mikelc Posted November 6, 2008 Author Share #81 Posted November 6, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) hi ...here 's the untouched pic...i couldn't figure out how to upload a raw file here so i just converted it to a small jpeg mike Mike Cetta | Fine Art Photographer . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Hi mikelc, Take a look here A Grand Prize for me and my M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mikelc Posted November 6, 2008 Author Share #82 Posted November 6, 2008 ....sorry about that ...here's the origional Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/67193-a-grand-prize-for-me-and-my-m8/?do=findComment&comment=707105'>More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted November 6, 2008 Share #83 Posted November 6, 2008 Well, there's just a little less magic in the original than in the final version. There is real magic in the final image -- clearly so, looking at the original. Wow! What an incredible job of post-processing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikelc Posted November 6, 2008 Author Share #84 Posted November 6, 2008 yes...again i'm looking for the raw file to be just 'correct' in that it is compositionally correct and there is enough balance and info in the negative that i can then paint the color, texture and mood -using the color inherent in the origional pic-- to create the pic that i see.... ..doesn't matter to m what it's called...it's in the tradition of making pictures...the digital revolution has given us with the likes of PhotoSop et all, new tools to create new visual picture images....but don't fool yourself ALL photos are manipulated...for example life is not in black and white though noone woould say 'oh this is not a phot casue all the color has neen taken out'...there is nothing objective about any photo otherwise they'd all look the same mike Mike Cetta | Fine Art Photographer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wls.shanghai Posted November 6, 2008 Share #85 Posted November 6, 2008 nice image - but for me to artificial - to unnatural - ! like LasVegas at night - artificial dream world Regards wls Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted November 7, 2008 Share #86 Posted November 7, 2008 Mike--Here's another competition you might consider entering your image in: Creativity Unleashed | DigitalPhotoPro.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted November 7, 2008 Share #87 Posted November 7, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks very much for posting the original. It's very instructive on your creative process and makes me appreciate the final result even more. I do agree that all photos are manipulated, even documentary black and white. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikelc Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share #88 Posted November 7, 2008 thanks Brent for the tip mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted November 7, 2008 Share #89 Posted November 7, 2008 So, the original lacks breath, even though it radiates the same emotions as the processed one. The final is both strong, better and at least with this sample it shows that the correct dosage of filters results in a more emotional, better aesthetic output. Clearly thats not the case for most, who just use filters polluting in the end the photo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gesper Posted November 7, 2008 Share #90 Posted November 7, 2008 1. Absolutely love the content and composition. I would kill for a picture like that. 2. Original definitely needed some PP work. 3. Ideally (for me) the right answer would be somewhere just short of where it ended up. I agree with one poster that it hurts my eyes to look at it. Sort of like a back-lit Jeff Wall-type construction but made up of separate transparent layers of each individual person. The PP makes it look like a collage of individual pictures rather than the coherent whole which it is. The bottom line is you won with it, but still I would crank it back just a hair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted November 12, 2008 Share #91 Posted November 12, 2008 Wilfredo.....I have all their software but I use the Color Efex Pro 3.0 on every pic I work on...there are about 75 or so different filters and they are all customizable..like anything else they require patience and a learning curve but the time and effort is worth it as they are enormously versitle and flexible mike Mike Cetta | Fine Art Photographer Mike, I noticed that one version contains 52 filters. Are the B&W filters also included in it? Thanks, Wilfredo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted November 13, 2008 Share #92 Posted November 13, 2008 Interesting to see the original. Well seen to notice the possibilities in the shot and present it so artistic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WPalank Posted November 13, 2008 Share #93 Posted November 13, 2008 I noticed that one version contains 52 filters. Are the B&W filters also included in it? Wilfredo, Here is a chart that compares what you get in each edition. Looks like the B/W conversion is in the Select and Complete editions. Nik Software, Inc. | Color Efex Pro However, if you are referring to the Silver Efex Pro plug-in, it is a completely different program (plug-in) with it's own price point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikelc Posted November 13, 2008 Author Share #94 Posted November 13, 2008 yeah...i have the complete addition which has all 75 filters that include 2 b&w converters but the silver efex plugin is the one to get for it mike http://www.mikecetta.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D&A Posted November 13, 2008 Share #95 Posted November 13, 2008 Simply a wonderful and facinating image (nostalgic too since NY was my original home). What attracts me to this image is essentially what attracts me to work by Richard Estes (and others)..a painter who paints in a modernistic style or recreating scenes that almost look like photographs. In a sense your image is a reverse of that...where the photograph almost resembles a painting that tries to emulate a photograph. Enless interst as others mentioned in the stories captured within this one image. Thanks for posting! Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradreiman Posted November 15, 2008 Share #96 Posted November 15, 2008 I love the lady looking down her long, long legs - and all this in front of many young children - that is an expressionate style and voyerism rarely found in US - great to see it still exists in the country of conservatism and prudence. Well captured moment of reality-! A big heads-in from me and contratulations. If you think that voyeurism and "expressionate" style are rarely found in the US you must not have been here much. To quote Bill Maher..."we're the country that invented the internet-and filled it with porn". Furthermore...this is anything but a country of conservatism and prudence. Don't believe everything you read. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted November 15, 2008 Share #97 Posted November 15, 2008 ... Furthermore...this is anything but a country of conservatism and prudence. ... Does that include the Bible Belt, Brad? Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_dernie Posted November 16, 2008 Share #98 Posted November 16, 2008 Well first of all, what a fantastic image! I think I'm going to say what most will instantly disagree with, and I can understand, but I would much rather see the image as it comes out of the camera so that it stands on its own merits. This is now really a post-processing art-form which (to some people, though not your judges, obviously) can also detract from the capture by making it look more like an intricately painted water colour, than a photograph. It's slightly disconcerting and has unusual aspects to its appearance, and I feel that this is what people find attractive, rather that a strong photograph. There's nothing completely wrong with this, and it will in fact attract more admirers than just the well processed natural image would do. You don't even have to have an interest in photography to like an image like this, so immediately you have a larger audience. But as much as I like your 'digital Norman Rockwell like results', I can't help but think that it's losing something while gaining something else because of your 'redirecting' with your post-processing interests. It's a strong image as it is, and I would really like to see it before you did this post-processing work. It looks a bit too unreal, and therefore more like a painting where the artist has had all the time in the world to create it; as indeed a post-processor does. The fact that it's an instantaneous capture from a photographer is submerged slightly because of your post-processing work. But I do know that instant gratification is really the first impression that most people (and judges) respond to; but in doing so, something else equally as important can, I feel, be devalued, when it really shouldn't be. It's a great photograph, and a great captured moment, and I'd rather just see it printed. I'm certainly not saying there's anything wrong in working photographs in this way, that would be stupid, and the results can be very interesting. But I do think it's wrong to have such post-processing art judged in the same category as 'straight' photography. The two are quite different interests. I'm just a person in a minority here, I know. I'm just adding another point of view, but congratulations and well done. Jeffrey. Hi, have you ever read the Ansel Adams books? His prints were the most manipulated darkroom prints I have ever heard about. When I shot film, particularly Kodachrome printed onto Cibachrome in my darkroom, the amount of manipulation needed to get a print that was not rubbish was very time consuming and required years of experience to develop the skill. To get the look a photographer wants -any- manipulation of colour and contrast is fine by me. If I take issue with manipulation of photographs it is only where dishonest people add, subtract or heavily modify a photograph in order to mislead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_dernie Posted November 16, 2008 Share #99 Posted November 16, 2008 ...was fortunate enough to win the grand prize for this shot from the Summer Streets photo competition run by nyc dot for the event from this past august...the shot was taken with the m8 and 35 mm cron...just showing off i guess and plug for this incredible camera Inspiring! This has given me new impetus to get weaving with my "negatives" (RAW files) and devote as much time to them as I had to with my slides and Cibachrome. I also do not do B&W, or at least not since I could afford colour! I started with B&W like any 11 year old. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted November 16, 2008 Share #100 Posted November 16, 2008 Hi, have you ever read the Ansel Adams books? His prints were the most manipulated darkroom prints I have ever heard about.When I shot film, particularly Kodachrome printed onto Cibachrome in my darkroom, the amount of manipulation needed to get a print that was not rubbish was very time consuming and required years of experience to develop the skill. To get the look a photographer wants -any- manipulation of colour and contrast is fine by me. If I take issue with manipulation of photographs it is only where dishonest people add, subtract or heavily modify a photograph in order to mislead. Thanks for posting this. Although I have never read any of Ansel Adams books or books about him and how he got the final print I have heard all about it. Most of his work was do in the darkroom. I like the image posted very much. The original doesn't matter to me. That's like asking a painter or sculptor to show you the canvas or rock they started with to get the final painting or statue. Even if the image posted was a composite of multiple images doesn't matter. It's what the final image expresses that does matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.