One for Tony's Consideration

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Savageduck, Sep 3, 2012.

  1. Savageduck

    Savageduck Guest

    No problem.
    I wasn't expecting Otter to get to work on his rendition until later in
    the week. So have at it.
    How else are we going to keep stirring this pot?
     
    Savageduck, Sep 4, 2012
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Would you stop making up fairy tales about GIMP. It's had that since
    version 1.2 at least. Ten years or so...
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Sep 4, 2012
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. In fact though, the exact same functionality is
    available using GIMP Layers. It may have a different
    interface which you clearly have not figured out, but
    it is just as easy and does the same things.

    Can't you get it through your heads that anything as
    complex as a decent image editor is not a program that
    you can review for an hour on Sunday morning and make
    any reasonable determination of what it does. You are
    applying what you know about something else, and as soon
    as you find a difference you declare the one you already
    know to be correct by definition. That is not valid!

    If you spend enough time with a program to become at
    least close to "expert level", then you can compare it
    to other programs where you are also at least at that
    level.

    Haven't you noticed that not one GIMP user here *ever*
    say anything negative about PhotoShop's functionality or
    it's user interface as such. That isn't because we like
    it and want GIMP to be the same, because we *don't*.
    It's just that it is different, and for those used to PS
    it works. It isn't "wrong", it's just different. And
    because it is different I and others who are used to
    GIMP find PS just as awkward and difficult as you find
    GIMP to be.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Sep 4, 2012
    #63
  4. Savageduck

    Savageduck Guest

    That is somewhat true, but since I didn't really establish any ground
    rules, other than have at it and let's see what you can come up with as
    an interpretation.

    I think Otter has tackled some of the issues in an interesting way with
    the tight crop. However, there are still some distracting shadow
    issues. As I said, it is not a simple lighting problem to solve.

    Here is a minor digression. I have used this capture with a slightly
    different treatment for a long past SI. It is also an image with
    problems, but a face which cannot be denied. Here are two different
    treatments with different crops, one B&W, one color.
    So, any preference, and/or comment.
    <
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/ambVCw4iKB/Shared Images/USENET SHARE/B&W Exercise-02
    I will email you with some of my other thoughts on what has happened
    with this exercise.
     
    Savageduck, Sep 4, 2012
    #64
  5. Of course there is no improvement. I flat stated that
    is shows what is *wrong* with doing what you said, by
    exaggerating it to show just how ugly it is.

    And stop zooming in to 4x the size on a 690 pixel wide
    image. That's just dumb.
    It depends on where you want the viewer's eyes to go
    within the photograph. If you make the hands a
    distraction, that is exactly what they are: a negative
    aspect.
    That's is certainly true for someone who can't figure
    out how to manipulate a selection. You've said already
    that you can't get smooth transitions with a selection,
    so we already know you haven't got the skills necessary.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Sep 4, 2012
    #65
  6. Savageduck

    Savageduck Guest

    I wasn't intending this to be a part of the GIMP v PS war. This was an
    exercise in dealing with a problem image file, and don't particularly
    care what editing software anybody uses to tackle the problem, be it
    GIMP, PSP, CS3/4/5/, LR, Aperture, PSE, iPhoto, etc. Just enjoy working
    towards your particular solution and interpretation.

    With this having degraded into another battle in the GIMP v PS war, I
    merely expressed my opinion regarding my preference of one over the
    other, mainly due to my familiarity with CS5.
    I have at least actually downloaded and worked through a few image
    files with GIMP 2.8 to discover what was available and my personal
    discomfort with it, and you who refuses to even look at a trial version
    of PS have the nerve to criticize my brief test and conclusion, when
    you are not prepared to do the same.
    I would ask you how it is that you have been able to come to your
    conclusions regarding Photoshop without ever having used or tested it.
    ....even for one day.

    I have tried to keep a calm demeanor through this thread as I initiated
    it. Thank you for participating in the exercise. For me this has all
    been quite enlightening.
     
    Savageduck, Sep 4, 2012
    #66
  7. Not bad, as such.

    The eyes are not visible, and the reflections on the
    lenses of his glasses are very distracting, but
    otherwise I like it. The colors are nice, you've left
    enough context to perhaps not show where he is but it
    does provide negative space around him that is neither
    too busy nor too bland. Best of all you aren't trying to
    cure anything by cropping too closely, and you haven't
    centered him in the frame. I do really really miss the
    context of that cement "bench" he is sitting on! :)

    You've also allowed, by not trying to deal totally with
    the excessive contrast, a lot more detail in the hoodie
    than the rest of us have. Others have let it wash out
    completely, and I kept it there but put it right on the
    verge of being gone.

    Hence, your fix is probably a "better" photograph than
    all the rest so far; but not for the specific context we
    were originally discussing. I suspect that the old
    man's grandchildren would all pick your image as the one
    to have printed! But it would also make a good exhibit
    in a tutorial on what's bad about not paying attention
    to the dynamic range of the scene compared to the
    camera!
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Sep 4, 2012
    #67
  8. Savageduck

    Savageduck Guest

    OK! Floyd, to be fair to all, I have added each participant's work to
    the DropBox folder "B&W Exercise-01".
    The only one missing is a rendition from "sid" and I will drop it in
    there upon receipt.
    So take a look with an unbiased eye.
    <
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/Dg9rVBfX4e/Shared Images/USENET SHARE/B&W Exercise-01
     
    Savageduck, Sep 4, 2012
    #68
  9. Are you unable to read? It worked perfectly! You don't like the
    results! That is exactly what I said it was *intended* to show.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Sep 4, 2012
    #69
  10. Jeez, Duck, are you in hormone induced distress? (For
    the uninitiated, I'm mimicking what he said in another
    post.)

    I showed no disrespect at all. I just asked why not simply post
    the URL!
    Where is this belligerence?

    It makes sense to just simply put it up so that anyone
    interested can download it. You are going to send it
    anyone that asks anyway. Putting the URL up would
    reduce the effort on your part as well as for others,
    and thus would encourage others to join in. You can
    delete the file in a few days when it is clear there is
    no further interest, and anyone reading the post in 2
    months or 20 years will not find your very personal
    file...

    Or you can play ego games and make everyone who is
    aggressive enough to ask for it do exactly that.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Sep 4, 2012
    #70
  11. Yes it is the face. That is exactly what you want the
    viewer's attention to gravitate towards. But... that
    requires reducing the contrast by pulling up the
    shadows, and virtually requires getting rid of the
    reflection on the lenses of his glasses. And there is a
    much greater problem: Absent very effectively making
    those changes, the face is only interesting in the
    context of his surrounding!

    Without knowing that this old gent is sitting next to a
    huge flower pot, with people going on about life in a
    busy way exactly the opposite that of the old man, his
    face is far too poorly captured to make a good head
    shot.

    Which is to say, the actual face is great, and with a
    fill flash and by moving in much much closer a great
    head shot could have been done, but this isn't it.
    Besides, color balance is different on every monitor
    anyone looks at. Even most people who think they have a
    "calibrated" monitor don't see the same thing, because
    everyone calibrates to something different! (On my
    window manager I have a mouse selectable menu that will
    switch monitor calibration between six different
    targets.)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Sep 4, 2012
    #71
  12. Floyd L. Davidson, Sep 4, 2012
    #72
  13. What conclusions? I'm not the one posting idiotic on
    what an editor that I don't use cannot do.
    Yeah, sure you have. Sheesh. You won't even read what
    people say befpre going off half cocked. Simple polite
    comments are called beligerent! Every other post from
    you gets into this personal shit that doesn't belong
    here at all.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Sep 4, 2012
    #73
  14. Savageduck

    tony cooper Guest

    I have to agree with this. What makes it a PITA is what makes
    anything a PITA at first: unfamiliarity with the process. PS would
    be a PITA for the long-time GIMP user.
     
    tony cooper, Sep 4, 2012
    #74
  15. Savageduck

    tony cooper Guest

    There's no obligation to do anything. However, what some have done is
    follow the exercise of an edit similar to Duck's version and see what
    comes of it.

    It isn't an exercise in composition; it's an exercise in rescuing an
    image, and the only way to compare is like-to-like.

    I happen to prefer your composition, but I didn't feel that was the
    point here.
     
    tony cooper, Sep 4, 2012
    #75
  16. Savageduck

    Savageduck Guest

    Your wish is my command. The file title now reads
    "Floyd-V2-Intentional-Ugly-Result.jpg".
    Now is there something you would like me to add to "Floyd-V1"?
     
    Savageduck, Sep 4, 2012
    #76
  17. Savageduck

    Savageduck Guest

    Have you actually read all of your responses and considered the tone?
    I would suggest a mirror might be in order here.
     
    Savageduck, Sep 4, 2012
    #77
  18. Any edit of an original to make it better is
    *necessarily* also an exercise in composition. Every
    tweek of contrast, brightness, sharpness, saturation etc
    affects the relationship of all the component parts of
    an image. You cannot separate composition from other
    editing without losing sight of the "make it better"
    concept in terms of a presentation to the viewer.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Sep 4, 2012
    #78
  19. Savageduck

    sid Guest

    Well not as late as expected so here's my go.

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/92601884/DNC_3955-sid.jpg
     
    sid, Sep 4, 2012
    #79
  20. Savageduck

    tony cooper Guest

    That selective color thing? That's your idea of a good conversion?
    The one with the lack of detail in the hoodie folds? The one that
    doesn't show the wooley detail in the hood? The bleach-marked pants?
    The disappearing hands? The gangrenous ear?

    Look, Floyd, the only person in this group who brags about his skills
    in this area is you. If you are going to set yourself up as
    super-skilled, you have to be able to walk the walk. You didn't.

    You try to blame any flaws we see in your work as lack of monitor
    calibration or proper settings. We're each looking at all the images
    with the same monitor, dude. The monitor isn't going whacko just on
    your image.
    Maybe, but I didn't zoom in at all. More built-in excuses from you.
    I have. In both your color and your selective color version, you
    could see more detail in a parka on a man 100 yards away in a
    white-out in Barrow viewed through a pair of Inuit snow goggles.

    And, as I have pointed out, so does mine.
    But neither the Duck's version, nor my version, have the exaggerated
    problem.
    In other words, you couldn't make the hands look right.
    This isn't an exercise in composition. At best, with anyone's edit,
    this will never be a image with artistic value.
    I did. The wider version just adds busyness and that distracting
    orange thing. Otter's close-up is much better, but that's not what
    the rest of us were trying to do.
    Because it looks bad.
    I don't hold up my version as being a great result, but it is equal to
    - if not better than - yours.
    I brought that up. The man has small, squinched eyes that make it
    impossible to improve them. You certainly haven't improved them.
    In your selective color version, the (viewer's) left eye looks like
    something the ophthalmologist sends a patient home with after cataract
    surgery.
     
    tony cooper, Sep 4, 2012
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.