| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/27/2004 09:29:35 AM · #1 |
Post your comments, questions, and reviews for...
'Selective Desaturation Within the Basic Editing Rules'
by Konador
View this tutorial here. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 10:21:32 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 10:21:54 AM · #3 |
| Excellent tutorial. While I've played with those sliders, I hadn't thought to change the colors at the top to adjust anything other than the master. Thank you! |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 10:44:49 AM · #4 |
| Very helpful. Thx for posting. |
|
|
|
07/27/2004 12:16:37 PM · #5 |
A great tutorial! Really opened my eyes to the other channels in hue/saturation (I only played with this control with the whole image). Thanks Ben
Best regards, Tyrkinn |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 01:33:42 PM · #6 |
Excellent tutorial. I just want to bump this to spread the word. Seems like we're getting DQ requests on every single selective desat image. It CAN be done legally. Also want to bump to try to decrease the amount of DQ's for illegal methods of desat.
For basic editing, please follow this tutorial. Thanks. :) |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 09:23:57 PM · #7 |
I really appreciate Konador's efforts, bravo. But is anyone else just plain sick of selective saturation? Granted I dabbled with Marshall pencils for hand coloring B&W back in the 80s, but it got old quickly.
Occasionally the subject benefits from its use, such as the image of the kids with the watermelon here on the DPC (sorry I don’t have a link), but it seems that it is being used indiscriminately. Even my non photographer wife thinks its so cliché.
Just because you can do it doesn̢۪t mean you should, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 09:27:07 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
...Just because you can do it doesn̢۪t mean you should, IMHO. |
Well, yeh, it gets old. But everyone has to try it once, LOL. Besides, every once in a while someone does one that REALLY works (like Laurie's Watermelon Pic)
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 09:28:31 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
I really appreciate Konador's efforts, bravo. But is anyone else just plain sick of selective saturation? |
I'll never be sick of it if it is done to advantage, done tastefully and done subtly. Most of what you see on this site is done tryingly for the novelty of it all.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 09:32:08 PM · #10 |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 09:32:22 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
I really appreciate Konador's efforts, bravo. But is anyone else just plain sick of selective saturation? Granted I dabbled with Marshall pencils for hand coloring B&W back in the 80s, but it got old quickly. |
I've only used somethng like that effect once myself. That one or two people use it every week does not make the technique any less "original" for the person trying it for the first time.
The photographer is not supposed to tailor their submission to accomodate your prior photographic viewing experience. (If they could read minds at a distance that effectively, I'd encourage them to head straight for the poker tables.)
It is the photo critic's obligation to evaluate each photo fairly, on its own merits. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 09:32:53 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
I really appreciate Konador's efforts, bravo. But is anyone else just plain sick of selective saturation? |
I am. It's my pet peeve along with fancy frames...
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 09:35:27 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
I really appreciate Konador's efforts, bravo. But is anyone else just plain sick of selective saturation? Granted I dabbled with Marshall pencils for hand coloring B&W back in the 80s, but it got old quickly. |
I've only used somethng like that effect once myself. That one or two people use it every week does not make the technique any less "original" for the person trying it for the first time.
The photographer is not supposed to tailor their submission to accomodate your prior photographic viewing experience. (If they could read minds at a distance that effectively, I'd encourage them to head straight for the poker tables.)
It is the photo critic's obligation to evaluate each photo fairly, on its own merits. |
Thank you!!! Thank you!!! Thank you!!! I concur!!!
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 09:40:16 PM · #14 |
| Great tutorial! It just shows me how much I DON"T know about Photoshop! |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 09:47:09 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by jonr:
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
I really appreciate Konador's efforts, bravo. But is anyone else just plain sick of selective saturation? |
I am. It's my pet peeve... |
For anyone saying they dislike SD as a blanket statement I say Selective Desat needs to be re-examined.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 03:04:17 AM · #16 |
| I love SD myself. I guess it fits into my taste if done well. To each their own. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 04:29:07 AM · #17 |
Excellent tutorial!
I didn't realise you could use the hue adjustment to shift the colours like that to help with the selective desat!
I'll have to keep an eye out for a picture to try it with now!
AL. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 05:15:09 AM · #18 |
Selective desat tends to divide voters in a similar way to softening pics with "Neat Image".
Both techniques are experimented with by almost everybody at some stage which I think leads to the "bad press".
However,with a little experience and thought in their use, they can both enhance an otherwise ordinary image.
Thanks to Ben for the tutorial. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 09:11:49 AM · #19 |
I did not think about changing the hue also, either.
Good to know, thanks. :) |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 11:21:35 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
For anyone saying they dislike SD as a blanket statement I say Selective Desat needs to be re-examined.
|
I never made a blanket statement against selective SD. I just find that it is way over used. IMHO our nice image wasn't improved by its use. I think it needs to add to the image. The movie pleasentville is an excellent example of its use. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 11:35:20 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
IMHO our nice image wasn't improved by its use. |
How can you begin to comment of whether this image was improved without first seeing the original?
Message edited by author 2005-09-08 11:35:44.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 01:25:22 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
IMHO our nice image wasn't improved by its use. |
How can you begin to comment of whether this image was improved without first seeing the original? |
One can assume that the reason to add or subtract elements from a photograph is to enhance the subject mater, right? The subjects of this photograph I suspect are the children. Then why would you concentrate on removing color from the background? If the color of the chair is distracting one could burn in the areas to make them less noticeable & place the emphasis on the subject. What the SD has done here is drawn your eye away from the subject to the background. Granted this image is subtle compared to many here that very awkwardly use the technique without rhyme or reason.
Of course everything is subjective, and I̢۪m not right or wrong. My point was that it is being over used just like synthesizers were in 80s music.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 01:46:47 PM · #23 |
I agree with you hyperfocal that it does seem to get used a lot and it seems that when doing any modification on a picture, you should ask yourself, am I doing this because I can or doing it because I should?
That having been said, SD is a powerful tool that can be used in many different ways. nsbca7 has used it in a different way than usual and has presented that image as an example of how the tool can be changed to have a different effect. I think his pic has benefitted from its use simply because I can clearly see that there is a mood being presented here in the image. I don't need to see the original to know it.
I personally use SD when I find an image that needs to have attention drawn off something. Because I kind of suck in general and am pretty new to this scene, I often use it to draw the eye away from blurred parts of pictures.
I have recently been experimenting with more subtle levels of desat to bring attention where it is meant to go without going all the way to black and white.
Additionally, selective desat can be an alternative to burning and dodging in BASIC EDITING rules where such things are not allowed.
Tools are there to be used. Judge each picture as it comes.
Note, you are fully authorized to complain if I ever get around to figuring out how to shoot a portrait of my friend in black and white selective desat with color replacement to turn his blue eyes crystal red while leaving in the ruddy redness in his face in a subtle way right from my camera.
Message edited by author 2005-09-08 13:51:11. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 02:03:40 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
One can assume that the reason to add or subtract elements from a photograph is to enhance the subject mater, right? The subjects of this photograph I suspect are the children. Then why would you concentrate on removing color from the background? If the color of the chair is distracting one could burn in the areas to make them less noticeable & place the emphasis on the subject. |
One could burn it if one were given to heavy editing of their images. I guess one could use Glausian Blur. Talk about cliche.
Subtracting the yellow from the couch and the girls shirt places the emphisis on the children and away from those distracting bright colors that were in the original image. And this, IMO, was done in a very subtle way. Not at all like someone had suggested that I make the eyes more blue.
All I'm suggesting with this image, whether this appeals to you or not, is that there are subtle uses for selective desaturation.
Message edited by author 2005-09-08 14:18:09.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 02:05:23 PM · #25 |
| Hey, you guys want to talk about that photo then start a thread. This one is for discussing the tutorial. Thanks. |
|
