Topic: "Photoshop Processing"

[Michael]

Here are the links -

http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=sunrise&m=pool&w=59171336%40N00&page=9
http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=sunrise&m=pool&w=59171336%40N00&page=9
(This link will look different eventually as other photos get added or move up/down in the pool.)
Notes on the photo:
"Taken in Nudgee Beach, Brisbane, QLD, AU (map)
Taken on Jan 30, 2010"


http://www.flickr.com/photos/luminous_photography/4315031774/

The same photographer takes another as well:



He adds he used "ISO 100, f/11, 18mm, 0.5sec | 0.9 Lee ND grad | Lightroom and Photoshop Processing" (on both photos). I don't know what the latter 2 things are, but it seems possible he used some sort of effect.

One takes his word that he named the location accurately, but I couldn't say.

Photoshop for those who don't know is the photo editing software, that now has no competitors. "Photoshop" has become a verb, and not a positive one. It means to distort reality by applying Photoshop's incredible tools of image manipulation.

This has caused considerable consternation and questioning. Many people feel image manipulation is just part of the artistic process - we accept it in music. Others, the purists, feel it is not a 'true' rendition of an object.

I am not a purist myself, and quite enjoy what Photoshop can offer an artist.

However the matter turns more tacky when the image is of a person, especially a famous person like a model or movie star etc.

It was this picture which got people's hackles up:

Kate doesn't look like this at all - her legs were elongated and she was made slimmer.

Dylan Jones, GQ's editor, said that her picture had been manipulated "no more than any other cover star", and that "practically every photo you see in a magazine will have been digitally altered in this way".

I think we just have to get used to the fact that things are not always what they seem - we have an obsession with physical reality as truth. But what about the truth of mythical reality. As Julie said to her class yesterday, "Myths can be true in the way an artistic painting can be true".

[Michael]

[Nichi]

Before I lost my camera (before the advent of digital cameras), I was about to play with using various filters on it, along with the zooms I was going to get for it. I don't see a problem with manipulating/coloring/filtering one's subject...

However, to stick completely different body parts on someone: I just hope Kate W. agreed to that. I remember being unhappy with my "high school portrait", because they painted my face (I was radical hippie-type at the time: no make-up!)

[Muffin]

The effect in the shot with the sunset is probably HDR - High Dynamic Range. You take the same shot with different exposure settings then merge them to produce an image where the highlights, the midtones and the shadows are all balanced and become visible in the same photo.

My guess is that if you would set the exposure to capture the intensity of the red clouds, you wouldn't see the ripples in the water in the right angle.

[Nichi]

The next one is one of those HDR images Rudi mentioned above -

Photographer's note: "4 exposures with a little Orton effect."
(in the next post)


http://www.flickr.com/photos/mike_lockie/2286551050/

The result was beautiful.

[Nichi]

[Michael]

That's a nice effect.

[Ke-ke wan]

With the newest version of Photoshop (we have a trial version)   there is a cool new feature called "thinning" that automatically makes the subject of the photo look thinnner.   Haven't tried it,  but not surprised someone has thought of this!

[Nichi]

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100629.html

[Nichi]

I fancied this...