects but we are blurring the lines between pictures and computer generated pictures aren't we?

amazing pictures still.

sandman is correct. when you correct in photoshop you are simply using available information and adjusting it. the same as a lab...like he said.

its pretty basic stuff that, when used correctly, can bring out more of the reality or convey the sense of mood in an image.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #6 on:** January 21, 2008, 01:43:24 PM »

This reminds me about a blog entry on HDR images:

http://www.geekologie.com/2008/01/hdr_images_of_japan_are_beauti.php

http://www.flickr.com/groups/japanhdr/pool/

These are real images that are taken several times with a digital camera and then smooshed together.

Speed55 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2008, 01:52:36 PM »

Taking something real, and making it look fake isn't better in my opinion.

Bridge pic.. naturally night is dark to the eyes, not deep blue.

smiling chick.. use a flash next time or proper lighting the first time

cowboy guy. went from living, to the living dead. nice skin tone

sand dune, or whatever that is. looks rubbery after the photo-chop, and the sky looks fake.

sandman.. i like all your originals much better, they capture reality very well and make me feel like i'm there. After the photo-chop they look fake.

The railroad crossing in particular. the original is pretty cool, looks like a representation of stepping into the unknown. After the the photo-chop it looks like the color from wizard of oz and loses it's mystery.

Also the one with the trees and fog. after the chop, it looks like the fog is everywhere, but the trees are super clear.

I think most normal people would like the chopped version better, since they aren't really in touch with reality anyway.

My opinion of course.

kamilyun · « **Reply #8 on:** January 21, 2008, 02:05:53 PM »

Edit 2: And I should have really started out by saying...the pictures look great. One day, I'll be brave enough to post some of mine on here.

I take pictures quite often for the work I do, modifying them is frowned upon...IF you are changing how it looks to your eye. Adjusting the image to match what your eye perceives is perfectly legitimate.

Why would the camera not match what your eye sees?

That is something that is often times overlooked. Many digital cameras have sensitivities that are different than your eye (more sensitive in green, less in blue and red). The programs you use for capturing an image allow for longer exposures in the blue and red to accomodate for this. So before modifying the picture, you've allowed the camera and computer (in my case) to tweak the available information (the illuminated sample in front of me).

Increasing the blue and red after the fact is no different, as long as you're bringing the values back to what your eye perceives.

Edit:

I guess I should clarify my statement. I think what Sandman is doing is perfectly legitimate b/c your sense of the place is completely different than what the camera captures.

It was more directed at the criticism of modifying the pictures...b/c cameras do not capture what the eye sees. They have their own intrinsic sensitivities.

JB88 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 21, 2008, 02:11:25 PM »

that is what HDR is actually intended to do. it is meant to more accurately recreate the spectrum of light that the eye sees (which a single camera shot cannot do because it is metering on a shorter spectrum)

done correctly HDR can have some incredibly beautiful and accurate results.

the image that guns posted is at the far end of the spectrum and it was almost certainly tonemapped.

Fishu · « **Reply #10 on:** January 21, 2008, 02:19:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yknurd
amazing effects but we are blurring the lines between pictures and computer generated pictures aren't we?

Pictures and pictures. What the camera sees and outputs usually isn't the reality either. If you want to keep pictures as pictures, then you should edit those to look more real like and go no further. Digicameras usually sees the pictures quite differently and require some editing of hue, contrast, brightness, etc.

Nothing should be added nor removed (except for the lens dust) and the colours should resemble the real colours. That's how the press finishes the pictures before printing on the paper. The pictures of lesson 7 and 16 are quite good examples of the acceptable editing of a picture that does not classify as "photoshopped" and may be published as a news photo.

The art however does not have limits and that's up to the eye of the beholder to decide whether to like edited pictures or not.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #11 on:** January 21, 2008, 02:20:37 PM »

It's not about what YOU think an image should be but what the artist is trying to convey.

My respect to both Sandman and JB88 on thier images they share with us. I'll admit I'm a pimp for color saturation and love photo's that seem more art than realistic.

Sandman · « **Reply #12 on:** January 21, 2008, 04:23:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger

These are real images that are taken several times with a digital camera and then smooshed together.

Even with a single image, you can get some of these types of results. The image combination is the first part. The second is in how you tone map a 32-bit image into an 8-bit image.

Edit... I should add that none of the images I posted at the top were tone-mapped.

This one, however, was:

Sandman · « **Reply #13 on:** January 21, 2008, 04:44:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by JB88
that is what HDR is actually intended to do. it is meant to more accurately recreate the spectrum of light that the eye sees (which a single camera shot cannot do because it is metering on a shorter spectrum)

Exactly. This image of mine is HDR using two exposures:

I deliberately kept the tone-mapping more realistic.

ChickenHawk · « **Reply #14 on:** January 21, 2008, 04:53:02 PM »

Looks like a great book. I'm currently working though two other CS3 books but judging from your before and after shots, I'm definitely going to have to take a look at this one.