On 4/8/2014 5:25 AM, Tina Manley wrote:
> It never ceases to amaze me what you can do with a jpeg downloaded from the
> internet! I like your changes.
Thank You!
> I wish I had your knowledge and skill with post-production.
Your skills in photographing people far, far exceed mine. I wouldn't mind a
pill to get some of that.
You also have a great understanding of what buyers might like in stock images.
I tend to view each image on its own a a
stand alone piece of art. This explains the time and effort I'm willing to put
into individual images. It doesn't seem
likely to me that such post processing effort would pay off for stock.
A number of famous/successful photographers have used darkroom experts for
their gallery/sale prints. I know Peter
Turnley is using Voja Mitrovic for his prints. If you ever go the gallery, high
$ prints sales route, it might be
worthwhile to pay a digital darkroom/print guru to do that part of the work.
But for stock?
Sometimes, when going through a gallery of yours, I whisper 'keywords' to
myself in my head, and then understand some of
the shots I never would have taken.
A similar thing with Nathan. His weekly posts are travelog/stories that I can
enjoy. But a few images jump out at me as
things that can well stand on their own, without support from context or text.
> I keep trying but don't quite get there.
I know many, many people adore LightRoom. Even if they use PS, it's only as a
last resort, if LR won't get them there. I
have so far heartily disliked LR (and the several other converter/editors with
similar interfaces).
Many of the things I do simply can't be done in LR. And I approach the path
from the starting image to what I think I
see in my head assuming PS tools will be used.
> I think on the Monk with Shoes, I didn't slide the highlight as much so it's
> much lighter.
Good, simple example. The Highlight slider in LR is the same tool as in ACR,
Yes, I do use it, and the other sliders to
get the highlights unclipped and make rough exposure.tonal range adjustments.
But it isn't the same as the Highlight
tool in PS, which has adjustable parameters, and simply does things
differently. Many of my images have had both applied.
I also didn't apply the Highlight and other tools to the whole image. PS allows
me to create precise selections and
masks, including their edge transitions, with lots of control. I can then paint
in/out on the mask if needed.
I used to think anybody could do this, and probably frustrated some folks with
my casual comments about how to do it.
I've come to understand that my skills are well above average and not everyone
has the combination of eye, patience,
intuitive understanding of how the tools work, experience, etc. to be likely to
do this stuff well.
This really came home to me when I looked at tutorials, and could sometimes do
my own versions from the base images. I
recall writing to the woman who wrote PS tutorials for PopPhoto. She had
manipulated a lovely shot of a weathered old
cabin in the Rockies by dawn light. I pointed out to her how she had invented a
powerful new light source, coming from
90 deg. or more away from the sun - and how to get the effect she wanted
without a false light source. (Hey, nothing
wrong with pretending there is a big, white wall behind the camera, reflecting
light onto the subject :-) , or, ugh-ish,
fill flash, but not out in those wilds.)
I work on other people's images for a few reasons. One is to improve my skills
on subjects and problems I don't
encounter often in my own work. Another is for the satisfaction of viewing an
image I like a great deal looking
technically better. I don't post all the images I work over, BTW. Some are just
for my own experience and/or satisfaction.
Another is in hopes of helping people to see how their images might be improved
in post. And I may, just possibly, like
to show off my skills. :-) When I post my own images, no one sees what the
originals look like.
There are a handful of rather masterful image manipulators on this list.
Compared to the world at large, and even some
'experts', they are outstanding and unusual.
> The purpose of the B&W was to see the faces instead of the color of their
> clothes.
Doesn't work for me with these. How much is that I'm presented with the color
ones beside them, that the faces aren't
big/interesting/strong/?? enough, that the orange robes come out dirty colored
in B&W, I dunno.
The first one you presented from Vietnam, Buddhist Monk, is quite delicious in
B&W. It appears his habit is not orange,
as it is a lovely study in light tones and textures, and his face is wonderful.
It's one of those I played with without
posting. Had his shoulders been recoverable in the JPEG, I'd have posted it.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Manley/Buddhist_Monk.htm>
> I guess I just like B&W ;-)
YehBut, while there's a wide middle ground where either works, there are
extreme ends where one or the other doesn't
work very well.
Moose D'Opinion
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|