DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Impressionism: The non Masters Thread Challenge
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 168, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/12/2004 05:27:07 PM · #101
would the SMUDGE tool be "legal" under advanced rules???
 11/12/2004 05:29:58 PM · #102
I don't really want to see a photographer using the smudge tool. I don't know how legal it is, but if I reach that stage, I would give up photography and start painting.
 11/12/2004 05:32:18 PM · #103
Originally posted by xion:
I don't really want to see a photographer using the smudge tool. I don't know how legal it is, but if I reach that stage, I would give up photography and start painting.


LOL!! I just wnt to help mother nature a bit.... she doesn't want to give me what I want so....

I'm just curious to know if the site council would disqualify it. :-)
 11/12/2004 06:56:25 PM · #104
Thanks for this thread. I went out with a friend this evening and took some shots. These are the three I like the best. I have another one that is more suitable but I don't like it as much as these. Are they?
11/12/2004 07:01:57 PM · #105
Originally posted by pcody:



This one looks like a real impressionism Masters painting. I love it. It has this beautiful sunny, summer mood.

Great work and no need for smudge :)
 11/12/2004 07:11:29 PM · #106
Thanks. They were fun. What I discovered is that you can throw out the rules. Got a blown highlight? great! It looks like a sunny spot. Got blue afternoon shadows? Great. Don't they add a beautiful color to the picture. This is something I could fall in love with.
 11/12/2004 07:21:49 PM · #107
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:
I'm just curious to know if the site council would disqualify it. :-)

Given that this is an Advanced Editing challenge, selective use of the "Smudge" tool is no different than using the Dodge or Burn tools. There are no restrictions on the type of tools, filters and effects that can be used under the Advanced rules (unlike under Basic). The only restriction is not "using tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph". In other words, you can't clone a tree on one side of a scene to the other side ("duplicate"), you can't draw a new tree from scratch ("create"), and you can't re-locate the tree to the other side of the frame ("move").

For example, I was playing with converting this old challenge entry of mine:



to a more "painterly" look:



Such a treatment might not be popular with the voters, but there is nothing in the Advanced rules the prohibits this type of thing IMHO. The above "effect" was created by duplicating the original image multiple times onto new layers, applying Smart Blur (a key component to reducing detail while retaining edge detail), Gaussian Blur, Curves, etc. at various opacities and blending modes.

Message edited by author 2004-11-12 19:30:52.
 11/12/2004 07:41:13 PM · #108
Originally posted by pcody:
Thanks for this thread. I went out with a friend this evening and took some shots. These are the three I like the best. I have another one that is more suitable but I don't like it as much as these. Are they?


this one is great!

and if i may...three "reflection" shots that i took a couple of weeks ago.


they might not meet the true idea of "impressionist" but i like the effect of the foreground leaves in the first two. i suppose having some motion in the water would help a little--give some level of distortion to the trees.

anyway, this is a great thread. i can't wait to see the "real deal" from our expert friends.

best regards,
 11/12/2004 08:28:08 PM · #109
Daisy, those are beautiful. I especially like the 3rd one. But OMGosh -- it that a powerline reflected in the 1st one!!! :D Don't tell Lauie!! teehee

EddyG -- I really think that if Monet and the impressionists were alive today they'd be all into using whatever was at their disposal for creating the effect they wanted -- an impression of an instant in time. I love the painterly effects. And your example is a great one. I've always been a frustrated artist -- never able to achieve what I wanted to on canvas. Photography has allowed me to do that.

This IS a fun thread. I'm so inspired! I took some reflection shots this afternoon. I'm going to look at them now.
 11/12/2004 09:03:35 PM · #110
pcody: those are all very beautiful and impressionistic. Nice. My fav is transport. I really like the colors and softness there.

daisy77: more good shots from you, I think the cloud one has the most impressionistic possibilities, perhaps cropped some. The first one is great and almost "surreal" to me with leaves all over, almost flying around in the illusion.

EddyG: I like the overall effect, as I like most painterly works, but to me the effect is somehow "flatter" when done in PS. It lacks the natural imperfections which give it an extra texture and excitement (ok, that's pretty subjective). I did lots of these (including one I really do like, my Boy Fish) before I discovered how much I liked movement based effects, and there's lots of techniques, like the vasoline based method Gordon used for his post earlier. I'm almost getting a craving to buy a Holga. ;)

Message edited by author 2004-11-12 21:30:03.
 11/12/2004 09:12:13 PM · #111
Here's an experiment from last week. It's more abstract, but I like the colors.



Please let me know what you think. Also, earlier today I posted two flower shots: any comments on those? Not looking for strokes, looking for honest feedback (always). I want to only keep one (or none of those). Let me know what you think, which one too. I can clean up some if it's the one that needs a little cleaning on the table.

Message edited by author 2004-11-12 21:12:38.
 11/12/2004 09:39:11 PM · #112
Here you are! Wow! The work on this thread is awesome. Here's my contribution.






11/12/2004 09:57:09 PM · #113
nshapiro, have you ever seen the LensBaby? LensBaby I think it has the holga effect but in the form of a lens for your dslr. As soon as I get my Canon 10D I'm getting one. It looks like so much fun, and I love the impressionistic feel to the photos.

ancientimages, I hate to post my examples after seeing yours and all the others, but I did try today in the little time I had between work and dark: You can see the dark clouds starting to roll in on the right, but I didn't want to cut off part of the tree.
A little plain.
11/12/2004 10:15:16 PM · #114
Originally posted by dipaulk:
nshapiro, have you ever seen the LensBaby? LensBaby


Here is a little something done with lensbaby. Btw, you don't have to pay $100 for it, this kinda lens can be made out of any old lens and a 10x loupe.

11/12/2004 10:42:30 PM · #115
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
Originally posted by dipaulk:
nshapiro, have you ever seen the LensBaby? LensBaby


Here is a little something done with lensbaby. Btw, you don't have to pay $100 for it, this kinda lens can be made out of any old lens and a 10x loupe.



Now that's cool! Digital Holga! Great images--I particularly like the first. How though--just hold it in front of the lens? Can you show your setup?

Message edited by author 2004-11-12 22:54:32.
 11/12/2004 10:44:53 PM · #116
Originally posted by dipaulk:
nshapiro, have you ever seen the LensBaby? LensBaby I think it has the holga effect but in the form of a lens for your dslr. As soon as I get my Canon 10D I'm getting one. It looks like so much fun, and I love the impressionistic feel to the photos.

ancientimages, I hate to post my examples after seeing yours and all the others, but I did try today in the little time I had between work and dark: You can see the dark clouds starting to roll in on the right, but I didn't want to cut off part of the tree.
A little plain.


Yes, I saw Setz or someone post about that the other day--just seemed kind of expensive.

BTW I like both of these but the effect in the top one is almost too subtle. Maybe when larger... But then it seems that most people think I'm too extreme in this...

Regards--Neil

Message edited by author 2004-11-12 22:48:56.
 11/12/2004 11:04:39 PM · #117
Neil, my husband said the first one just looked like an out-of-focus photo, so I'm thinking you're right about it being too subtle.

Yurasocolov, thanks for posting those. They're great. Unfortunately, I don't have any old lens nor that other thing you mentioned. I'm very new to all this!
 11/12/2004 11:32:49 PM · #118
Originally posted by dipaulk:
Neil, my husband said the first one just looked like an out-of-focus photo, so I'm thinking you're right about it being too subtle.


I think that's another good point - it needs to be something that looks deliberate. Slightly out of focus doesn't work so well. It helps if the the intention is clear.
 11/12/2004 11:56:14 PM · #119


Here is my attempt at impressionism. I used to paint in that style so I hope this Isn̢۪t to far astray from photography.
 11/13/2004 12:22:21 AM · #120
Originally posted by jmritz:


Here is my attempt at impressionism. I used to paint in that style so I hope this Isn̢۪t to far astray from photography.


John, well I'm not a painter, nor even a qualified art critic, but to me this looks too regular, the paint "dabs" too perfect, the dabs too "sharp"--which to me is too artificial. I have nothing against PS or even PS filters. I am not saying you can't do this in PS, with PS editing, I am saying that I think--ok, I am sure someone can prove me wrong--that I can tell the difference between a simple filtered approach and a artistic interpretation. Personally, I would rather see your own brush strokes on the photo than that of the filter.

Now I don't pretend to have any real art background, so what I am giving is simply subjective criticism. I think if you posted this at ArtSIG you would get the same response (I know that from experience--I got it when I first started trying this.) I didn't really understand then, but since I've been experimenting more, I understand better what they are saying.

That being said, I know there are some really sophisticated paint programs out there that can do a convincing job of filtering. And doing multiple filters, layers, and other effects, can add a personal interpretation to the work too.

Hope you take this in the constructive fashion it was offered. ;)

Feel free to blast some of my work. I'd enjoy the criticism.

Message edited by author 2004-11-13 00:24:56.
 11/13/2004 12:27:05 AM · #121
I can Neil. Thanks. Just having fun.
jm
 11/13/2004 12:32:57 AM · #122
Originally posted by jmritz:
I can Neil. Thanks. Just having fun.
jm


Cool. I should add that I was offering a critique and not meant to discourage you or anyone from posting ANY kind of experiments to this thread. (Though I consider posting a "request for critique") ;)

Now I am curious to see your impressionistic paintings. They posted anywhere?

Message edited by author 2004-11-13 00:42:42.
 11/13/2004 02:34:21 AM · #123
Neil. Have you ever used a hand held +2 or 4 diopter on front of a 200mm or 300mm lens? If you angle the diopter, you can create nice distortion effects while still having one area of the picture in focus. The only downside is you will get some ca. I used silly putty to hold the diopter in place at an angle this summer for some flower shots. This one was taken at 300mm using a +4. You can move the focal point around but I seem to have centered it in this one.
 11/13/2004 10:31:19 AM · #124
Originally posted by pcody:
Neil. Have you ever used a hand held +2 or 4 diopter on front of a 200mm or 300mm lens? If you angle the diopter, you can create nice distortion effects while still having one area of the picture in focus. The only downside is you will get some ca. I used silly putty to hold the diopter in place at an angle this summer for some flower shots. This one was taken at 300mm using a +4. You can move the focal point around but I seem to have centered it in this one.


I assume you are talking about a closeup filter? No, I've never tried that. I have some 49mm closeups from my Canon G2. I can try that with my dRebel if I use the kit lens as I think my other lenses are too wide to even hold in front.

I also have an "A" series Cokin adapter with a 49mm ring. I am thinking of getting a 62mm ring for that, or going for a "P" kit for my 62 and 67mm diameter lenses. That would allow me to put all kinds of things "easily" in front of the lens. I just have to look at cost and convenience (It's more convenient to change filters but I never liked having that square thing in front of my lens.)

I like the distortion effect you have here, but I am not as keen on the all bitonal red. Did you tone this to get rid of the CA? Have you tried anything with some nice pastels :)

Regards--Neil
11/13/2004 12:08:09 PM · #125
I dug out some pictures from this spring.


The first three don't have much distortion but I like the way they look. The forth shows the amount of ca that you can get and the fifth is the first I tried. It has a lot of distortion. I had the diopter turned almost to a 30 degree angle. The only processing I did to the first 3 was to take out some dust spots.
I didn't mean to hog the thread.
carry on
Changed to two that were done with tin foil. Both on foil with movement.

Message edited by author 2004-11-14 14:10:33.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/12/2025 12:47:37 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/12/2025 12:47:37 AM EDT.