|
Post by katynoelle on Jan 17, 2012 16:24:17 GMT
I've worked on this, before. Some of you will remember.... It's my photo but Jiro did a bit of work cleaning up some looming trees in the background. I'm not sure what I think. It's missing something to me. Emotion or a definite sense of place and mood or....something. What do you think???
|
|
|
Post by nickjohnson on Jan 17, 2012 17:25:24 GMT
Katy, How about something along these lines. I downloaded your jpeg into Lightroom. Pressed Auto in the develop module. Then pressed Black & White. Then uploaded back here. Please excuse If I've gone and put a copyright notice in it - the work is all yours and always has been. HTH
|
|
|
Post by Barry on Jan 17, 2012 18:26:32 GMT
I don't think monochrome has worked with this one. As there is very little in this image, I feel that the slight bit of colour just keeps it alive.
|
|
|
Post by The Wirefox on Jan 17, 2012 20:24:07 GMT
I remember this one Katy. As Barry has remarked the lack of content. There is nothing at all wrong with that since simple images are often the most dramatic. The main issue here is that mist flattens everything so you have effectively only got 2 depth layers - background and mid-ground . Ideally you need three to give depth to the image. For instance if this were shot low with flowers in the foreground you would have then have foreground, mid-ground and background. A partial solution may be to bring the flowers in the lower eighth out of the mist by using a soft burn brush. This would give you the third compositional layer. This is a bit cack handed but it roughly illustrates what I am getting at. You will have a far more discerning touch than wot I haz got.
|
|
|
Post by katynoelle on Jan 17, 2012 20:39:34 GMT
Thanks, Guys! Nick, I don't mind that you did that at all, at all! Actually, tho - I tried the very same thing but felt it lost its mood. Steve - I think you're on to something there. I have more at the bottom that I've cropped off - I wonder if I should put it back in? and, yes, I feel the same that the drifts of flowers are very important - I forgot that I can didge and sturn, now. (when you make a typo - you might as well go with it. )
|
|
|
Post by katynoelle on Jan 18, 2012 13:05:38 GMT
#1 #2 but I have no idea where that band appeared from. Also, I've discovered something disturbing. My ancient old version of PS doesn't work on this computer or with OSX Lion. I just don't have the money at the moment but I HAD been getting, oh, so used to PS. It might be diving into, yet, another new thing...gimp.
|
|
|
Post by jeeperman on Jan 19, 2012 17:28:44 GMT
Katy, I like Steves idea, unfortunately I think you used your dodge tool and in to high an opacity. This has caused the banding or spotting, though I have no idea what caused it in the upper portion of the image. I would try about a 12% burn tool that fades and start from the bottom and go up. This way the closest flowers get the most. Then I might add a bit of feathered selective sharpening. All of this work would be done in only the bottom 1/8th as Steve suggested.
|
|
|
Post by jeeperman on Jan 19, 2012 17:49:11 GMT
I thought if I was going to open my mouth I had better give it a shot. I might take this a litttle further but for a quick visual....
|
|
|
Post by The Wirefox on Jan 19, 2012 19:34:24 GMT
I certainly like what you have done in the lower part of the image (No 1 edit) but I am not at all sure what has happened to the rest. It looks like an off centre wide vignette - can't think what might have caused that. Paul's edit works for sure. What software are you using a present?
As far as GIMP is concerned, and because you are only really starting out with PP, you will find the transition very easy. I must say that it very quickly became second nature to me. The trick is not to try to think about translating everything from Photoshop. I think that is where most people fall down and get confused by it. The problem is an awful lot of people refer to GIMP as open source photoshop...it's not, it is GIMP and whilst the interface is not as polished as PS it is a very powerful tool to have at your disposal for photo editing. Do not be put off because it is free...there have been as many hours put into developing GIMP as there have PS...perhaps many more.
|
|
|
Post by katynoelle on Jan 19, 2012 20:04:43 GMT
Thanks, Steve and Paul! I was seriously not clear about what I meant about 'banding'. The only line that I see is in the sky in the upper right hand side. I think, after looking at the original, that it's, actually, where the fog was lifting. It looks straight and unnatural to me, though, and no matter how hard I try, I can't seem to get rid of it. Strange, it is! The vignette is more even in the first edit because I added it, myself. The second one is from the B&W selenium tone preset that is in LR (I tweaked the image, still, after the conversion but left the vignette.) and, although I know that it's uneven and wonky - the vignette, that is - I love it. Has any one seen the movie 'The Illusionist'? The story takes place in the turn of the twentieth century Vienna and alludes to early movie making. There are a lot of scenes that have this uneven and dark 'flickering' to it and I think it's so dreamy. I feel that with this. I know that our own feelings don't always translate to others but, garsh darnit, if our image doesn't start with an idea in our mind but with what is technically 'right', then, what the heck am I interested in this photography thing for? Saying that, though, I'm so glad for your input - don't stop - don't stop....! Paul, thank you for the edit and for having a go at it. It seems a bit bright and straight forward to me, now, that I've let my imagination runaway with me. Do you guys need to pull me back down to earth?
|
|
|
Post by The Wirefox on Jan 19, 2012 20:27:37 GMT
Ok got you Katy. I couldn't see any obvious banding so I wrongly assumed you were talking about the dark areas The idea of the old movie look is worth exploring but it may work better on other subjects. I think what we are suggesting, rather than technical correctness, is more to do with compositional norms that (like it or not) do influence how a viewer perceives the image. Glad to see you fighting the artistic corner Katy....artist over artisan everytime
|
|
|
Post by katynoelle on Jan 28, 2012 2:11:47 GMT
Alright, I've been going in all directions, just lately, and am a wee bit slow responding here. I, also, asked my sister (the artist. She has her degree in fine arts and, I know...I always have to put that in but that's why her opinion carries so much weight with me.) and she said something very similar. The corners are just intruding and becoming too important in a scene that should be soft and dreamy. We talked a bit about composition. We've been doing that for months, actually. She's kept telling me that all of my compositions are 'bullseyes' which I didn't quite understand. (er, this one isn't a bullseye, though.) I thought that she was saying that my composition was always in the center and I was confused because I often, also, put something on the third. What she meant though was the point and focus of the subject - the stamens of a flower or the ice crystal, for example, is, clear but, then, it's surrounded by lines of concentric, radiating circles. (again - think of a flower). All of the lines of the composition circle the subject and, then, there's a blurred out bokeh behind. (typical flower shot. This type of composition is fine but it's very two dimensional. Tadaaaa! Mr. Fantastic Wirefox, you get the prize. That's what you said. Here, this is very flat and two dimensional, again - just because it is what it is and that's okay but she thought it was interesting - it's like I'm trying to add a third dimension on the edge of the lens - the frame - our eyes. However, she did feel that it was just too dark, uneven and distracting and, after a day, I could completely see what you guys were saying. I've learned so much, in this month, it's scary!!!!!! So, anyway, I edited it again, here, and she said, "Much better. Do you see how the corners are not competing for center stage, now? Now ask yourself, can I push it more? and if I do will it benefit the message (i.e. etherial/otherworldly scene)? To nit pick, since I know your going for the flickering camera effect, can you bring the tiniest bit of that to the other two corners? Be careful though, because your closer to your subject." Then, I edited it again but the tree got darker and more foreboding which she called 'gothic' (not doom and gloom - oh, no - not from me... ) but, somewhere, in there, I had it just right but lost it and had to step back for a while. I put the purpley one up on a blogpost but I really like the b&w one best. SO! Thanks, yet, again, for all of your good input! and, just in my defense....I have been taking pics with long leading lines and depth to the composition - foreground, midground and background. I just haven't been choosing to edit them. My 'eyes' are always needing to grow.
|
|