If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I for one would love to see the original.
This is terrific for me. It appears that you have aged the photo to match the era
Here we go then Pops.
This is were I started, f11 1/5th 400ISO
All this may not necessarily be in the order it was done, just what was done.
Cropped, then cloned out cord on the back wall
Cloned in extra wall at the side of the pan on left
Unhappy about the clutter on the table, and the very light area at the front, so cloned or rather copied and past bits of the table that has detail, not happy it looked unconvincing, so copied an image of some wood I had taken a couple of weeks ago pasted it in used transform to give the correct perspective to the layer and erased parts of the layer to expose items I was keeping.
I now had only the Jug and the pan, the empty bottom right corner looked wrong so I copied a little jug from a picture taken at the same time further down the same work surface.
Cloned out the pan handle and copied another from a similar pan but a better angle, created shadows for the new items, did some local contrast adjustment and darkening of corners.
Finally I converted it to a toned mono picture.
Justification for all this, well the area was roped of so I had to photograph the best I could and could not get to set the picture up by moving the objects at the taking stage, so I moved them in Photoshop.
I can't imagine how you came about visualising the changed image. I wonder if you had the finished image in your mind at the start or did it develop as you went along. There is very little comparison left between the two.
Certainly an excellent job done.
I can't imagine how you came about visualising the changed image. I wonder if you had the finished image in your mind at the start or did it develop as you went along. There is very little comparison left between the two.
Certainly an excellent job done.
Hi Pops
In truth a bit of both, I had visualized the Mono finish I wanted and knew I should have to do some tiding. When it appeared on screen it was obvious there was more tiding than I first imagined, and the methods used presented themselves with each problem.
The idea and introduction of the small jug came to me as I worked, also changing the the pan handle, they weren't part of the original vision.
I may now work on it further and reduce it to just the big jug.
Patrick, my feeling is that I liked the image you first posted, and was about to jump in and say so. In fact I was going to say how much better it seemed to be since you bought the 40D. I was happy with the photo, it had been toned and treated in keeping with the era, though I might have added that the pan was a bit to clean and 'sanitised' but that was just a niggle.
Then you go and show the original image you started with (fatal IMHO) and I have become disillusioned. I now feel less benevolent towards the final result.
How many times has there been the old debate about when is a photo no longer a photo because of manipulation and changes that have been made in the software. I even have to smile at some of the people here who are saying great image when most would generally favour little manipulation being done to an image and that only basic levels, toning, contrast adjustment should take place. They are often the photographers who do very little to enhance and add their own input to their photographs.
Yet here you have presented an image which is largely a chop and crop, cut and paste job, which only vaguely resembles the original starting image.
Don't get me wrong Patrick, I admire your PS skills, I like the original photo, and I like the end result, but its the reaction of people to what you have achieved that makes me smile and I question what amounts to dual standards of others in these matters. For my own part I doubt very much whether i would have shown the original. People should judge the final presentation for what it is, an image created by a photographer. You have done a good job it must be said
Patrick, my feeling is that I liked the image you first posted, and was about to jump in and say so. In fact I was going to say how much better it seemed to be since you bought the 40D. I was happy with the photo, it had been toned and treated in keeping with the era, though I might have added that the pan was a bit to clean and 'sanitised' but that was just a niggle.
Then you go and show the original image you started with (fatal IMHO) and I have become disillusioned. I now feel less benevolent towards the final result.
How many times has there been the old debate about when is a photo no longer a photo because of manipulation and changes that have been made in the software. I even have to smile at some of the people here who are saying great image when most would generally favour little manipulation being done to an image and that only basic levels, toning, contrast adjustment should take place. They are often the photographers who do very little to enhance and add their own input to their photographs.
Yet here you have presented an image which is largely a chop and crop, cut and paste job, which only vaguely resembles the original starting image.
Don't get me wrong Patrick, I admire your PS skills, I like the original photo, and I like the end result, but its the reaction of people to what you have achieved that makes me smile and I question what amounts to dual standards of others in these matters. For my own part I doubt very much whether i would have shown the original. People should judge the final presentation for what it is, an image created by a photographer. You have done a good job it must be said
Hi Stephen
Well, I for one would not call it a photograph, but stand by what I said, it is a superb "image" and the end results are well worth the effort put in. A great many so called professional photographers have images published which have been chopped cropped and manipulated, but they still claim "Photographic copyright" and have their names associated with the IMAGES/PHOTOGRAPHS."dual standards" OR WHAT? ESPECIALLY IN THE ADVERTISEING INDUSTRY. I still value your expert opinion though
Hi Stephen
Well, I for one would not call it a photograph, but stand by what I said, it is a superb "image" and the end results are well worth the effort put in. A great many so called professional photographers have images published which have been chopped cropped and manipulated, but they still claim "Photographic copyright" and have their names associated with the IMAGES/PHOTOGRAPHS."dual standards" OR WHAT? ESPECIALLY IN THE ADVERTISEING INDUSTRY. I still value your expert opinion though
I see no problem with creating a photographic composite and claiming photographic copyright. If the image has been created by the artist, as is the case in Patricks image. There is however a case for not being allowed to photograph certain places, objects etc. which already hold copyright. There are for example many areas in London that a Pro photographer cannot take photographs, Trafalgar Square being one. Photographing pieces of art or including them in a photograph can also be a bit dodgy if its being done for profit.
I'm not going to argue the ethics of such photography though. My comment was more to do with the concept of creating an image and peoples +ive reaction to the finished result, when on the other hand they maybe scathing about the practice when debating to what extent photos should be manipulated
I see no problem with creating a photographic composite and claiming photographic copyright. If the image has been created by the artist, as is the case in Patricks image. There is however a case for not being allowed to photograph certain places, objects etc. which already hold copyright. There are for example many areas in London that a Pro photographer cannot take photographs, Trafalgar Square being one. Photographing pieces of art or including them in a photograph can also be a bit dodgy if its being done for profit.
I'm not going to argue the ethics of such photography though. My comment was more to do with the concept of creating an image and peoples +ive reaction to the finished result, when on the other hand they maybe scathing about the practice when debating to what extent photos should be manipulated
Hi Stephen
I still see it as a photograph, all the elements used were taken by me and the dominant part of the picture is in fact the same.
Had I been allowed nearer and able to arrange things for the picture I would have possibly come up with a original photograph very similar. Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.
I think the important thing here it integrity. Its not photojournalism therefore contents don't have to be accurate, and I have made it clear it is a composite, so I am being truthful.
Then there is whats its purpose? Well apart from the pleasure and satisfaction of producing it, hopefully it will give the viewer pleasure, the few posts I have received it would seem to be doing that.
I have not been a builder of pictures in this way before this is only my second the first is on this thread http://dpnow.com/forum2/showthread.php?t=4086 done for fun posted a week ago.
I do heavily manipulate pictures but not to this extent before, I enjoyed doing it and will possibly look at some of my almost pictures that many of us have that could benefit.
I see on this forum many pictures that are nearly pictures often because they miss the most basic of manipulation or the wrong manipulation.
From the tone of your reply it sounds as if you were almost disappointed it was a composite.
I still see it as a photograph, all the elements used were taken by me and the dominant part of the picture is in fact the same.
Had I been allowed nearer and able to arrange things for the picture I would have possibly come up with a original photograph very similar. Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.
I think the important thing here it integrity. Its not photojournalism therefore contents don't have to be accurate, and I have made it clear it is a composite, so I am being truthful.
Then there is whats its purpose? Well apart from the pleasure and satisfaction of producing it, hopefully it will give the viewer pleasure, the few posts I have received it would seem to be doing that.
I have not been a builder of pictures in this way before this is only my second the first is on this thread http://dpnow.com/forum2/showthread.php?t=4086 done for fun posted a week ago.
I do heavily manipulate pictures but not to this extent before, I enjoyed doing it and will possibly look at some of my almost pictures that many of us have that could benefit.
I see on this forum many pictures that are nearly pictures often because they miss the most basic of manipulation or the wrong manipulation.
From the tone of your reply it sounds as if you were almost disappointed it was a composite.
Patrick
I absolutely agree with the principle and your thinking on the matter Patrick. I too can heavily manipulate my images, though frankly I'm not very good at doing more advanced stuff such as you have done in the two images completed so far. So for me it tends to be be more a case of selectively adjusting levels etc to bring out the image in the way I have visualised.
I'd also agree very much with you about members often not making more of their photos by attempting some manipulation which will add to the visual appeal. I've often said on here though that I'm more of an image maker than a picture taker.
If I'm honest though I was a tad disappointed when I learnt it was a composite, I'm not sure why but I often feel it can be better to be ignorant of such things. I'm sure you will agree that its the final image that counts, so we don't need to see an original or need to know how it was achieved, especially in a critique forum. For me that seems to detract from the end result. But thats my problem
It's quite interesting hearing you old pros talking like this. You both know your stuff and can take wonderful photographs so why the need for so much PP. It's nice to bring out the colours and get the lighting right but I'm not a fan of over processed photos. I've seen some examples of HDR that are making things look completely surreal and people are saying wow! Sorry, these are the ramblings of a complete amateur snapper!
Personal choice of what appeals & what doesn't tickle one's fancy with this subject! Quite honestly, I preferred the light in the original and the benchtop! However, the skill levels with Photoshop will always vary from person to person as with any skill! Perhaps a new & separate forum should be set up for those like you Patrick, who are prepared to share their experience & knowledge, with step by step 'How to do...'!
It's quite interesting hearing you old pros talking like this. You both know your stuff and can take wonderful photographs so why the need for so much PP. It's nice to bring out the colours and get the lighting right but I'm not a fan of over processed photos. I've seen some examples of HDR that are making things look completely surreal and people are saying wow! Sorry, these are the ramblings of a complete amateur snapper!
Are you suggesting that Patricks image looks over processed? If he had not been upfront and shown his original starting image would you have been any the wiser? I think the final image should be judged on what you see and for me in that respect it works well.
HDR is a different concept, and if done properly works very well and produces some stunning results. Whether it looks surreal should not be an issue, its all part of the image creation process. One of the first HDR shots I saw was one done by David Nightingale of Chromasia His photo from the beach at Blackpool had so much impact I thought it was wonderful and still do
Personal choice of what appeals & what doesn't tickle one's fancy with this subject! Quite honestly, I preferred the light in the original and the benchtop! However, the skill levels with Photoshop will always vary from person to person as with any skill! Perhaps a new & separate forum should be set up for those like you Patrick, who are prepared to share their experience & knowledge, with step by step 'How to do...'!
But do you like the final result?
I think you will find there is such a place already Jocelyn in the Software Solutions forum
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalise advertising, and to analyse site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
I now feel less benevolent towards the final result. 
Comment