"De-constructing" an image

[Dana Taramina]

Is there any kind of a methodical way to do this? Here's my problem.

I'm working on a school project, but this is for a real client. For
this project we've been gathered into teams. We submitted several
designs to our client (a non-profit organization that puts on a large
folk music festival every summer). The clients chose their favorite
layout and image for all of their media work. (Posters, programs,
billboards, etc....)

Problem number 1: The teammate who did the image that the client wants
used a copyright protected image from Gettyone. So over the Christmas
holidays I went to a gathering of the client's where lots of the board
members were going to be, they all also happen to be musicians. Shot a
bunch of pictures to use for the image for the posters.

Problem number 2: The image that the board chose for the posters etc.
had been manipulated in Photoshop to look sort of like an
impressionist painting. The teammate who did the Photoshopping to the
photograph (that we can't use) can't remember how she did it.

So here's what I'm left with. As team leader it's up to me to
construct an image with the photographs that I took that is suitable
for the client. I have done a composite photo with 3 musicians and a
lake background that the board has approved.

Now, given the number of filters, filter parameters, and order of
application available in Photoshop, is there a relatively simple way
for me to figure out how my teammate did the effects that she did? I
can come close, (gausian blur, watercolor, then angled brushstrokes)
but can't quite seem to get the same light quality that she did.

Any advice will be greatly apprciated, I have some time constraint
issues here. TIA....

Dana

[Craig]

Dana Taramina wrote:
>
> Now, given the number of filters, filter parameters, and order of
> application available in Photoshop, is there a relatively simple way
> for me to figure out how my teammate did the effects that she did?
>

No

You just learned the first lesson of doing business: don't have idiots
working for you.

[Dana Taramina]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 02:48:02 GMT, Craig <pla...@the-spa.com> wrote:

>You just learned the first lesson of doing business: don't have idiots
>working for you.

I wasn't given a choice. The teams were set up by my program director
and I was elected team leader while I was out of the room. But thanks,
really. I hadn't figured that one out for myself yet.

Dana

[Scott M.]

For any effects that you plan to make, you can record it as an action, so
you will be able to re-use it again and again plus back track, if you have
made any mistakes. But for the moment, I suppose you will have to go through
the trial and error process to get the correct effect again. You might try
to ask your mate to get more info + hints on how she/he did it in the first
place .. good luck :)

[Dana Taramina]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:21:59 +0800, "Scott M." <---> wrote:

>For any effects that you plan to make, you can record it as an action, so
>you will be able to re-use it again and again plus back track, if you have
>made any mistakes.

Right, for next time that will help, thanks.

But for the moment, I suppose you will have to go through
>the trial and error process to get the correct effect again.

That's what I'm doing now. I've decided that there's no way I can
reproduce exactly what she did because the light in the 2 images is so
different.

You might try
>to ask your mate to get more info + hints on how she/he did it in the first
>place .. good luck :)

I have, several times. She can't remember. <sigh> Well, I'll get
something done for the client at some point. My current version is as
close as I think it can get.

Thanks for the help though.

Dana