3-6-13 – Software Hootenanny 3

Not to add to the drama but… [cue the drama]

Elsinore, please delete my three images from this contest.

FTR: The egg shot is a single image, warmed to 10K (could be done equally with a filter), sharpened, and dust data despeckled. Technically, since I could have SET the color temp, it’s totally within bounds of any fark contest.

The lightning shot is two images layered, and could be done in a darkroom with masking techniques Ansel Adams and others used nearly (if not in fact) 100 years ago.

The R2 shot is three images, and uses the same techniques as the lightning, excepting that R2 would need to be masked in using a raptor reduction lens.

I thought this was the consensus, but its apparent in the post-thread discussion that this is being debated like the shenanigans in Washington D.C. over tax hikes and budget cuts.

And I loathe political discussions.

And I’m not too big on drama, either (even when I’ve employ it; makes me feel dirty to do so). I want a divorce.

//pics up photography sandbox tools, leaves the playground.

As one of the perpetrators of an “extreme” alteration, I was/am willing to play within whatever ruleset is established. It’s why I asked in the first place.
One reason I went with the frog is that it was mine, and after spending hours with filters (and several other source pics), I only was happy with the Warhol pic. I didn’t even get to the kaleidoscope until after I was done with the warp-tool one. I went with that particular kaleidoscope pattern as it was easy enough to see enough of the frog to get the gist of what I had started with in the other 2 pics. Although there were a couple other potentials when all was said and done, I liked the feel of having a series based on the same original pic, even though I knew I wasn’t going to do very well with at least 2 of them for that very reason.

What makes this different from PS contents is that everything still has to be the photographer’s original source material, and if that’s crap, no amount of filters, HDR, or cutting and pasting is going to change that.

I specifically kept this in mind. Both my source and my pieces were mine. When I do a warp-tool for a PS contest, usually, neither are mine. It actually made this harder than usual from a selecting sources standpoint.

Whatever the consensus is, I’ll work within the guidelines. Part of the fun (for me) is figuring out how to do that.

As for “over-processed”, I’m sure I’m an occasional abuser of that as well. Part of it is my own personal aesthetic, and part of it continues to be my home computer… when I open contests on my work computer, even I occasionally think mine are a bit more contrasty than I expected. Usually they come out right, though.

Given how rarely I do any photoshopping anymore, I did enjoy this excursion, but it’s not what I want to do every week. I want to continue to get better at photography. Somebody mentioned composition… fortunately I was trained with that in mind, so it’s usually foremost in terms of shooting and selecting. Usually.

This was fun… let’s do something else next week… shall we?

Hey CISS,

How did you do those circular panoramas?

Hey CISS,

How did you do those circular panoramas?

Now that the contest’s started, I’m happy to share that, swampa. 🙂 At its core, it’s pretty simple, but there are a couple of tricks I discovered, so let me put together a quick tutorial and I’ll post it in the Tips & Tricks section.

In the Tips & Tricks section, How to make a mini planet or ringworld.

And this is the last I’ll say about the current debate: For me, this forum & the contests are about having some fun with a hobby I enjoy. And I don’t consider this contest that far off the beaten path because as I said earlier, “cut ‘n paste” or “layering with selective erasing” or “non-homogeneous transparency” or whatever you want to call it is used not only in the art world but also commercially all the time. Do I want to do this every week? Hell no. But this was a fun diversion and I wouldn’t mind doing it again in a couple of years.

Yes, it’s great to learn from others, hone my photography skills, have some light-hearted competition. But once that stops being fun… Let’s just say that I’ve got enough un-fun things in my life without voluntarily introducing others.

Here’s my take, this contest was meant to allow for all the stuff the contests usually limit, to see what levels of creativity the participants could produce with post processing (if they so desired). I’m perfectly fine playing by the set farktography rules, it does provide a fairly level playing field for all participants while keeping the photos looking like photos. Everything beyond the eye and the mind of the photographer is a tool. Be it the camera, the lens, the filter (physical or software), HDR, image stacking, etc etc etc. All the fancy filters in the world doesn’t make up for poor composition, or poor execution of the idea, or flat out unimaginative subject matter. And sometimes through some persistence at the computer you can turn something that started out like this:

into this:

Which is more true to the original scene? Hard to say, it certainly wasn’t blown out like the original, but not quite as rich in color as the after. But I saw potential in the composition once I squared up the horizon and adjusted the exposure a bit, but took a while to get something that matched what I envisioned for the photo. I was fine knowing that I couldn’t use this shot for lakes, or sunsets, or silhouettes, or most any other contest, but liked it enough that for this contest I decided to enter it. At the end of the day it’s about sharing our work and seeing how our own work stacks up against each others in the eye of farkers (as odd as they tend to be).

// my .04 cents.

fluffy, can you post a link to your original tulip? Your “liquify” effect is really well done and I just want to get an idea of what all went into it.

I will leave myself a note to do the uploading when I get home tonight.

The essence is this (my composition but not my technique, props to teh googles, especially http://www.itexpert.net/photoshop-applying-melting-effect-to-an-object/):

1) Photograph the (art glass) tulip in high key with a soft box to minimize shadows.

2) Run some chocolate syrup along the edge of a white card and put it vertically and at the desired horizontal angle in front of another white card, photograph in same lighting. (many takes here to get the timing right and capture “just the right drips”).

3) High contrast syrup is easily isolated in PS/Gimp (and contains the necessary reflections) .

4) Sample the tulip for color palette and apply to syrup (browns are now greens or reds)

5) Layer and warp as needed to get “drips” aligned and masked. (I used an isolated copy of just the tulip as a top layer to cover the top edges of the syrups, four layers in total: 2x syrup, 1x “tulip only” and background as the original tulip against white)

6) Drop shadows to taste.

7) Fin.

Thanks for the compliment. I was blown away by your “skylines”. I think they (and examples like what we’re talking about, orionid’s self portrait comes to mind) are a good demonstration of some points people have made here. All the “artistic” elements of photography are still very much at play, the digital trickery just adds an new vector of creativity. Like many who’ve already stated it (myself included), this was fun, a learning experience and a nice diversion but it is not why I farktograph (verb?). Call me a pragmatic purist I guess. In the end, you get out of farktography only what you put in. The rules are voluntary and stepping outside of them only hurts you.