|
Post by nike on Jan 9, 2012 0:43:26 GMT
Here is four different interpretations of the same photo using masks, and themes. It just goes to show just what can be created using Photoshop and it's many attachments....
You can create anything that a customer wants if you know how to use these tools. Vickie has been playing with this one to try out some of the new tools we have just aquired. My favourite is the third one....
Starting with the original as taken....
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 9, 2012 12:09:18 GMT
I like the original best of all Kev. Then I prefer the sepia one next and the last one just isn't on at all.
|
|
|
Post by nike on Jan 9, 2012 21:16:39 GMT
Yep, I agree about the last one #4, the photo doesn't suit the 'parchment mask'. Vickie also agrees, and she did the edit. It was just to show some of the effects you can use on a single picture to totally change the look.
I presume #2 is the one you are referring to as 'sepia'. That had a 'vintage gypsy mask' applied to it to make it look old, but it takes away too much detail from the main subject of the shot, the flowers.
#3 is my favourite because of the contrast of B&W and the colour.
The original #1, is as taken, with no editing to speak of.
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 9, 2012 23:39:59 GMT
This is what I would have done Kev, put the sepia mask on and then put the flowers back in. I confess I have got a thing about sepia and prefer it to black and white.
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 10, 2012 0:55:02 GMT
To put my own interpretation on it Kev, I would go back to 1835 technology and tart it up.
|
|
|
Post by nike on Jan 10, 2012 0:57:12 GMT
Yep, that looks Ok, but it's not what the end picture is supposed to reflect. It's supposed to look 'old'. Colour is not important there, but detail is.
|
|
|
Post by nike on Jan 10, 2012 1:11:01 GMT
Ok, now there's a couple of more styles and looks you can give to a photo that we couldn't really do back in the day of film cameras. You have just shown that!
THAT is the beauty of digital photography, and photo manipulation programs, which was the point I was trying to make initially in another thread when you said take the shot properly in the first place.
If you remember the days of Kodak Ektachrome slide film, you sent the roll off to be processed, and what you took, was what you got back. I used Ektachrome 400 for all my underwater shots, and was disappointed with heaps of shots, and totally wrapped in others. I would throw away around two thirds of them, and keep the best.
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 10, 2012 1:30:20 GMT
The times I have shot off a roll of 36 Kev and finished up with 3 that I wouldn't feel embarrassed to pass round. Now you can shoot off a burst of 7 or 8 photos and delete them from the camera and keep the one you like. Or delete the lot if you don't like one, no one ever need see the crap. With film you could lose 10 good shots while you were changing the film. Even if you have to change a battery now, the camera is only down for a few seconds and the same goes for a card.
|
|
|
Post by nike on Jan 10, 2012 1:43:42 GMT
And Ektachrome wasn't the cheapest of the available film to buy either, plus postage to the lab. Fortunately, you received a return mailer with the roll of film. Camera lenses were frightfully expensive back then also. My Nikon 15mm U/W lens cost more than my 2 x Nikonos 5's and U/W flash units combined. Most of my shots were taken with an apeture setting of f5.6 for best depth of field.
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 10, 2012 16:41:21 GMT
Another great picture in 3D Kev and learned something. The one I made in the frame, has a lot more depth. Its like looking out a window into a courtyard. So for the best 3D pictures, you need to frame your subject between a couple of trees or something darker. I'm learning about 3D photography and I haven't taken my first picture yet. I will need to take some shots with the automatic second shutter and then try some manually of the same subject. Then I can see what comes out best. Using auto, the shutter should fire at the right time. They say take a shot and move sideways and take another. No one actually tells you how far to move and it looks like you have to figure it out for yourself. This passive 3D works very good, is much cheaper than the former 3D and perhaps more people will get into it. As long as you have the interlacing program or whatever they call it, you can make 3D pictures with any camera.
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 10, 2012 21:45:20 GMT
Another little play with it. I was trying out a filter that C-Net said was great, but I dont reckon it. I finished up making this little work of art and it would have been better if I hadn't used that silly filter in the first place. It doesn't look old, just a bit different.
|
|
|
Post by nike on Jan 10, 2012 21:54:55 GMT
I wish computers and photo programs like what we have now were available back in my U/W photography days. Geez I could have made some ordinary shots look great. All my U/W shots were destroyed in last years floods... The emulsion on the pics is totally destroyed and unsalvageable...
There are ten of these carousels full of my slides. All in the same condition, or worse. They are mostly irreplaceable, as i'll never get back to these places or scuba dive again to re-create them. Photo's taken in Truk Lagoon, Saipan, Palau, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and the Great Barrier Reef, and my local area dive sites, are all destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 10, 2012 22:21:39 GMT
Thats a shame Kev, as you say you cant replace them. Its a pity you hadn't used a slide scanner to put them on a computer and turned them into photos. I've got a slide scanner, but I would have to crank up my old iMac to make it work. I haven't even got anything else it would connect to. One of these days I'm going to donate that rig to the British Museum.
|
|
|
Post by nike on Jan 10, 2012 22:32:30 GMT
I had thought of doing just that many, many times Ken. Just another one of those things you never get around to, unfortunately. I just tried again to clean a couple of pics, and the emulsion just washed off leaving a smudged celluloid rectangle... BUGGA!
|
|
|
Post by vikingken on Jan 11, 2012 4:49:12 GMT
I lost all my photos in Costa Rica, due to the super high humidity. You couldn't laminate the old photos, you only burn them up. A late mate of mine used to coat his in clear epoxy. I bet his widow has still got a picture of me and my horse, in one of the guest books. The books are so thick and heavy, they keep the photos dry. There was photos in the books that were in there 30 years before I put mine in. The few photos I have got; the old man took on his visit, he brought them home and got them developed. Trouble is, he's a bloody terrible photographer. He did take one good one of me and my mates beside a Jeep I built out of scrap.
|
|