Did I go overboard with this cat picture?

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

12/04/2003 12:05:53 PM · #1

I just got psp 8 and it has some filters that are interesting. I tried the b/w sketch but didn't like it that much so I altered it to get this. What do you think?

coolhar

12/04/2003 12:42:58 PM · #2

Are you asking in the context of the trial rules for the December member challenges? If so, I would say that it is "photorealistic" enough that I wouldn't vote it low for being digital art. But it looks too grainy and I think it might be better in subdued color so I doubt I'd vote it very high, probably a 4 or 5. But that's just my opinion.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/04/2003 12:44:41 PM · #3

I like it as an image and you've gone quite subtly on the filter use.

Under the current rules for December, I'd give it a 1 though - it doesn't look like a photograph - it looks like a sketch or drawing. I.e., it looks like art, created digitially (hence digital art)

justine

Canon EOS-50D

12/04/2003 12:45:06 PM · #4

I kind of like and don't mind the grain, but would suggest using the burn tool on a few areas to bring them out. It's pretty pale looking.

tolovemoon

Canon EOS Rebel SL1

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

12/04/2003 12:49:41 PM · #5

Thats defanetly art! I love it!
Maybe in the face top head is a little darker than the rest but it really looks awesome!

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

12/04/2003 12:55:35 PM · #6

It is no longer a photograph and as such would not IMHO meet the new (temp) member rules!

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/04/2003 12:57:18 PM · #7

I'm in agreement with Gordon and TooCool. It has lost its "photographic integrity" and now looks like something other than a photograph. That is not what the December rules trial is about...

Message edited by author 2003-12-04 12:57:30.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

12/04/2003 12:58:24 PM · #8

Thanks. No. I wasn't thinking on entering anything like this into a challenge. Guess I should have said that right away. I'm just playing. As a picture of a favorite pet, do you think it's ok? And as an attempt at a digital art type picture is it too overdone?
Thanks, tolovemoon, glad you like it!

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

12/04/2003 01:41:28 PM · #9

I wouldn't say that it goes to digitial art. You could get a close approximation in camera (lots of grain and washed out effect) with ISO 800 and alot of B&W shots in manual mode, ya think?
and what if someone was able to approximate it? Low votes, is all they would get

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

12/04/2003 02:37:39 PM · #10

I guess similar things could be said about

Did I go too far with the digital filters ?

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

12/04/2003 03:10:14 PM · #11

Looks lke reflections off of a fountain or something, with the water ripples and disturbance. what it leads me to believe.

justine

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/04/2003 03:11:29 PM · #12

I thought it was wind on the water Gordon. Didn't know you'd altered it. Sign of a good job. I guess they are reeds reflecting in the water. Nice colors.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

12/04/2003 03:19:29 PM · #13

It isn't altered at all - it is wind on water and reflections.

I'm just wondering if it could get marked down as 'digital art' and 'over use of filters'...

Imagineer

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/04/2003 03:51:28 PM · #14

That shot is great Gordon - and not even slightly OTT. Left comment.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

12/04/2003 05:02:38 PM · #15

Just a thought for pcody. If you felt like it, I'd be interested in seeing how close you could come to the picture you posted at the beginning of this thread, working from the same original and using methods legal under the non-trial dpc rules. Bet you could come pretty close.

12/04/2003 06:23:08 PM · #16

coolhar. Is it "illegal" to sharpen, and enhance the edges? The only thing I did that wasn't "legal" was use a blend mode. Please read the information on the photo.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/04/2003 06:48:16 PM · #17

Originally posted by pcody:

coolhar. Is it "illegal" to sharpen, and enhance the edges? The only thing I did that wasn't "legal" was use a blend mode. Please read the information on the photo.

It's a good example of how digital art can be made, with restricted or unrestricted tools - its just about what you are trying to achieve, not how you get there. I really like the image, I just don't really consider it a representative photograph, with the amount of digital adjustment you've made.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/04/2003 07:24:46 PM · #18

I think Sharpen/Unsharp Mask is legal, "Enhance Edges" may bot be.

I made this a long time ago by "old" DPC-legal rules -- just Curves and Unsharp Mask.
No Visible Means of Support

Message edited by author 2003-12-04 19:25:30.