Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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 (http://www.amazon.com/Kelbys-7-Point-System-Photoshop-Voices/dp/0321501926)
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:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2204/2185136225_fbd5fd91cc.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2185136225/)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2300/2207215667_61229ae980.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2207215667/)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2152/2208169758_a0a6f30835.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2208169758/)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2387/2207657479_b13546f3c3.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2207657479/)
So... after stepping through all 21 of the lessons, I went back and took shot at some older images of mine:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2142/2208774572_12438a31c4.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2208774572/)
--
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2203/2208263589_740159ea9e.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2208263589/)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2107/2208232037_249614b035.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2208232037/)
--
On this last one, I pushed it beyond anything real, but generally followed the steps.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2276/2208093095_18cedbd70c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2208093095/)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2168/2208867228_b5ccdca0be.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2208867228/)
Anyway... it was a fun book. I learned a lot. Well worth the $30.
-
amazing effects but we are blurring the lines between pictures and computer generated pictures aren't we?
amazing pictures still.
-
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.
-
gonna go check that out this afternoon.
thanks for the heads up sandman!
:aok
-
Thanks for the info. Looks like I may have a book to read/work through this next business trip.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://www.geekologie.com/2008/01/18/hdr-1.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2032/1979443914_355cc1996b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/1979443914/)
-
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:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2116/1865943222_126521be98.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/1865943222/)
I deliberately kept the tone-mapping more realistic.
-
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.
-
Sandy,
Do you have any examples of using the same techniques on your own Photos? I mean the before and afters
-Sik
-
Those last 3 (6) are.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Sandy,
Do you have any examples of using the same techniques on your own Photos? I mean the before and afters
-Sik
The ones on the first post? The last three images are all mine, before and after.
-
Wow Sandy, those are some amazing shots. You really have a talent for this.
I'd love to have some poster size hirez of those pics. Have you ever thought about doing a showing?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Wow Sandy, those are some amazing shots. You really have a talent for this.
I'd love to have some poster size hirez of those pics. Have you ever thought about doing a showing?
If you click the images, the high res is available on Flickr.
Do a show? No... I'm a gross amateur, but thanks. ;)
Oh... and here's one more from this afternoon:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2339/2211375356_92b87fc1d2.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2211375356/)
-
Sandman can you give one of mine a try? The composition is crap so I won't post it here :p But I've tried to fix it and never found anything that works. I don't have the .raw anymore unfortunately.
-
Reality is over-rated.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2252/2216083086_1dac5406dd_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2216083086/)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Reality is over-rated.
It's in the mind of the beholder.
Really nice pics.
-
Right.. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html) Nice work once again Sandman.
-
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2246/2222716155_e40a875809_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2222716155/)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2147/2223770820_2b4c15e372_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2223770820/)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2193/2222815475_e22cae26bb_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2222815475/)
-
Ok, I have to ask. How are you getting that amazing sky?
Your pictures are making me want to visit the American southwest again. Haven't been there since I was a kid.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Reality is over-rated.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2252/2216083086_1dac5406dd_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2216083086/)
Cool pic... looks almost like a Star Trek set! :D
-
Very nice stuff Sandy.
(http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee27/Tahgut/January2008001-1.jpg)
This is my backyard, I fixed it a little, but feel free to improve on it.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
Ok, I have to ask. How are you getting that amazing sky?
Your pictures are making me want to visit the American southwest again. Haven't been there since I was a kid.
A lot if not most of it is the lens. Something about the way the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 refracts light just makes the blue pop. On top of that, I do an adjustment while in "Lab Color" mode with PhotoShop that pushes it a bit further.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
Cool pic... looks almost like a Star Trek set! :D
Ya know... Star Trek V: The Final Frontier was filmed here. It was the center of the universe.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Very nice stuff Sandy.
(http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee27/Tahgut/January2008001-1.jpg)
This is my backyard, I fixed it a little, but feel free to improve on it.
That's gotta be quite a shock after living in Southern California for so long. :)
-
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2357/2237391067_19e1523a40_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2237391067/)
-
(http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee27/Tahgut/Picture003-1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Speed55
Taking something real, and making it look fake isn't better in my opinion.
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.
I respect your opinion but it's not so much making it fake as it is making it more vivid.
I've taken pictures that don't quite come out the way I see. Be it ability, equipment, or processing, sometimes you need to tweak things a bit.
Also, everyone sees differently as well. Think how you look at things. With glasses, without, sunglasses, ect. This may be someone's reality.
On a different note. Scott Kelby's books, search Abe Books (http://www.abebooks.com) . Him as author, Keyword: Photoshop.
wrngway