|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/17/2011 11:27:09 PM · #1 |
Okay, I'm trying to learn like 4 different new techniques at once...LoL... I posted awhile back about doing a sequence and  Bear_music was kind enough to really help me out. This is my second attempt and although I definitely like the figures fully revealed more than slowly revealing them in each frame, how does the sequence look? Secondly and even bigger question, the DoF was faked with a tilt-shift technique in GIMP... I know that the figure in the back, grass blades in the front, and other imperfections need to be cloned out, but I'm too tired tonight and am really looking for feedback on the Sequence and tilt-shift effect... Here is the shot
Now here is the uncropped original without the effect
So is the effect believable, or is it way overdone??? When I'm learning a new technique I've noticed that it takes me a while to develop an eye to do it right. So any and all help is appreciated... Thanks...
Oh and lastly, I know that the figure in the back, grass blades in the front, and other imperfections need to be cloned out,
***Upon edit, someone on another site pointed out that part of the pole for the sign is in focus, while the top is out of focus, even though they are the same distance. So that is definitely something to bear in mind, to watch for vertical objects when faking the DoF
Message edited by author 2011-07-17 23:50:32. |
|
|
|
07/18/2011 12:02:34 AM · #2 |
It's not believable at all, how did he become nearly invisible?!
---
I tend to be more of the mindset where I like them opaque unless they have a reason for being subdued. I think in this case it's pushed a bit too far in the intro to the scene, that is, it's too faint. (which may be just this shot, I would think it would work better if the full box was shown with some space to show how he got on it). In this case, it seems to ask more questions - how did he get on the box.
I like the blurred background effect, but not necessarily the tilt shift effect.
What I mean is simply that when you blur the background, it isolates the movement and minimizes the distracting elements. It looks crisper and easier for the eye to follow. Tilt shift faking has a lot of problems, you mentioned one yourself. Just be careful with it and with where to focal plane/elements are, and you'll be fine.
Message edited by author 2011-07-18 00:05:26. |
|
|
|
07/18/2011 12:09:14 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by jamesgoss:
It's not believable at all, how did he become nearly invisible?!
---
I tend to be more of the mindset where I like them opaque unless they have a reason for being subdued. I think in this case it's pushed a bit too far in the intro to the scene, that is, it's too faint. (which may be just this shot, I would think it would work better if the full box was shown with some space to show how he got on it). In this case, it seems to ask more questions - how did he get on the box.
I like the blurred background effect, but not necessarily the tilt shift effect.
What I mean is simply that when you blur the background, it isolates the movement and minimizes the distracting elements. It looks crisper and easier for the eye to follow. Tilt shift faking has a lot of problems, you mentioned one yourself. Just be careful with it and with where to focal plane/elements are, and you'll be fine. |
Hey thanks for the input. The guy slowly being revealed was just something I wanted to try, I prefer him to be fully revealed like I did in the last sequence I posted... I couldn't get the box all the way in the frame because I was shooting with my 70-300 and I was just too close. I have a sequence that I'm working on that has the entire ramp in the frame so you see the rider go up and down. Its just like 19 frames and its time consuming :) I really like the tilt shift effect though for isolation, I'm just going to focus on trying to keep it subtle... Thanks again for the feeback :) |
|
|
|
07/18/2011 12:42:19 AM · #4 |
The overall impression the "transparency" leaves me with is, unfortunately, laziness; it looks as if the photographer decided it was easier to do it this way or something. And the tilt/shift effect isn't doing anything for you here, either.
It COULD work, but it needs to be more pronounced. As far as the problem with the pole and so forth, you deal with that exactly as you do with the progressive figures: have an in-focus layer on top and erase everything but what needs to be in focus on that layer.
But, honestly, spend a little time getting the multiple-figures thing nailed first, OK? Then when that's second nature, start adding the bells and whistles. Don't be impatient :-)
R. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/25/2025 07:41:33 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/25/2025 07:41:33 PM EDT.
|
