| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/16/2005 01:04:23 AM · #1 |
sorry to waste everyones time who looked at my last post.
this one should work.[ Black Daisys
Message edited by author 2005-03-16 01:05:23. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 01:11:40 AM · #2 |
| anyway as i said in my other defecto thread I really value everyones opinion. Was i right to be pleased with these or are they unimaginitive crap? Be honest. I took a rather boring picture of a couple of Daisys i cranked up the brightness and the contrast even more then i cranked up the saturation brightened the shadows applied gaussian blur and selected negative. This was done on Photostich, a program you get free with Canon scanners. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 01:14:39 AM · #3 |
| Thank you to Colda for introducing me to Photobucket |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 01:27:40 AM · #4 |
I think that in this case, negative art doesn't add a thing to the image. As a matter of fact, it removes possible points of interest, as you eye and ur mind struggle with a different reality, to make up something of the image!
Maybe if u try and treat it using the "positive" (if i can call it that way) version of the image, u might end up having a better result!
my 2 centavos
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 01:28:04 AM · #5 |
| just to throw in what i use, www.imageshack.us is also a great image hosting site |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 01:56:20 AM · #6 |
| Thank you for taking a look scuds. I think i understand what you mean , the images are somewhat degraded by the negative filter- but without it they would not look the way they do and the final result imho is much more pleasing than the uninspired original image. I thought the ones with tighter crops were kinda cool in a graphic art kinda way. I appreciate your honesty though. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 02:10:56 PM · #7 |
| sorry i gotta bump this up cause i really want to get a few more opinions on these photos |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 02:24:53 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Steve2000:
sorry i gotta bump this up cause i really want to get a few more opinions on these photos |
I gotta agree with scuds. I'd like to see this picture as you took it. The picture on ur site of the slug is good tho, needs a little tighter focus on it but also looks good as it stands |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 02:44:01 PM · #9 |
| There are certainly people out there who like the inverted photographic style. It's a small niche but the internet is large so you may find them out there somewhere. When you do something like this it becomes more artistic than just merely a photograph and as such the like/dislike is very subjective. Personally I dont really care for the effect. Maybe it's stereotyping but usually the gimmicky photoshop (or equivilant) filters are used by the inexperienced because it takes their image and changes it into something completely different. Trying to take a boring image and retaking the shot over and over from different angles and using different lighting could be more fruitful. But again, it's all based on personal opinion and what you are trying to produce in the first place. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 02:45:17 PM · #10 |
i think i should point out that not using the negative filter on this photo was not an option i had to use it to get the effect i was looking for. I guess what i should have asked was not "do you agree with how i made this picture" but "do you find these images pleasing to the eye". Thanx
Oh and as far as the picture of the slug goes it was originally a sharper focus but i applied gaussian blur to make the image softer.
Again, thanks for the honest opinion. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 03:05:51 PM · #11 |
Thanks for your 2 cents moodville i appreciate it. You mentioned that these images are more artistic than photographic and thats exactly what i wanted to hear. I didn't want a beutifuly focused technicaly excellant photo realistic shot of a daisy- thats been done to death- I wanted to go beyond that level and explore it in a different way. There are a lot of technically excellant photos out there that are just plain boring or have been done over and over again. Close ups of tigers, and light bulbs that are on even though they arent hooked up just dont evoke any emotion, they dont make you feel anything. You see what i'm getting at? you gotta dare to do something different.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2005 06:48:35 PM · #12 |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 07:25:19 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Steve2000:
I didn't want a beutifuly focused technicaly excellant photo realistic shot of a daisy- thats been done to death- I wanted to go beyond that level and explore it in a different way. |
Sorry to burst your bubble but inverted flowers have also been done. The difference is that the majority of people dont really find them that interesting and so they dont feature prominently. It's the same with everything, different people have different tastes and the things that appeal to them do not appeal to others and vice versa. On DPC you'll find the majority rules and so images with a broader appeal are going to be what you see more often. That's not to say one cannot be different but it is usually an upward struggle that only those truly confident in their artistic vision can handle. As for originality, there really isnt such a thing as normally something has already been done somewhere by someone or else derived from it - which is commonly called inspiration. For some photography isnt about producing something different but sharing visions of the world with other people. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 07:36:02 PM · #14 |
Let's pretend for a moment that this was the first time I had ever seen that negative effect done. I'd say: "wow, that is different" and then arrive at exactly where I am now.
Yes, it's not "normal", but does that make it better? Certainly not in this case.
You did not improve on a pretty original, you did not add anything of value. You just presented something natural in a "wrong" way.
I find them irritating, if anything. Sorry, but you did ask for opinions.
The slug is a different story - nice closeup, clear enough to try and study details you don't normally get to see. The fact that the background is a little messy doesn't worry me at all.... after all, that is the true and natural environment. The blur helps the eyes to concentrate on the slug. I like it. |
|
|
|
03/16/2005 07:52:54 PM · #15 |
Any time i see a picture of a flower that I have not grown it is lewd no matter what the post processing has done to the image. My moral standards may be different from yours but that doesn't make them wrong.
Ok lets look at it another way. Forget that i find this photo slightly Botanographic, lets look at the merits of the image alone. In any image there are three "contributers"- The photographer, the camera, and the subject. Now you have a high end point and shoot camera and it delivered a technically excellant image as for the subject, well it is pleasing to the eye so it has made its contribution. but what has the photographer contributed to the image that i haven't seen a million times before?
And as for my opinion on the tastefulness of the photo, or lack thereof. Some might say that there is tastful floral photography. I say that you have no business looking at a flower that you have not grown. The Chrysanthemum leucanthemum is a beautiful thing and it is not something that we should be ashamed of. But a Chrysanthemum leucanthemum is for it’s grower’s pleasure and vice versa. That is respect.
Sorry, i seem to have hijacked this thread. I'll leave you morally bankrupt heathens to wallow in your own compost piles.
If you are honest with yourself you'll know i'm right.
*BIG WINK*... You need to lighten up Steve
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 06:15:55 AM EDT.
