All the entries on chromasia are placed into one of seven primary categories: six to reflect the aspect ratio of the image, and the seventh to indicate that an image isn’t available as a print. Additionally, each photograph may be assigned to one of more additional categories or subcategories, e.g. my HDR category, self-portrait category, children category, and so on.
The 'digital art' category is for shots that include some substantial alteration to either (or both) the content (the addition of items that weren't in the original shot, or the almalgamation of several images) or appearance of the original(s).
For reasons that I'll explain when I post my next entry, this image marks a transition: a state change, both in terms of what I'll be posting, and the ways in which I want to develop my photography for the foreseeable future. Watch this space :)
As for this one: it's a composite shot of five originals, none of which were sufficiently interesting to post on their own but, when combined, create something that's visually more interesting.
As always, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
|
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped? |
1.40pm on 9/3/10 Canon 5D Mark II EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM 70mm f/4.0 1/320 (or thereabouts) aperture priority -1/3 evaluative 100 no RAW ACR kind of |
As I was waiting for the guests to arrive at Venice town hall for the wedding I shot a couple of weekends ago I noticed some masks in a shop window. I took a variety of shots, from different angles, but wasn't convinced that any of them would work out as there was quite a bit of glare from the window, and I couldn't really get an angle I was happy with.
That said, I did try processing three of them, all of which are included on the following page:
Unfortunately though, despite the fact that there are some interesting elements in each of the three shots, none of them ended up being worth posting, and I was about to ditch all three when I realised that they might work if I combined them.
In terms of the post-production: first, I combined the three images by stacking them and using Soft Light blend mode and masks to create an image composed of all three originals. I then duplicated and flipped the image, then used another mask to blend this newly created layer with the three images below it. I then warped and altered the colour balance of the left side of the image and increased the overall saturation using the Channel Mixer. I also added some local contrast using the Topaz Adjust plugin.
I don't have a tutorial that covers this sort of montaging technique, at least not specifically, but many of the techniques I used to blend the original images are covered in my Working with textures: part one tutorial.
The end result is an image, in my opinion at least, that's faithful to the spirit of the original scene, but not the reality. As always, let me know what you think.
Oh, and this one works much better with the black theme.
I still haven't managed to get out and shoot any new material so thought I'd post a follow-up to my previous entry, i.e. another mosaic constructed using MacOSaiX. This one is based on one of my favourite beachombing shots, there's nothing on: a shot of an old television that John Washington and I photographed back in 2005.
If you're thinking of trying this process, using either MacOSaiX (for Mac) or AndreaMosaic (for PC), you will probably find that most of your attempts aren't great. For example, I've tried using at least 20 of my own images as the basis for a mosaic, and have only liked two of them, i.e. this one and my previous mosaic portrait. Part of the problem, in my case at least, is that I just don't have enough images to construct a convincing mosaic, at least not without using the same images more than once. As I've been trying to avoid this – by using each of the 1600+ images I've posted on chromasia just once in each mosaic – most of my attempts have ended up looking far too random.
By the same token, I've found that black and white mosaics work best, as each tile just need to be matched to the source image in terms of contrast and content, but not colour. Again, if you have access to a very large number of images, colour matching might work well, but with the images I was playing around with it simply didn't work.
What did work though, at least I think so, is the technique I used for this image, i.e. I superimposed the original image over the top of the mosaic, changed the blend mode to colour, then lowered the opacity to around 75%. The net result is that the contrast and content is determined by the individual tiles while the base image sets the overall colour.
As with my previous entry, I've posted a much larger mosaic here:
http://www.chromasia.com/iblog/archives/theres_nothing_on_mosaic_3000.php
Oh, and in case you're wondering about why this one was cropped to 16x9: I would have preferred to have retained the 3x2 ratio of the original, but the bottom section of the image was rendered last, using images that were far too bright for this area of the image. Again, had I had more images to work with, a 3x2 mosaic would probably have worked well, but just didn't work out in this case.
As I mentioned in my last post I've writing a new book, which is now finished, so it shouldn't be too long until I find some time to shoot some new material. In the short-term though I'm slightly hampered as Libby is currently back in the UK and I have all four of the younger kids and one of the older ones. I should be able to find some time - in between referring, cooking, shopping, and so on, but it's likely to be limited.
I'm also slightly hampered by the fact that my 1Ds Mark II is broken (though I still have my 5D). I was shooting some material for the book, on 1st and 2nd curtain sync, and the shutter broke. If you take a look at the following url you will see that one of the shutter blades has become detached:
http://www.chromasia.com/misc/shutter.jpg
In other words, it's going to need a new shutter which I'll sort out next time I'm back in the UK. In the meanwhile though Libby is picking up a Canon 5D Mark II which she'll bring back next weekend. I've thought about getting one for ages, but haven't been able to justify the expense, so thought this would be as good a time as any :)
All of which leaves us with this image. It was constructed with MacOSaiX, from 1600 of the 1644 images that have been posted on chromasia, and used a portrait of me as the base image. The portrait was shot by my good friend Bobbi Lane, and is the one I use for my profile pic on Facebook and Twitter.
At this resolution it's a bit difficult to tell what you're looking at, so I've posted a bigger version here:
http://www.chromasia.com/iblog/archives/mosaic_portrait.php
If you do take a look, it will take some time to load as it's 3000px square and 2.8MB. The base image is included at the bottom-right of the mosaic. I can't imagine that this is a technique I'll be repeating, but it was fun to put this one together.
On an unrelated matter: my good friend Adam Swords has just launched his new website. If you haven't already done so, take a look:
Having written two tutorials on the topic of working with textures (details about part one are here, part two here) I thought it was about time that I posted something that used the techniques. And while I'm reasonably pleased with how this one turned out it would definitely be fair to say that this is a technique that I understand more from a technical point of view than I do from an artistic one; i.e. I can do it, but am still struggling a bit with working out the aesthetics for this type of image. What I can say though is that they're a lot of fun to produce.
If you're interested, the base image is here:
On a related matter: we're currently running a 4th of July special offer on our tutorials and are offering a 25% discount on the first year's payment of an annual subscription or our lifetime membership package. If you're interested there are some further details here:
http://www.chromasia.com/tutorials/online/
Update: if you missed our 4th of July promotion, don't worry, we're still offering a 15% discount until the end of July :-)
There was a great line up of photographers at this year's GPP training event – Joe McNally, David Hobby, Drew Gardner, Vincent LaForet, Zack Arias, Carol Dragon, Chase Jarvis, Cliff Mautner, Asim Rafiqui, Chris Hurtt, Bobbi Lane, and Robin Nichols – and while I'd met many of them at last year's event, there were a few new faces this time round.
One of the newbies was Zack Arias, the (multiple) subject of this shot. If you're not familiar with his work, take a look at his website, and be sure to check out a video I linked in a previous post – Transformed – it's a great piece of work. You might also want to check out his OneLight DVD. I'm just working my way through it at the moment and would definitely recommend it if you need any help/inspiration on how to use a single strobe to light your subjects.
As for this image: I didn't set out to produce a composite portrait, but was shooting Zack in the Souk as he was filming with his Flip Mino. I didn't think that any of them would be especially great (I was snapping rather than thinking about what I was doing), but when I looked through them I realised that while none of the individual shots were particularly good, they might work well as a set. Part of the reason I was prompted to think of a composite image was because Zack shot the group portrait at GPP this year using a single strobe to light 29 people dotted around a dark auditorium - one by one. If you're interested, the final image and Zack's description of the process are here:
As always, let me know what you think.
First of all, thanks for all the comments on my last post. I know that HDR images aren't everyone's cup of tea so it was good to see that it was well received.
On the subject of HDR images, Craig posted an HDR portrait of me a couple of days ago. In terms of technique, I think it was pretty well done, but the content leaves a bit to be desired. Mind you, I really hate seeing photographs of myself – there's just something really odd about the whole experience :-)
On a different matter, and related to this image, I just posted our latest tutorial – Working with textures: part one. I'm particularly pleased with this one, not least because I used some of Mike Regnier's work to illustrate the tutorial in addition to a couple of my own. If you're not familiar with Mike's work then you really should pay his site a visit – he's a genius when it comes to working with textures.
Anyway, having said all that ...
This one combines one original image and two textures: a shot of the North Pier, another of a ripped canvas blind, and another of a water stain on a wall. It's not quite up to Mike's standard, but I'm pretty pleased with how it turned out.
As always, let me know what you think, even if it's only to tell me that you don't like it :)
This is a follow up to the one I posted the other day, and I thought I'd try something different with this one.
One of the techniques that I understand in principle is how to layer textures into an image, but I don't yet feel as though I have much of an aesthetic grasp of how the final image should look. For example, I think that this one is interesting, and I did have a vague idea about using the textures to add a rain-like effect to the sky, but it seems to have ended up looking a bit more random than I intended.
It is a technique I'm working on though, as I'm planning on releasing a tutorial on this topic in mid December. Because I'm less familiar with this topic than some of the others I've written about, and because I think it will be an interesting and rewarding experience, I'm co-writing it with Mike Regnier. If you take a look at his website – linked below – you will see that he's a definite master at this technique:
http://www.regnierphotography.com
|
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped? |
3.19pm on 4/11/08 Canon 1Ds Mark II EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM 45mm f/5.6 1/60 aperture priority +1/3 evaluative 100 no RAW ACR minor |
While a lot of my images are quite heavily processed it's rare that I combine images, not because I think there's anything wrong with doing so, but because I find it difficult to achieve an end result that I like. For example, I would love to be able to produce the sort of images that Mike Regnier creates, and while I do understand the process, I find that my attempts often fall short of what I would like to achieve.
In this case though I'm relatively pleased with the end result which was constructed from two originals – a shot of a mannequin, and another of a wall – both of which can be seen here:
.../archives/fragments_of_you.php
I'll probably produce a tutorial on this topic at some point, but think I need some more practice first :-)
Since I got back from Barcelona I've struggled to take any decent photographs, mostly I think because I'm lacking in inspiration at the moment. So, in an effort to kick-start some creativity, I went up to Fleetwood today with my Lensbaby. Unfortunately though, I didn't get anything I was especially happy with, other than part of this one. And in case it isn't obvious, this is two images - a lensbaby shot of the iron structure on the beach, overlaid by a shot of a cracked wall.
I realise this won't be to everyone's taste, but a) it's different, and b) I really like the how the different points of focus appears to be on different planes; i.e. part of the ironwork, some of the background, and so on.
And I haven't posted the EXIF data, as it isn't really relevant, but the beach shot was taken with the f/8.0 aperture insert.
This is a shot of the northern approach to Preston railway station, shot from a train and, as I'm sure you can tell, it owes as much to Photoshop as it does the original photograph. If you're interested, the image was altered by the addition of a V-shaped Curve; i.e. the highlights are reproduced normally, the mid-tones are converted to shadows and the shadows have become highlights. It's an odd effect, not entirely dissimilar to solarisation, and I'm pleased with how it turned out.
As always, and especially since this is a bit of a departure from the stuff I normally post, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
|
captured camera lens aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped? |
3.07pm on 5/3/08 Canon 1Ds Mark II EF 35mm f/1.4L USM f/2.8 1/85 aperture priority +0.0 evaluative 100 no RAW RAW Developer 2x1 |
I had great photographic plans this Christmas, which included taking shots of the kids enjoying themselves, opening their presents, and so on; but I came down with some sort of virus on the 22nd and haven't felt right since. As a result I haven't shot any new material, and don't expect I will for the next couple of days. So I've been archive raiding and constructed this one from a shot of some graffiti I came across in Leeds a while ago. If you're interested, the original is here:
.../iblog/archives/symbolic_gesture.php
As you can see, the version I've posted isn't much like the original, but I'm quite happy with how it turned out, even if it is more Photoshop than photography :-)
|
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped? |
2.51pm on 11/12/07 Canon 5D EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM 52mm f/3.5 1/60 aperture priority +0.0 evaluative 200 no RAW C1 Pro absolutely no doubt about it ;-) |
The previous two 'little planets' I put up were constructed from 360° panoramas, but this one used the following single shot:
.../archives/little_planet_3.php
When I was researching how to make these, one of the suggestions I came across (though can't find the url now) was that single photographs of islands can make good 'little planets'. So, I decided to look back through my Nassau shots to see if I'd shot any. I had, but I wasn't happy with how they turned out. Anyway, to cut a long story short, I definitely wanted to try using a single image so thought I'd try this one.
With a 360° panorama, the edges meet up as you wrap the image, but with a single shot they don't, so the major work that went into constructing this one was making sure that the joint wasn't too obvious.
|
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped? |
5.50pm on 25/8/07 Canon 5D EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM 200mm f/2.8 1/2000 aperture priority -1/3 evaluative 100 no RAW C1 Pro 1x1 |
Yesterday, I said that I wasn't especially happy with the first 'little planet' I put up. I'm much happier with this one :-)
And again, it was constructed using the instructions on daily dose of imagery.
Update: just a quick note to let you know that I won't be posting anything new today (15.10.07). I'll get something up tomorrow.
|
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped? |
around 3.45pm on 23/10/07 Canon 1Ds Mark II EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM 16mm f/8.0 1/1000 (and thereabouts) aperture priority -1/3 to -1 evaluative 100 no RAW C1 Pro 5x4 |
I'm not especially happy with this one, but it's something I've wanted to try for a while, and given that it took me ages to do I thought I'd post it. It was inspired by this shot on daily dose of imagery and was constructed from nine original images, stitched with Stitcher, then converted to a 'little planet' as per the instructions on daily dose.
Let me know what you think.
|
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped? |
around 3.30pm on 23/10/07 Canon 1Ds Mark II EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM 16mm f/8.0 1/1000 (and thereabouts) aperture priority -1/3 to -1 evaluative 100 no RAW C1 Pro 5x4 |
I was going to post this as a single image, and then I thought I'd post it in 2x1 format; i.e. mirrored, and then I tried this version. I also made a 4x4 version, but it did seem a bit over the top. I know this won't be to everyone's taste, but I fancied a change ;-)
|
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped? |
11.54am on 5/10/07 Canon 1Ds Mark II EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM 34mm f/8.0 1/160 aperture priority +0.0 evaluative 100 no RAW C1 Pro 1x1 |
Ok, so this one's a bit silly, but I don't have any new material, and after playing around with the avatar generator on the Simpsons Movie website I couldn't resist putting this together. I created the avatar of me (which is frighteningly realistic:-)) and Milly did one of her. I did try to convince Libby to do one too, but couldn't persuade her to have a go ;-)
And not that it makes a great deal of difference, but this one looks much better with the black theme.
I'm hoping to shoot some new material over the weekend, which should be a bit less frivolous than this effort, but probably won't be posting much until the week commencing the 23rd (after which I'll have a lot more free time).
In the meanwhile, you might want to check out my Curves tutorial (on tonal range and the Curves tool), which is now finished! Let me know what you think.
If you'd like to be kept informed about what's going on with the tutorials you can subscribe to the tutorials news feed (in RSS 2 format) which is linked from the main online tutorials page. This will be updated each time we release a new tutorial. The next one will be one of the subscription based tutorials, and will be released by mid August.
Anyway, enough of all that, as I'm sure you're itching to head over to the Simpsons Movie website and create some avatars ;-)
Update: I'm away until the 23rd of this month, and won't have access to the internet, so I'm afraid that you'll have to put up with this one for a while longer. When I do get back, I should have a reasonable amount of new material, and will put something else up asap. In the meanwhile, I'll see you all soon.
I'm not entirely convinced I've got this one right, but it is a technique I'll use again. What I do like about it though is way it clearly demonstrates the difference between Rhowan and Harmony's physical competence. Rhowan, who will be six this August, is quite capable, while Harmony (who turned four in February) clearly has some way to go :-)
Update: thanks for all the great comments, they're much appreciated, not least because I wasn't sure that I'd got this one right – so it's good to hear that most of you disagree with me.
On another matter: I probably won't be posting many new entries over the next week or so as I'm concentrating on getting the online tutorials sorted out. If you haven't already seen it, I'm about half way through a basic Curves tutorial. I'm pleased with it so far, but if you do have any constructive comments I'd really like to here them.
Update #2: my apologies for the continuing lack of new material, but things have been a bit hectic here. Libby and I, and our three youngest, have all had colds – which really hasn't helped – and yesterday my new laptop died. Well, it looks like the hard drive has failed, which is bordering on a major catastrophe. I have all my recent images backed up, but haven't run a full back since the start of March; i.e. I've lost lots of emails, some work I was doing that needed to be completed by yesterday, the latest section of the new Curves tutorial, and so on.
So, today I need to go over to Manchester to let an Apple Genius look at my MacBook Pro and I really hope that they can recover some of the data I've lost :-/
Anyway, the long and the short of it is that there won't be any new material in the short-term. I'll keep you posted.
|
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped? |
around 2.27pm on 27/4/07 Canon 5D EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM 40mm f/5.6 mostly 1/1300 aperture priority +0.0 evaluative 100 no RAW C1 Pro minor |
It's been a long day, so I don't have anything to say about this one other than to let you know that it's a combination of two originals, shot a few seconds apart; taken in the ballroom at Blackpool Tower last weekend.
|
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped? |
2.57pm on 18/11/06 Canon 20D EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM 200mm (320mm equiv.) f/4.0 2s aperture priority +0.0 evaluative 100 no RAW C1 Pro minor |
For those of you in the "but this isn't a photograph!" camp, my apologies, but I felt like posting something a bit different today.
This one started life as a fireworks shot. Subsequent amendments include motion blurring the original and producing four different colour schemes on a seasonal theme: spring, summer, autumn and winter.
As always, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, not least because it's rare for me to post something quite this abstract.
Anyway, let me know what you think.
As I mentioned on yesterday's entry it was the start of the International Fireworks competition last night, and Croatia opened the proceedings. Over the next four weeks a different country will produce their own display every Friday evening. Like last year, I took loads of shots, and like last year I wasn't especially happy with any of them when I came to look through them.
This year though I realised something: I don't much like shots of fireworks. I enjoy taking them – they're interesting to watch, and present a range of technical problems that are fun to overcome – but I don't especially enjoy looking at the photographs afterwards. For me, they're all a bit ... I don't know. Maybe it's because I've seen countless hundreds of them that all look much the same.
Anyway, for better or worse, I've decided that I'll photograph all the entries in the competion but I'll attemp to do something creative with the shots; i.e. there won't be any straight "ooh, look, pretty fireworks" shots. It may work out, it may not, but hopefully it will be interesting.
So, bearing that in mind, here's the first one, and I haven't put up the EXIF data but basically this is two merged and inverted shots, both taken at f/16.0 with an exposure of around five seconds each.
At the risk of boring you all, here's another image that combines a portrait and, for want of a better term, an urban texture. As with yesterday's shot the texture was adapted from a shot I put up a while ago – killa bunnies #2.
As I also mentioned yesterday, I've taken my inspiration for this style of image from Mike Regnier, though I've realised today that I'll probably take my attempts in a slightly different direction to Mike. His images begin with a pre-existing photograph, which is then reworked through the application a variety of textures and colours, the aim being to enhance or reinterpret the original image – and if you take a look around his site you'll see that it's a very effective technique.
This one though uses one texture, from a pre-existing scene, and in my opinion has a slightly 'grittier' feel than Mike's – grunge art rather than fine art perhaps – and is more about using the texture to anchor the other image rather than amend it. I didn't put that very well, so don't worry if you don't know what I'm talking about ;-) Anyway, I'm definitely enthusiastic about this approach and will be shooting a range of portraits and textures over the next few weeks.
Personally, I prefer this one to yesterday's, but do let me know what you think.
Update: I've put both original images here:
These were combined in a variety of ways including setting the blend mode to the area over her face to 'overlay'. Subsequent work included multiple Curves, changes to the colour balance, and so on.
I mentioned in a comment the other day that when I edit a shot I don't add in anything that isn't there; i.e. I wouldn't add a dramatic sky from one shot to a striking foreground from another. However, there are occasions when I've blended two (or more) shots, and this is an example of the same technique. The original included a few people to the right of the girl, and despite numerous attempts to process this shot they remained a distraction. So, rather than black out the background altogether I borrowed a section of the wall from this shot.
The inspiration for this style of image comes from Mike Regnier, a fine art photographer that I've long admired. If you're even vaguely interested in this shot, then you should take a good look around Mike's site (there are various sections, including a blog) as he's produced some wonderful images that truly put this one to shame.
So, to forestall the inevitable, this isn't a straight photograph, but, in my opinion at least, it works a lot better this way; mostly, I suppose, because of the story in my head as I took the shot - my reaction to her expression, and the sense I had that she seemed rather lost. This is a style that I'm going to explore in the future, so I'd be definitely interested to hear your thoughts.
Oh, and if you're interested, the original is here:
.../archives/the_absence_of_dreams.php
|
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped? |
8.59pm on 20/5/06 Canon 20D EF 70-200 f/4L USM 168mm (269mm equiv.) f/5.6 1/400 aperture priority -1/3 evaluative 100 no RAW C1 Pro 1x1 |
I'll give anyone who can correctly identify this image (in terms of content and location) a free 9x6" print. Three clues: the high res' version is a 32.74 megapixel file (so would make a great H U G E print), it was shot with my 20D, and the green isn't really green ;-)
Oh, and John Washington and Mark Power are both banned from taking part as they were with me when this was taken :-)
Update: Ok, we have a winner, and it's not JD with his monkey hypothesis (though he was right that it's the decking on the north pier, as were a few more of you); but the outright winner is Dave who said:
"Is it decking on Blackpool's north pier with a section of tram track?"
Strictly speaking I suppose I could argue that it's a train track rather than a tram track, but I suspect that that might be a little pedantic of me ;-)
Oh, and in case you're interested, there's a correctly coloured version of the original here:
And finally, my apologies if you thought the title was a clue. It wasn't ;-)
Update #2: I've just had a quick conversation with Dave and he feels as though he had an unfair advantage over the rest of you in that he also lives in Blackpool (only about half a mile from me, though we've not met up), so the closest comments prior to his (there were two of them a few seconds apart) are from Terry and Chris. I'll send both of them a print.
|
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped? |
12.20pm on 7/4/06 Canon 20D EF 17-40 f/4L USM 23mm (37mm equiv.) f/5.6 1/1000 aperture priority +0.0 evaluative 100 no RAW C1 Pro minor |
Well, here's one that will irritate two groups of you: those of you in the "it's just other people's art" camp, AND the "that's not photography it's digital art" brigade ;-)
This one is a composite image: the left side is one image, the right side another, and they're merged using a gradient mask to gradually obscure one as the other is revealed. If you're interested I've put the originals up here:
.../archives/killa_bunnies.php
Oh, and the title refers to the Moloko track by the same name, from the album Do You Like My Tight Sweater?
Killa Bunnies #2, which I prefer to this one, will go up tomorrow.
You wont be surprised to hear that this shot started out looking a little different to this version. Here's the original:
.../archives/things_evolve.php
As you can see, it's a reasonable shot, and I did intend to post it: admittedly, more for its architectural interest than its worth as a piece of art, but I did think it was ok.
But I was looking at John's shot from yesterday, where he'd used Photoshop's Wave filter to create an abstract shot from a series of CD covers, and really liked the result. It has a beautifully organic feel to it, it's vibrant, and so on.
So, I wondered how it would turn out on a shot that was inherently more geometric; i.e. one with strong clear lines in the first place (I'm assuming that John's original was a less clearly defined shot than mine). Anyway, the net result is this one.
And yep, I am jumping on the bandwagon; yep, it's not a photograph despite me calling this a photoblog; and yep, you're quite free not to like it ;-) Personally, I think it works (as an abstract image) and especially like the way the venetian blinds swirl around the bottom of the image. Oh, and I probably should mention that I inverted the original after applying the wave filter.
Anyway, as always, let me know what you think.
Wife: "Is that Adolf Hitler through a prism?"
Me: "No, it's a reflection in a train window that I've been playing around with."
Wife: "I like it."
Over to you ;-)
To which I could add: telephoto zooms are not especially useful for train window reflection shots as you end up with a totally unrecognisable background. In future I'll probably stick to my 17-40 for this type of image.
|
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped? |
12.18pm on 8/2/06 Canon 20D EF 70-200 f/4L USM 118mm (189mm equiv.) f/4.0 1/250 aperture priority +0.0 evaluative 100 no RAW C1 Pro that's the least of it |
First: thanks for all the great comments on my last two shots, they're much appreciated.
As for today's shot: it's another re-examination of something I took a while ago and decided not to put up, though in this case the manipulation is a little different. Rather than explain what you're looking at it's probably easier to show you the (partly post-processed) original:
As you can probably work out from the original, this is a diptych, of sorts, but both images come from the same original: the image on the left is the leftmost two-thirds of the original, and the image on the right is the rightmost two-thirds, horizontally reversed. I guess my reasoning with this one is that I was trying to capture the vaguely enclosed, leading nowhere feeling of this alleyway, and I didn't think the original did this, nor was I particularly happy with the shot as a whole (a shadowy figure would probably have helped). This version, on the other hand (for me at least), accentuates the dead-end feel of this location and does a much better job of getting the mood of the scene across.
Anyway, it remains to be seen as to whether you think it's effective (and I bet that some of you will prefer the original), but it's something that I may well use more intentionally in the future. And no, it's not as good as the previous two shots, but I did think it was sufficiently interesting to put up.
And now it's probably about time that I shot some new material rather than trawling through the stuff I've previously rejected ;-)
|
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped? |
1.37pm on 17/1/06 Canon 20D EF 70-200 f/4L USM 94mm (150mm equiv.) f/4.5 1/60 aperture priority +0.0 evaluative 100 no RAW C1 Pro 2x1/reversed |
In light of not having anything to put up tonight I thought I'd have a go at a technique that John has been experimenting with; i.e. using Photoshop's motion blur to alter a shot during post-processing (see his shot from today and this one for a couple of examples).
I expected it would be relatively easy, but it wasn't, at least not with any of the shots that I tried it on. This was my third attempt to come up with anything even tolerably decent, and while I guess it's interesting, as an idea, I'm not sure that I've made all that good a job of it. What I was aiming for was a series of blended layers that used the motion blur to complement the existing lines in the shot, rather than just blurring the shot in one direction, but I've worked on this one for so long that I've lost the ability to evaluate it. I guess the bottom line is that this is a potentially interesting technique, that could complement some of my shots, but I probably need to think more about how to apply it, and when.
As always, your thoughts are appreciated.
Oh, and I've skipped the EXIF data for this one given the nature of the post-processing.
Update: If your're interested, I've put up a different version of this shot here:
../archives/motion_blur_experiment.php
This is the blurred image prior to me adding back in the original detail.
