| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/23/2004 06:47:14 PM · #26 |
I can understand people who consider this 'digital art', but the techniques used to create this photo are not far from those used in an actual darkroom!
In case anyone is interested the original photograph that spawned this idea is this one.
It's much cleaner, and personally I like it a lot more, but then again I didn't have to follow basic editing rules for it.
Also, if anyone is interested in knowing how to achieve this result within the 'basic' editing parameters, feel free to PM me and I'll give you the rundown.
Lee
|
|
|
|
07/23/2004 06:50:24 PM · #27 |
| I think most people who consider it digital art has never been inside a darkroom or was never any good at what they attempted to do in there. I am sorry but images like this has been around even before this whole digital thing was invented. Some people carry a digital camera and call themselves photographers and they think Photoshop was designed around thin air. :@ :@ |
|
|
|
07/23/2004 07:01:58 PM · #28 |
| That was a really good photo, I gave it a 9. Just curious, what was its ave score? |
|
|
|
07/23/2004 07:52:11 PM · #29 |
It was about a 6.8 I believe. I think I had a pretty good shot at a ribbon, but oh well! I should've known better, I've entered enough challenges, and seen enough photos dq'ed for not having the date.
Lee
|
|
|
|
07/23/2004 07:56:09 PM · #30 |
6.8 is pretty good considering that some people in this thread gave it a 4 because it wasn't their "style". Just take photos of what you like, the majority will always rule :)
Good luck...
Message edited by author 2004-07-23 19:57:35. |
|
|
|
07/23/2004 09:32:36 PM · #31 |
Lee
can you add how you did this to the photo's comments so that if anyone is interested (like me) they can find out how you did it
just cut and past one of your email replies that way you don't have to send out hundreds of emails :)
|
|
|
|
07/23/2004 10:04:26 PM · #32 |
| That is an aitomatic 7 from graphicfunk. I can obtain similae effects with curves. Most important it is an artistic impression. I am placing it on my favs list. My sympathies. dan |
|
|
|
07/23/2004 10:30:10 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by tyt2000:
6.8 is pretty good considering that some people in this thread gave it a 4 because it wasn't their "style". Just take photos of what you like, the majority will always rule :)
Good luck... |
So I have to vote a 7 or higher even though I find a photo grotesque with no artistic merit? Because it's "technically sound?" I don't think so.
Creativity weighs a lot for my photo votes. In fact it's the single biggest thing I look for in a photo. If someone takes a very artistic original photo that is maybe over exposed, they will score much higher than someone who takes a very bland ordinary unoriginal photo but is technically flawless.
Not to say that this photo is in that category, but I should be able to vote based on my own preferences, not yours.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2004 07:19:21 AM · #34 |
sorry, what do you mean there was no date on the camera?
should one set the date?
|
|
|
|
07/24/2004 09:42:04 AM · #35 |
| OK, i just finished voting on all the chocolate entries, and I have no chocolate in the house...time for a road trip to the local candy store... |
|
|
|
07/24/2004 10:25:40 AM · #36 |
Here are my 2c worth Lee..
I like the idea I think it shows a lot of creatitivy but I didn't like the chocolate around the mouth, not that it was there but how it looked like it was put there and not by the chocolate bar. Also I think the fingers could have been holding the chocolate on each side so that more of the bar was showing instead of a reverse negative sort of look to it on top.
For me prob a 6 maybe a 7.
Meets the challenge and shows some flare but dosen't quite pull it off for me.
Bob
|
|
|
|
07/24/2004 11:11:02 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by animes2k:
Originally posted by TooCool:
I didn't see this in the voting but would also have given it a low score... Probably a 4. To me this is too digital art and not enough photography left... |
I guess it could be seen as "digital art", but honestly, this high-key technique has been captured purely on film for years with no digital aspect whatsoever.
Everyone has a right to vote as they see fit, but "no lower than 5"? 5 to me is "average" and the bulk of my votes hover around 5. Some that wow me get higher, even if technically not perfect. Some get higher for being technically great even if they don't wow me... and vice-versa.
Complete failure to meet challenge, but technically perfect? 3-4...
I think this is a good even grading scale. Even if I don't like the theme or feel of a photo personally but shows creativity, is technically superb and meets the challenge, it will get a high score because it meets the requirements set out for such a competition. |
A techinically perfect shot is worthless if no one wants to look at it. So there is nothing wrong with someone giving any shot that they want a 4. Or a 3, 2, 1 for that matter...
Message edited by author 2004-07-24 11:12:38.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2004 12:04:57 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by goodman:
sorry, what do you mean there was no date on the camera?
should one set the date? |
If you don't set the date you will be DQd because you can't prove the shot was taken during the week of the challenge.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2004 08:26:22 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Konador:
If you don't set the date you will be DQd because you can't prove the shot was taken during the week of the challenge. |
ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS CHECK THAT THE DATE IS SET ON YOUR CAMERA!
|
|
|
|
07/24/2004 08:29:49 PM · #40 |
spanish, i would love to know how you did this shot. How in the world did you make the whites so white and at the same time keep the reds so vibrant? I've tried over and over for the last few days and can't even come close to matching your white and reds...
Any suggestions? |
|
|
|
07/24/2004 08:38:41 PM · #41 |
Alright,
A whole slew of people PM'd me, so I've decided just to post what I did here!
Unfortunately, I don't remember my exact steps, and even the order they go in, but I can tell you it took about 3 hours of painstakingly slow adjustments to get the image this way.
I'll tell you the basic functions I used, and let you folks play around with them, that way you'll learn WAY more then if I just laid it all out in front of you!
I used selective color to get the whites as white as I did. Simply lower the amount of black in both the neutral and white categories, but you have to be careful to keep your reds saturated enough.
To get the small amount of red out of the face, I used a combination of selective color, hue/saturation, levels and curves. The challenge is to desaturate just enough to get rid of the red in the face, but keep enough color in the lips to jack up the saturation later on. One thing that is helpful is that lips are slightly more magenta then skin!
This picture resulted from using the above tools, VERY SLOWLY in very small increments to ensure I didn't go too far. I doubt I could ever reproduce the same image as it required 100's of steps to produce!
Go out, and play around with stuff. Photoshop has endless ways of producing a certain effect, it's all a challenge to find a way to do it!
Lee
P.S. Outside the 'basic' editing rules all you have to do is desaturate the face using the sponge tool, and use selective color to whiten the whites, and hue/saturation to fancy up the lips. A MUCH easier way to go!
|
|
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: 06/22/2025 03:04:32 PM EDT.
