|
|
Post by cannockwolf on Jan 18, 2012 11:19:39 GMT
Another from Anglesey, this time from the car park, i trekked probably 6 miles to get this one 20 yards from the car lol. this a straight sky no 'jiggery pokery' edits on this one, the light was fantastic due to it being the golden hour as we went home. This and the cross road has been my 2 most successive photos in the salon, with Golds for both, Silvers and highly commended's  Reason for Editing: clarification on sky |
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Jan 18, 2012 11:41:42 GMT
The more I work with your technique, the more I appreciate how much the angle, depth of field and original light is important. Sky, like you've pointed out on many occasions is what you want it to be and I've gone there a time or two myself, each time improving on the cut an paste and subsequent blend modes.
Question, however: do you only go as high as 10% on your light and dark brushes, or do you have on occasion a need to dig in a little deeper, especially in the blacks (though as I look at this one, there are only a few really "black" areas)?
|
|
|
|
Post by cannockwolf on Jan 18, 2012 11:47:18 GMT
i didnt edit this sky in as it was original as shot, but i do make the brush opacity what ever it needs really, sometimes i do 100% then use a 10% brush to take it back out in places so theres no real methodology to it
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Jan 18, 2012 12:03:04 GMT
I had pretty much come to that conclusion, even wondering if you worked from dark to light or light to dark, but again, concluded you have to go where the image takes you. Nice work in both images.
I had a play with the cross image just to see what it would look like if the grass was flowing in the direction of the cross/pathway...oddly enough, though I thought it would make a dramatic difference, it really didn't.
Also noticed, and have suspected for some time, images on this forum's screen are darker than they are in photoshop. Wonder why?
|
|
|
|
Post by jeeperman on Jan 18, 2012 12:14:02 GMT
Fantastic...that is all. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by cannockwolf on Jan 18, 2012 12:27:27 GMT
Also noticed, and have suspected for some time, images on this forum's screen are darker than they are in photoshop. Wonder why? I agree when i reduce my dark pics they loose a lot of detail and appear darker, when these pictures are printed on my epson r3000 they ooze detail. in particular the fleetwood wreck which is many times better on paper than screen, have i posted that on here? |
|
|
|
Post by katynoelle on Jan 18, 2012 12:58:13 GMT
Hm, Dave... do you know that the image isn't there, now?
|
|
|
|
Post by cannockwolf on Jan 18, 2012 13:08:51 GMT
my servers down at the moment
|
|
rjbell
Member
[Mo0:1]
Posts: 74
|
Post by rjbell on Jan 18, 2012 13:29:26 GMT
Great image as always!
|
|
rjbell
Member
[Mo0:1]
Posts: 74
|
Post by rjbell on Jan 18, 2012 13:30:30 GMT
The more I work with your technique, the more I appreciate how much the angle, depth of field and original light is important. Sky, like you've pointed out on many occasions is what you want it to be and I've gone there a time or two myself, each time improving on the cut an paste and subsequent blend modes. Question, however: do you only go as high as 10% on your light and dark brushes, or do you have on occasion a need to dig in a little deeper, especially in the blacks (though as I look at this one, there are only a few really "black" areas)? How are you working with Cannockwolf's techniques? Have you some videos i can watch? |
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Jan 18, 2012 13:34:36 GMT
He posted a basic workflow tutorial a couple of weeks ago. Go to the Tutorial page and it is sthere...from that, I've added a few of my own techniques, some Jiro effects and generally just worked through the layer masks...it's fun, but quite time consuming.
|
|
|
|
Post by katynoelle on Jan 18, 2012 13:50:54 GMT
Oh, WONDERFUL, Dave!  |
|
|
|
Post by maryloveslucy on Jan 18, 2012 14:34:00 GMT
That's a really striking image.
|
|
rjbell
Member
[Mo0:1]
Posts: 74
|
Post by rjbell on Jan 18, 2012 18:42:12 GMT
Cool i will take a look.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Wirefox on Jan 18, 2012 20:55:38 GMT
it is not surprising this is so successful. There is a lot being bandied around about workflow and technical parameters - what occurs to me is that what Dave is creating is far more to do with natural artistic flair and intuition about how to apply the tools at hand. Setting the brushes and getting things in the right order is one thing but applying the technique in the way that Dave does is quite another. The fact that his workflow is so simple actually makes it very obvious that the real skill is in the artistic application of (fundamentally) dodging and burning...not to mention the realisation at the point of capture that he has a workable image. This image demonstrates this in spades. The vision required to capture the scene in the first place, with the aspect, flows and textures all working together then the PP that is applied in a way which creates an artistic representation rather than a faithful capture. These are techniques used by a painter or sketcher and it is well worth thinking about that before pressing the shutter...
|
|
