The same picture different ways
John Sisker
evaluation. It turns out that most had some pretty good things to say about
it, even some with helpful suggestions as well for improvement. Base on the
input from others, this got me to thinking. Instead of submitting a whole
new picture for evaluation, or simply fine-tuning or tweaking an existing
one, why not see what can be done with the same picture. Therefore, I took
the original picture that I took of the water mill and tried to see it in
different perspectives, mostly through filters.
I hope that some don't feel this now takes it out of the photography
category, but at least to me, that is the nature and benefit of digital
photography. What do you think?
http://www.tinplatedesign.com/WaterMill1.jpg
http://www.tinplatedesign.com/WaterMill2.jpg
http://www.tinplatedesign.com/WaterMill3.jpg
http://www.tinplatedesign.com/WaterMill4.jpg
http://www.tinplatedesign.com/WaterMill5.jpg
http://www.tinplatedesign.com/WaterMill6.jpg
John Sisker - Huntington Beach, California
www.tinplatedesign.com
Savageduck
> Some time ago, I submitted a picture that I took of a water mill for
> evaluation. It turns out that most had some pretty good things to say
> about it, even some with helpful suggestions as well for improvement.
> Base on the input from others, this got me to thinking. Instead of
> submitting a whole new picture for evaluation, or simply fine-tuning or
> tweaking an existing one, why not see what can be done with the same
> picture. Therefore, I took the original picture that I took of the
> water mill and tried to see it in different perspectives, mostly
> through filters.
>
> I hope that some don't feel this now takes it out of the photography
> category, but at least to me, that is the nature and benefit of digital
> photography. What do you think?
John,
It was a good exercise to familiarize yourself with what you can do
with PS. The thing to bear in mind is too much of a good thing can be
disastrous, too much of an inappropriate effect needs to be abandoned.
As far as the basic image goes, a better composition by reshooting the
image would have been the way to go. It is too crowded, you should use
a wider lens, or back up to give the mill more space and a better
position.
The other thing you might have considered is to crop the image to
isolate one element of the image, the wheel for example.
>
> http://www.tinplatedesign.com/WaterMill1.jpg
Even though this one seems to be over sharpened, it is probably the
best of the bunch.
> http://www.tinplatedesign.com/WaterMill2.jpg
Well, if what you were looking for was a fake water color, you got it here.
>
> http://www.tinplatedesign.com/WaterMill3.jpg
There are times you should not use filters, and this was one of them.
What has happened to the edges is just not right. This was one you
should have rejected
>
> http://www.tinplatedesign.com/WaterMill4.jpg
You have a light effect in the wrong place with the result you have
phantom highlights blown, to no purpose. This was not a good idea.
>
> http://www.tinplatedesign.com/WaterMill5.jpg
The texture isn't too bad, but I just don't feel it works for this
one(for me anyway). Others might find it OK.
>
> http://www.tinplatedesign.com/WaterMill6.jpg
The added light effect does not work. The light has been placed in an
improbable spot and does not make sense in any way.
>
> John Sisker - Huntington Beach, California
> www.tinplatedesign.com
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Camer01
"John Sisker" <jsi...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:VN6dneweE40JPjjW...@earthlink.com...
Hi John,
done simmilar with a few of my own pics, and i think it
all looks a bit tacky, every so often 1 worked but overall
i think the origional is best, i like the picture, nicely croped
and of an intresting subject..
Cam.... http://c.j.photos.tripod.com/
Robert Coe
: Some time ago, I submitted a picture that I took of a water mill for
The first one came out OK, although the compositional criticisms we expressed
the first time still apply (including the lamentable fact that that damned
cyclone fence, about which you could probably have done nothing, is in the
way). The rest just look increasingly gimmicky. The ones with the hot spots on
the roof and spillway are especially awful.
Bob
Alan Browne
The overall composition is flat and uninteresting. Dressing it with PS
effects doesn't improve it any. The last one (flare) is a nice effect,
however. That still doesn't rescue the image.
Stop thinking of the "object" and begin seeing images, points of view,
interest, isolation, etc. "Abstract" the subject.
View right brain/execute left.
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
Gary Edstrom
took a count on the number of pictures I have taken at Disneyland...It
is closing in on 3,000 with some dating back to 1966. No spectacular
pictures, just a lot of memories.
Gary
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:41:51 -0700, "John Sisker" <jsi...@sprynet.com>
wrote:
>Some time ago, I submitted a picture that I took of a water mill for
nm...@wt.net
Like the original the best.. #2's effect I don't like..
I can get my programs to do that if I alter the various
brightnesses enough.. But I don't like the flat effect.
Some are over sharpened for my tastes..
If I had the original and was going to modify it, I would
probably do something about like this..
http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/watercrop.jpg
Not saying it's the greatest solution, but it does take
out a lot of the clutter, fence, etc.. But you can still
see the water pouring onto the wheel, and the water
in the pool below..
I use sharpening a lot, but you have to be very careful
not to overdo it, or everything becomes crinkly...
Course, in some cases, it's ok for that effect..
But I'm not crazy about it in this case...
MPG will vary of course..
John Sisker
news:a164b51a-c778-4d5d...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Like the original the best.. #2's effect I don't like..
I can get my programs to do that if I alter the various
brightnesses enough.. But I don't like the flat effect.
Some are over sharpened for my tastes..
If I had the original and was going to modify it, I would
probably do something about like this..
http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/watercrop.jpg
Not saying it's the greatest solution, but it does take
out a lot of the clutter, fence, etc.. But you can still
see the water pouring onto the wheel, and the water
in the pool below..
I use sharpening a lot, but you have to be very careful
not to overdo it, or everything becomes crinkly...
Course, in some cases, it's ok for that effect..
But I'm not crazy about it in this case...
MPG will vary of course..
I do like your simple crop of my original picture; didn't realize just how
cluttered my picture looked until I saw yours. Thanks for the actual
involvement... for a picture is worth a thousand words (not to be cliché). I
see that I now need to stay away from the Filers in Photoshop, unless just
doing so for some artistic effect; as I do with the Sharpening Tool. Yet, I
did receive some interesting comments as to this original picture... some
liked it, others thought it was nothing to write home about. And for the
person with the good eye, yes it is the water mill on Tom Sawyer's Island at
Disneyland in California. All in all, this was another good lesson for me.
If I focus in on mote of just the good elements in a picture, quite possibly
I can cut down on the somewhat cluttered look.
tony cooper
<jsi...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>I do like your simple crop of my original picture; didn't realize just how
>cluttered my picture looked until I saw yours. Thanks for the actual
>involvement... for a picture is worth a thousand words (not to be cliché). I
>see that I now need to stay away from the Filers in Photoshop
Depends. There's nothing wrong with using filters in your
post-processing if you a)state that the photo is so treated, and b)
don't have expectations of having the photo viewed by others as a
photo. It becomes an art creation.
I do some for my own amusement:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Photoshop-Filtered-Shots/8477081_eRzXG#557416300_RSFGt
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
John Sisker
news:t78fq51qf10m9h2l5...@4ax.com...
Good point Tony; filters do have their place as long as it called out and
not trying to disguise it under the "photo" category. Likewise, real like
example as you provided do tell a thousand words.
Thanks again,
nm...@wt.net
>
> The cropped version changes the story and make the photo lo ks lot better.
> It now turn the wheel into the main focus point, the house into background,
> and the wall/pond into foreground etc..
>
> And I would using Dodge/Burn to hi-lite few spots. More red to the paint,
> darker the shadow to boost the sun light etc..
My general theory which I've seen others mention, is "less can be
more".
IE: there are exceptions, but in general you have one main target as
a point of interest. Anything that does not add to that subject should
be whacked out of the picture.
In the case of this picture, the clutter and fence to the left add
modern
artifacts to an old building. To me, they distract rather than add to
the
picture.. Whack...
With the cropped version, the modern artifacts are gone, and for all
the viewer knows, the picture could have been taken 100 years ago.
I even went as far as to snip a small portion of fence on the right
side
as not the break the illusion.
But I'm still learning myself, so I wouldn't take anything I say as
gospel.. That's just my point of view.
I'm pretty green as far as taking pictures. On the other hand, I've
done software graphics work for several years. So I have more
experience altering and modifying images than I do taking them. :/
I used to do a lot of graphics for MS Flight Simulator products..
And have dabbled in photo repair, etc.. I specialize in old B&W's
as far as those. Anyway, I'm pretty comfortable as far as modifying
images. More so than taking them.
Here is one example of a filtered version I did of that shot. I did
several actually, but I think this one came out the best..
It's not drastic, but uses a slight oil effect to tweak it a bit..
Gives a little more contrast.. I've got others that are more drastic,
but in the end, I liked this one the best.
http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/watercrop2.jpg
Course, not all pictures do I whack everything out.. Some street
scenes, etc, I prefer to leave a lot in as long as it's not a
distraction, or takes away from the image. I just go by sense
of smell to decide what I want to do.. :/
Scotius
I understand why you wanted to get it from the distance and
angle you got it from. The fence and other modern intrusions would
make it look pretty crappy, and the more you show of them, the worse.
I took a photo of a winery near where I lived for a while and
it was a nice photo, but the cars in it literally kind of ruined it.
I took them out with the GIMP image editing program, and the
photo ended up looking a lot better.
I'll be using Photoshop when I get my Mac, and I'm more
familiar with PS anyway, although GIMP isn't bad for a free program
for a PC.