Steeples - Cooper's Comments
 

Tim Conway's views are all almost ruined by distracting elements
of the wires and the television antenna.

You're right. I'm photoshopless at the moment or I would've attempted to
clone a lot of that stuff out.

As always, thanks everyone for your comments - you're appreciated.

Steeples - Cooper's Comments
 

On 2013-02-13 09:23:57 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


Tim Conway's views are all almost ruined by distracting elements
of the wires and the television antenna.

You're right. I'm photoshopless at the moment or I would've attempted to
clone a lot of that stuff out.

As always, thanks everyone for your comments - you're appreciated.

Well here is a quick fix. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Tim-QF-1.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Steeples - Cooper's Comments
 

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2013021310052035001-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2013-02-13 09:23:57 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


Tim Conway's views are all almost ruined by distracting elements
of the wires and the television antenna.

You're right. I'm photoshopless at the moment or I would've attempted to
clone a lot of that stuff out.

As always, thanks everyone for your comments - you're appreciated.

Well here is a quick fix. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Tim-QF-1.jpg

--
Yep. Looks good. That's what I would've attempted had I had photoshop.

Steeples - Cooper's Comments
 

On 14/02/2013 5:05 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-02-13 09:23:57 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


Tim Conway's views are all almost ruined by distracting elements
of the wires and the television antenna.

You're right. I'm photoshopless at the moment or I would've attempted to
clone a lot of that stuff out.

As always, thanks everyone for your comments - you're appreciated.

Well here is a quick fix. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Tim-QF-1.jpg



You could have selected the sky and rendered clouds.

Steeples - Cooper's Comments
 

On 2013-02-13 17:47:33 -0800, Rob said:

On 14/02/2013 5:05 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-02-13 09:23:57 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


Tim Conway's views are all almost ruined by distracting elements
of the wires and the television antenna.

You're right. I'm photoshopless at the moment or I would've attempted to
clone a lot of that stuff out.

As always, thanks everyone for your comments - you're appreciated.

Well here is a quick fix. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Tim-QF-1.jpg



You could have selected the sky and rendered clouds.

Naah! It was just a quick fix to get rid of the utility lines.

....but since you wanted sky + clouds, the quick fix is to add a
background sky layer beneath the layer with the building. Add a layer
mask to the building layer, and just paint in the new sky with black on
the layer mask. Much quicker and easier than making a selection. So
utility lines gone and new sky painted in.
....and here is that quick fix sky, not perfect, but good enough for
this exercise.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Tim-QF-2.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Steeples - Cooper's Comments
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:34:48 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-02-13 17:47:33 -0800, Rob said:

On 14/02/2013 5:05 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-02-13 09:23:57 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


Tim Conway's views are all almost ruined by distracting elements
of the wires and the television antenna.

You're right. I'm photoshopless at the moment or I would've attempted to
clone a lot of that stuff out.

As always, thanks everyone for your comments - you're appreciated.

Well here is a quick fix. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Tim-QF-1.jpg



You could have selected the sky and rendered clouds.

Naah! It was just a quick fix to get rid of the utility lines.

...but since you wanted sky + clouds, the quick fix is to add a
background sky layer beneath the layer with the building. Add a layer
mask to the building layer, and just paint in the new sky with black on
the layer mask. Much quicker and easier than making a selection. So
utility lines gone and new sky painted in.
...and here is that quick fix sky, not perfect, but good enough for
this exercise.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Tim-QF-2.jpg

Nope. I can see the masking. :-(
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Steeples - Cooper's Comments
 

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2013021321344871490-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2013-02-13 17:47:33 -0800, Rob said:

On 14/02/2013 5:05 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-02-13 09:23:57 -0800, "Tim Conway"
said:


Tim Conway's views are all almost ruined by distracting elements
of the wires and the television antenna.

You're right. I'm photoshopless at the moment or I would've attempted
to
clone a lot of that stuff out.

As always, thanks everyone for your comments - you're appreciated.

Well here is a quick fix. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Tim-QF-1.jpg



You could have selected the sky and rendered clouds.

Naah! It was just a quick fix to get rid of the utility lines.

...but since you wanted sky + clouds, the quick fix is to add a background
sky layer beneath the layer with the building. Add a layer mask to the
building layer, and just paint in the new sky with black on the layer
mask. Much quicker and easier than making a selection. So utility lines
gone and new sky painted in.
...and here is that quick fix sky, not perfect, but good enough for this
exercise.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Tim-QF-2.jpg


Nice. I wish I had my photoshop back - I'm using a loaner computer that has
such few RAM it is impossible at the moment, but I hope to have it again
before long.
Thanks for playing with this and your comments.
Tim

Steeples - Cooper's Comments
 

On 2013-02-13 23:48:13 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:34:48 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-02-13 17:47:33 -0800, Rob said:

On 14/02/2013 5:05 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-02-13 09:23:57 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


Tim Conway's views are all almost ruined by distracting elements
of the wires and the television antenna.

You're right. I'm photoshopless at the moment or I would've attempted to
clone a lot of that stuff out.

As always, thanks everyone for your comments - you're appreciated.

Well here is a quick fix. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Tim-QF-1.jpg



You could have selected the sky and rendered clouds.

Naah! It was just a quick fix to get rid of the utility lines.

...but since you wanted sky + clouds, the quick fix is to add a
background sky layer beneath the layer with the building. Add a layer
mask to the building layer, and just paint in the new sky with black on
the layer mask. Much quicker and easier than making a selection. So
utility lines gone and new sky painted in.
...and here is that quick fix sky, not perfect, but good enough for
this exercise.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Tim-QF-2.jpg

Nope. I can see the masking. :-(

What do you mean nope?
Where did I say that was perfect?
It was just a down & dirty sloppy job. If I was serious I would
probably have taken much more care. I had no reason to.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

Steeples - Cooper's Comments
 

On 2013-02-14 00:23:24 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2013021321344871490-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2013-02-13 17:47:33 -0800, Rob said:

On 14/02/2013 5:05 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-02-13 09:23:57 -0800, "Tim Conway"
said:


Tim Conway's views are all almost ruined by distracting elements
of the wires and the television antenna.

You're right. I'm photoshopless at the moment or I would've attempted
to
clone a lot of that stuff out.

As always, thanks everyone for your comments - you're appreciated.

Well here is a quick fix. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Tim-QF-1.jpg



You could have selected the sky and rendered clouds.

Naah! It was just a quick fix to get rid of the utility lines.

...but since you wanted sky + clouds, the quick fix is to add a background
sky layer beneath the layer with the building. Add a layer mask to the
building layer, and just paint in the new sky with black on the layer
mask. Much quicker and easier than making a selection. So utility lines
gone and new sky painted in.
...and here is that quick fix sky, not perfect, but good enough for this
exercise.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Tim-QF-2.jpg


Nice. I wish I had my photoshop back - I'm using a loaner computer that has
such few RAM it is impossible at the moment, but I hope to have it again
before long.
Thanks for playing with this and your comments.
Tim

I hope you get your digital darkroom back together soon. It is just fun
to play with the tools we have available now. Thanks for that
opportunity.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Steeples - Cooper's Comments
 

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:25:52 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-02-13 23:48:13 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:34:48 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-02-13 17:47:33 -0800, Rob said:

On 14/02/2013 5:05 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-02-13 09:23:57 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:


Tim Conway's views are all almost ruined by distracting elements
of the wires and the television antenna.

You're right. I'm photoshopless at the moment or I would've attempted to
clone a lot of that stuff out.

As always, thanks everyone for your comments - you're appreciated.

Well here is a quick fix. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Tim-QF-1.jpg



You could have selected the sky and rendered clouds.

Naah! It was just a quick fix to get rid of the utility lines.

...but since you wanted sky + clouds, the quick fix is to add a
background sky layer beneath the layer with the building. Add a layer
mask to the building layer, and just paint in the new sky with black on
the layer mask. Much quicker and easier than making a selection. So
utility lines gone and new sky painted in.
...and here is that quick fix sky, not perfect, but good enough for
this exercise.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Tim-QF-2.jpg

Nope. I can see the masking. :-(

What do you mean nope?
Where did I say that was perfect?
It was just a down & dirty sloppy job. If I was serious I would
probably have taken much more care. I had no reason to.

Maybe I misunderstood you. When you wrote "good enough for the
exercise" I thought you meant [SI] but now I see that you meant
something slightly different. I agrre, it was good enough to
illustrate the point.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens