The Woods

[Pol]

Re: The Woods

I genuinely think it's a very cool process and even though I stopped short of actually falling in love with the initial shot, it certainly got my attention and interest........I really quite like it. The more I look at the shots - both yours and this one I've linked to - the more I think the process will catch on, as HDR, tone-mapping and er.....selective toning did.

I'd have thought it might have potential for the occasional, well chosen Fotowall image. That was the first thing I thought of when Stephen posted his initial image. I can imagine something like that looking good on a long, high wall.

Pol

[Jocelyn Walker]

Re: The Woods

Stephen, I like this shot, where my focus is slowly taken thru' the woods! It seems a little subtler & pleasing. As in the first pic, I like the dappled light shining thru' the trees & on the ground. The top of the 1st pic morphed to the skies too quick for my taste! Interesting technique!

[Bearface]

Re: The Woods

HDR has become a bit of an overused technique in some circles, its a bit like the new selective toning I know you are not a great fan of the HDR technique or was that just tonemapping?

I had a chat with Andrew just the other day about HDR and no, I'm not generally a fan of it. Sometimes an image just lends itself the process, but to me it's often overdone and unnecessary. I guess tone-mapping can be the same, although it's less intrusive.

Anyway I read from your comment that this blurring technique is not exactly floating your boat perhaps I'm wrong. Any road up, its all part of the creative learning curve and experience eh and we like bit of that don't we

NO.....no, no, no!

I genuinely think it's a very cool process and even though I stopped short of actually falling in love with the initial shot, it certainly got my attention and interest........I really quite like it. The more I look at the shots - both yours and this one I've linked to - the more I think the process will catch on, as HDR, tone-mapping and er.....selective toning did.

[Stephen]

Re: The Woods

This shot is close in concept and style to your initial posting here. Somehow your portrait orientation worked for me better though

I've just been wondering if this selective blurring could become the new HDR?

Though I've seen the results of this technique before both in magazines and on photo sites, it was this very shot that inspired me to have a go myself. As can be seen he had a clear foreground and pretty good line where the trees started. He has started the graduation lightly higher up. I'm still experimenting and trying different variations.

HDR has become a bit of an overused technique in some circles, its a bit like the new selective toning I know you are not a great fan of the HDR technique or was that just tonemapping? Anyway I read from your comment that this blurring technique is not exactly floating your boat perhaps I'm wrong. Any road up, its all part of the creative learning curve and experience eh and we like bit of that don't we

[Bearface]

Re: The Woods

This shot is close in concept and style to your initial posting here. Somehow your portrait orientation worked for me better though

I've just been wondering if this selective blurring could become the new HDR?

[Tom]

Re: The Woods

There is far more uniformity in the transition on this one and it does become surreal.
It takes on a graphic feel that you would expect to see in an animated movie where a flying something is speeding through the wood.

[Stephen]

Re: The Woods

I've been having another look at this Stephen and am just imagining how the treatment would work if applied (though not too strongly) to the whole image. I realise this is getting away from what is in your mind but do you think it could produce an interestingly coloured abstract. But I suppose that's another days work.

Thanks for your thoughts on this Tom, I may have a go at that, it doesn't take that long However I felt that part of the impact on the eye was that it moved from in focus to out of focus and went from the actual/real to the surreal.

I've had another go with a different scene and realised that part of my problem is that there are too many trees in the foreground and so part of the trunks are sharp and part not. However I feel this is approaching how I see the idea developing.

[Tom]

Re: The Woods

I've been having another look at this Stephen and am just imagining how the treatment would work if applied (though not too strongly) to the whole image. I realise this is getting away from what is in your mind but do you think it could produce an interestingly coloured abstract. But I suppose that's another days work.

[Andrew Thatcher]

Re: The Woods

I think its a good attempt at getting out your comfort zone Stephen The only thing is i don't like the colours in the blurred top. for me it looks a lot better in black and white. (Thats my own view and I'm sticking to it )

[Bearface]

Re: The Woods

I also think Tom misunderstands Tim's point of view. Sure Tim and Tom (has a nice ring about it ) have got off on the wrong foot, but I think both are missing the point. Both have the right to have opinions and to share those opinions here - it's what making critique interesting after all.

Ian, it's pretty simple really. I posted a critique of Stephen's edit and expressed a general opinion (not targeted at anyone at all) about people opening their minds to this kind of surrealism. It was obviously not a challenge to anyone's individual tastes and I made that perfectly clear.

Tom waded in after my post, directly contradicted everything I said in a dismissive, condescending tone and then quoted me, implying that I was in some way trying to offend people. I suggested - quite rightly - that he should perhaps focus on expressing his own views, views which I highlighted were as valid as anyone else's.........and still I was personally attacked and accused of tactlessness.

Do you seriously think I was "missing the point"? Sorry Ian, but I seem to recall that I was just minding my own business until Tom stuck his muddy boot in, and that therefore my subsequent reaction was perfectly justified. It did not become personal until Tom made it so...

I'd therefore appreciate it if you didn't publically tar me with the same brush as someone who quite obviously set out to antagonize and criticize a perfectly considered and rational point of view.

[Tinka]

Re: The Woods

Hi Stephen,
This is the sort of image manipulation I dabble in from time to time, I call it creative imagery, my wife calls it rubbish, I however like to see this sort of work. I am not sure that the manipulation works in this instance with this image, I do not dislike it either, the original image appears to have superb autumnal colors,however the trees appear to be in a straight line and the eye is drawn centrally down the centre, which in my opinion holds the interest for a very short time only, there is no incentive to explore the image, just in one end and out the other, However perhaps this makes the image ideally suited for manipulation, but perhaps not this particular Blur/liquify manipulation. I do like the light and colors of the original, If not the composition.

[Ian]

Re: The Woods

I presented this image as a serious point of discussion, I intended and certainly expected it to be controversial. I wouldn't expect everyone to like it. The picture was simply work in progress. I sense though, rightly or wrongly, that Tom thinks I'm being patronising and pretentious in what I have done and presented. I can assure I was not. I admit that the blur in this is too heavy I've overdone it, and the technique of getting the graduation more subtle is something I need to work on.

I really do appreciate peoples comments though, so long as they are considered and constructive, which it has to be said I feel Toms are. If people can see something that they like in it thats gratifying I feel, but other comments are taken on board and help me decide how I need to modify things.

When I get some more time I will post a Mk2 version As for the type of pic for the technique, the tree trunks are ideal and are exactly what I wanted to work with

Oh dear! I think some of the reaction on this thread is getting out of hand.

I don't see that Tom feels you're being patronising, Stephen. I also think Tom misunderstands Tim's point of view. Sure Tim and Tom (has a nice ring about it ) have got off on the wrong foot, but I think both are missing the point. Both have the right to have opinions and to share those opinions here - it's what making critique interesting after all. But I don't think anyone is in the least bit interested about any personal differences levelled at each other, so I would respectfully request that these differences be aired privately. There is no point in having debates like these if people can't tolerate each others' views, even if they disagree with them.

Ian

[Bearface]

Re: The Woods

The above words don't talk; they shout. Did someone mention a raw nerve?
I may disagree but I don't dismiss.

I have already said what I wish to say on this and another longwinded posting here would only tend to facilitate entry to the area you are obviously very comfortable in; personal.
I retreat and raise the white flag .

Very good, Tom. Just one tiny detail you missed...

...it was you who - in your infinite wisdom - decided to highlight my views in your post in an attempt to judge them as tactless. You also criticised my personal opinions quite openly, and in a pompous, dismissive manner, despite them being directed at nobody but the OP.

You can continue to interpret my words in your, er....unique way, in addition to hilariously suggesting that I'm getting personal when it's quite clear where this exchange started.........but a real adult would simply acknowledge their mistake (and you did make a mistake!) and apologise. Not you though, eh Tom..?

[Tom]

Re: The Woods

Why was my personal opinion tactless, exactly? Do you have a problem with people expressing a personal and entirely non-offensive point of view? I explained my wording (not that I needed to justify myself to you...) in my last post and still you sit there and accuse me of tactlessness. Get off your high horse Tom...

Let's just look at your post, just to make sure I wasn't imagining things:



Really? Who was this aimed at then?




What a load of condescending bilge. I referred to the image as visually challenging. I talked about how to me it could represent all types of metaphors for life and your response directly dismissed those perfectly valid points of view, and in a pompous and smug manner, too. You are welcome to "luxuriate" in any perceived "knowledge" you wish to, but my opinion was not yours to dismiss or criticize.



And you decided (clearly in your position as judge and jury of other people's intentions...) that this was "tactless"? Get over yourself Tom, and in future stick to your own opinions, instead of misinterpreting and sniping at other people's. Oh and when it comes to my own views, I'll decide what thinking out of the box is, not you.

While we're on the subject of tactlessness, perhaps you ought to consider the reasons why Stephen and I - almost simultaneously - found the need to question the tone of your post.

The above words don't talk; they shout. Did someone mention a raw nerve?
I may disagree but I don't dismiss.

I have already said what I wish to say on this and another longwinded posting here would only tend to facilitate entry to the area you are obviously very comfortable in; personal.
I retreat and raise the white flag .

[coupekid]

Re: The Woods

Why was my personal opinion tactless, exactly? Do you have a problem with people expressing a personal and entirely non-offensive point of view? I explained my wording (not that I needed to justify myself to you...) in my last post and still you sit there and accuse me of tactlessness. Get off your high horse Tom...

Let's just look at your post, just to make sure I wasn't imagining things:



Really? Who was this aimed at then?




What a load of condescending bilge. I referred to the image as visually challenging. I talked about how to me it could represent all types of metaphors for life and your response directly dismissed those perfectly valid points of view, and in a pompous and smug manner, too. You are welcome to "luxuriate" in any perceived "knowledge" you wish to, but my opinion was not yours to dismiss or criticize.



And you decided (clearly in your position as judge and jury of other people's intentions...) that this was "tactless"? Get over yourself Tom, and in future stick to your own opinions, instead of misinterpreting and sniping at other people's. Oh and when it comes to my own views, I'll decide what thinking out of the box is, not you.

While we're on the subject of tactlessness, perhaps you ought to consider the reasons why Stephen and I - almost simultaneously - found the need to question the tone of your post.

Here we go again....