A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ping: PeterN



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 3rd 16, 05:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Ping: PeterN

Since Alfred posted his OP "All-in-One PCs", and it was obvious to all
that it had spun off the rails into totally off topic drift, partly due
to android's idiotic X-Post, I have made a few attempts to bring things
back to photography. I suspect that was also Eric's intent. For
whatever reason it seems that rational discussion about digital
photography is futile beyond one or two posts and a handful of
reasonable and topical responses before those threads die or drift into
a flamewar.

BTW: I notice that you didn't take my advice and strip
comp.sys.mac.system. from the distribution.

Now that I have had my mini-rant, here are two shots taken today on my
ramblings. Not great shots or intended to be works of art. They are two
shots to fill your request for more posted images. These were limited
to ISO 800.

A California Winter oak shot.
https://db.tt/DqR6V8S3

....and my buggy.
https://db.tt/ps8A0PVR

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #2  
Old February 3rd 16, 03:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Ping: PeterN

On 2/2/2016 11:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Since Alfred posted his OP "All-in-One PCs", and it was obvious to all
that it had spun off the rails into totally off topic drift, partly due
to android's idiotic X-Post, I have made a few attempts to bring things
back to photography. I suspect that was also Eric's intent. For whatever
reason it seems that rational discussion about digital photography is
futile beyond one or two posts and a handful of reasonable and topical
responses before those threads die or drift into a flamewar.

BTW: I notice that you didn't take my advice and strip
comp.sys.mac.system. from the distribution.


I don't know how to do it universally, but I stripped it from a lot of
my postings. I did not pay too much attention on a lot of them. I will
try harder.


Now that I have had my mini-rant, here are two shots taken today on my
ramblings. Not great shots or intended to be works of art. They are two
shots to fill your request for more posted images. These were limited to
ISO 800.

A California Winter oak shot.
https://db.tt/DqR6V8S3


This image has a some potential. I like the basic composition. Played
around a bit, and tried to be subtle.
Modified the foreground to show a stacking
Modified the sky a bit to show some cloud detail, without siskerizing.
Added a tad of fog for mood.
Folks can play further if you like

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Duck%20Untitled-1.jpg

...and my buggy.
https://db.tt/ps8A0PVR


I will not comment, other than to say, it's a picture of your car.

--
PeterN
  #3  
Old February 3rd 16, 04:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Ping: PeterN

On 2016-02-03 14:28:35 +0000, PeterN said:

On 2/2/2016 11:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Since Alfred posted his OP "All-in-One PCs", and it was obvious to all
that it had spun off the rails into totally off topic drift, partly due
to android's idiotic X-Post, I have made a few attempts to bring things
back to photography. I suspect that was also Eric's intent. For whatever
reason it seems that rational discussion about digital photography is
futile beyond one or two posts and a handful of reasonable and topical
responses before those threads die or drift into a flamewar.

BTW: I notice that you didn't take my advice and strip
comp.sys.mac.system. from the distribution.


I don't know how to do it universally, but I stripped it from a lot of
my postings. I did not pay too much attention on a lot of them. I will
try harder.


Now that I have had my mini-rant, here are two shots taken today on my
ramblings. Not great shots or intended to be works of art. They are two
shots to fill your request for more posted images. These were limited to
ISO 800.

A California Winter oak shot.
https://db.tt/DqR6V8S3


This image has a some potential. I like the basic composition. Played
around a bit, and tried to be subtle.
Modified the foreground to show a stacking
Modified the sky a bit to show some cloud detail, without siskerizing.
Added a tad of fog for mood.
Folks can play further if you like

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Duck%20Untitled-1.jpg


Well that didn't work did it?

Your sky modification did Siskerize it, adding a color that didn't
exist, even hidden.
To solve the problem all that you had to do was add a Grad in either LR
or ACR with appropriate adjustments like so:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_474.jpg
to get;
https://db.tt/pewmbRHK

As for adding "a tad of fog" all you did was go to one of your favorite
tools, adding blur. blur â‰* fog, there are other ways of doing that.
Take a look at the Fog or Fog Grad filters in NIK ColorEfex.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_477.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_478.jpg

"Modified the foreground to show a stacking" has me asking why.


...and my buggy.
https://db.tt/ps8A0PVR


I will not comment, other than to say, it's a picture of your car.


I told you they were nothing special, not great, not art, or anything
other than a click of the shutter.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #4  
Old February 3rd 16, 05:49 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Ping: PeterN

On 2/3/2016 10:43 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-02-03 14:28:35 +0000, PeterN said:

On 2/2/2016 11:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Since Alfred posted his OP "All-in-One PCs", and it was obvious to all
that it had spun off the rails into totally off topic drift, partly due
to android's idiotic X-Post, I have made a few attempts to bring things
back to photography. I suspect that was also Eric's intent. For whatever
reason it seems that rational discussion about digital photography is
futile beyond one or two posts and a handful of reasonable and topical
responses before those threads die or drift into a flamewar.

BTW: I notice that you didn't take my advice and strip
comp.sys.mac.system. from the distribution.


I don't know how to do it universally, but I stripped it from a lot of
my postings. I did not pay too much attention on a lot of them. I will
try harder.


Now that I have had my mini-rant, here are two shots taken today on my
ramblings. Not great shots or intended to be works of art. They are two
shots to fill your request for more posted images. These were limited to
ISO 800.

A California Winter oak shot.
https://db.tt/DqR6V8S3


This image has a some potential. I like the basic composition. Played
around a bit, and tried to be subtle.
Modified the foreground to show a stacking
Modified the sky a bit to show some cloud detail, without siskerizing.
Added a tad of fog for mood.
Folks can play further if you like

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Duck%20Untitled-1.jpg


Well that didn't work did it?


nope! But it may start a discussion.


Your sky modification did Siskerize it, adding a color that didn't
exist, even hidden.
To solve the problem all that you had to do was add a Grad in either LR
or ACR with appropriate adjustments like so:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_474.jpg
to get;
https://db.tt/pewmbRHK

As for adding "a tad of fog" all you did was go to one of your favorite
tools, adding blur. blur â‰* fog, there are other ways of doing that. Take
a look at the Fog or Fog Grad filters in NIK ColorEfex.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_477.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_478.jpg

"Modified the foreground to show a stacking" has me asking why.


I found myself looking at the stump. To my eye a landscape should have
some type of stacking, i.e. foreground; middle and background. You
already had a nice background and middle. With the stump removed and the
grass slightly intensified, the trio was completed. Of course, that is
my thinking.


...and my buggy.
https://db.tt/ps8A0PVR


I will not comment, other than to say, it's a picture of your car.


I told you they were nothing special, not great, not art, or anything
other than a click of the shutter.


As I said earlier, I disagree with you about the first, ii is a nice
capture that just needs a bit of tweaking.

--
PeterN
  #5  
Old February 3rd 16, 07:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Ping: PeterN

On 2016-02-03 16:49:20 +0000, PeterN said:

On 2/3/2016 10:43 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-02-03 14:28:35 +0000, PeterN said:

On 2/2/2016 11:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Since Alfred posted his OP "All-in-One PCs", and it was obvious to all
that it had spun off the rails into totally off topic drift, partly due
to android's idiotic X-Post, I have made a few attempts to bring things
back to photography. I suspect that was also Eric's intent. For whatever
reason it seems that rational discussion about digital photography is
futile beyond one or two posts and a handful of reasonable and topical
responses before those threads die or drift into a flamewar.

BTW: I notice that you didn't take my advice and strip
comp.sys.mac.system. from the distribution.

I don't know how to do it universally, but I stripped it from a lot of
my postings. I did not pay too much attention on a lot of them. I will
try harder.


Now that I have had my mini-rant, here are two shots taken today on my
ramblings. Not great shots or intended to be works of art. They are two
shots to fill your request for more posted images. These were limited to
ISO 800.

A California Winter oak shot.
https://db.tt/DqR6V8S3


This image has a some potential. I like the basic composition. Played
around a bit, and tried to be subtle.
Modified the foreground to show a stacking
Modified the sky a bit to show some cloud detail, without siskerizing.
Added a tad of fog for mood.
Folks can play further if you like

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Duck%20Untitled-1.jpg


Well that didn't work did it?


nope! But it may start a discussion.


Your sky modification did Siskerize it, adding a color that didn't
exist, even hidden.
To solve the problem all that you had to do was add a Grad in either LR
or ACR with appropriate adjustments like so:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_474.jpg
to get;
https://db.tt/pewmbRHK

As for adding "a tad of fog" all you did was go to one of your favorite
tools, adding blur. blur â‰* fog, there are other ways of doing that. Take
a look at the Fog or Fog Grad filters in NIK ColorEfex.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_477.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_478.jpg

"Modified the foreground to show a stacking" has me asking why.


I found myself looking at the stump. To my eye a landscape should have
some type of stacking, i.e. foreground; middle and background. You
already had a nice background and middle. With the stump removed and
the grass slightly intensified, the trio was completed. Of course, that
is my thinking.


"Stump"?


...and my buggy.
https://db.tt/ps8A0PVR


I will not comment, other than to say, it's a picture of your car.


I told you they were nothing special, not great, not art, or anything
other than a click of the shutter.


As I said earlier, I disagree with you about the first, ii is a nice
capture that just needs a bit of tweaking.


Well thanks for that ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #6  
Old February 3rd 16, 11:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Ping: PeterN

In article 2016020307435631286-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

snip

As for adding "a tad of fog" all you did was go to one of your
favorite tools, adding blur. blur ? fog, there are other ways of
doing that. Take a look at the Fog or Fog Grad filters in NIK
ColorEfex.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_477.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_478.jpg


That's a pretty neat effect. Never used NIK...

--
Sandman
  #7  
Old February 4th 16, 05:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Ping: PeterN

On 2/3/2016 1:15 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-02-03 16:49:20 +0000, PeterN said:

On 2/3/2016 10:43 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-02-03 14:28:35 +0000, PeterN said:

On 2/2/2016 11:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Since Alfred posted his OP "All-in-One PCs", and it was obvious to all
that it had spun off the rails into totally off topic drift, partly
due
to android's idiotic X-Post, I have made a few attempts to bring
things
back to photography. I suspect that was also Eric's intent. For
whatever
reason it seems that rational discussion about digital photography is
futile beyond one or two posts and a handful of reasonable and topical
responses before those threads die or drift into a flamewar.

BTW: I notice that you didn't take my advice and strip
comp.sys.mac.system. from the distribution.

I don't know how to do it universally, but I stripped it from a lot of
my postings. I did not pay too much attention on a lot of them. I will
try harder.


Now that I have had my mini-rant, here are two shots taken today on my
ramblings. Not great shots or intended to be works of art. They are
two
shots to fill your request for more posted images. These were
limited to
ISO 800.

A California Winter oak shot.
https://db.tt/DqR6V8S3


This image has a some potential. I like the basic composition. Played
around a bit, and tried to be subtle.
Modified the foreground to show a stacking
Modified the sky a bit to show some cloud detail, without siskerizing.
Added a tad of fog for mood.
Folks can play further if you like

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Duck%20Untitled-1.jpg

Well that didn't work did it?


nope! But it may start a discussion.


Your sky modification did Siskerize it, adding a color that didn't
exist, even hidden.
To solve the problem all that you had to do was add a Grad in either LR
or ACR with appropriate adjustments like so:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_474.jpg

to get;
https://db.tt/pewmbRHK

As for adding "a tad of fog" all you did was go to one of your favorite
tools, adding blur. blur â‰* fog, there are other ways of doing that. Take
a look at the Fog or Fog Grad filters in NIK ColorEfex.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_477.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_478.jpg


"Modified the foreground to show a stacking" has me asking why.


I found myself looking at the stump. To my eye a landscape should have
some type of stacking, i.e. foreground; middle and background. You
already had a nice background and middle. With the stump removed and
the grass slightly intensified, the trio was completed. Of course,
that is my thinking.


"Stump"?


Or whatever that off color junk is at the bottom of the bottom
horizontal line. It certainly didn't help the picture.



...and my buggy.
https://db.tt/ps8A0PVR


I will not comment, other than to say, it's a picture of your car.

I told you they were nothing special, not great, not art, or anything
other than a click of the shutter.


As I said earlier, I disagree with you about the first, ii is a nice
capture that just needs a bit of tweaking.


Well thanks for that ;-)



--
PeterN
  #8  
Old February 4th 16, 05:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Ping: PeterN

On 2/3/2016 6:51 PM, MC wrote:
PeterN wrote:

On 2/3/2016 10:43 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-02-03 14:28:35 +0000, PeterN said:

On 2/2/2016 11:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Since Alfred posted his OP "All-in-One PCs", and it was obvious
to all that it had spun off the rails into totally off topic
drift, partly due to android's idiotic X-Post, I have made a
few attempts to bring things back to photography. I suspect
that was also Eric's intent. For whatever reason it seems that
rational discussion about digital photography is futile beyond
one or two posts and a handful of reasonable and topical
responses before those threads die or drift into a flamewar.

BTW: I notice that you didn't take my advice and strip
comp.sys.mac.system. from the distribution.

I don't know how to do it universally, but I stripped it from a
lot of my postings. I did not pay too much attention on a lot of
them. I will try harder.


Now that I have had my mini-rant, here are two shots taken
today on my ramblings. Not great shots or intended to be works
of art. They are two shots to fill your request for more posted
images. These were limited to ISO 800.

A California Winter oak shot.
https://db.tt/DqR6V8S3


This image has a some potential. I like the basic composition.
Played around a bit, and tried to be subtle.
Modified the foreground to show a stacking
Modified the sky a bit to show some cloud detail, without
siskerizing. Added a tad of fog for mood.
Folks can play further if you like


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Duck%20Untitled-1.jpg

Well that didn't work did it?


nope! But it may start a discussion.


So why post something you knew didn't work?
Besides, there is no reason to post an edit of someone else's image to
start a discussion. If a discussion was warranted on the original
image, re advice on any improvement, posts would have been forthcoming
anyway without the need of some third party bastatrdising the original.

MC


Then talk about it. There has been too much crap going on. Let's try to
stick with your interpretation of the Ducks image and how you would
improve it, or why your attempt didn't work.
Heck, we have all sorts of technology available. Let's use it, instead
of talk about which is better.



--
PeterN
  #9  
Old February 4th 16, 02:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Ping: PeterN

On 2/4/2016 4:02 AM, MC wrote:
PeterN wrote:


A California Winter oak shot.
https://db.tt/DqR6V8S3


This image has a some potential. I like the basic composition.
Played around a bit, and tried to be subtle.
Modified the foreground to show a stacking
Modified the sky a bit to show some cloud detail, without
siskerizing. Added a tad of fog for mood.
Folks can play further if you like


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Duck%20Untitled-1.jpg

Well that didn't work did it?

nope! But it may start a discussion.


So why post something you knew didn't work?
Besides, there is no reason to post an edit of someone else's image
to start a discussion. If a discussion was warranted on the original
image, re advice on any improvement, posts would have been
forthcoming anyway without the need of some third party
bastatrdising the original.

MC


Then talk about it.



I do not want to talk about it. I have no opinion either way. I do,
however, have an opinion as to why someone would tinker with another
persons image, present it as an improvement (otherwise why post it?)
then admit the tinkering did not work, making posing the edit pointless
in the first place.

I have no problem posting something that did not work, with the
expectation of learning why. That is the reason I explained what look I
was seeking. I certainly do not consider that painting a mustache on the
Mona Lisa. Obviously it's your choice to comment or not. I hope you
change your mind, or post something else cor comment.


There has been too much crap going on. Let's try
to stick with your interpretation of the Ducks image and how you
would improve it, or why your attempt didn't work.



I have no inclination to interpret the image or offer improvement
advice. If I did I would have done so, without your contribution.


Heck, we have all
sorts of technology available. Let's use it, instead of talk about
which is better.



What? First you say you you want to provoke discussion then you say
you do not want to talk about it. I give up.

MC


I was referring to tool wars and flaming. Now since obviously you don't
want to talk about photography,

--
PeterN
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PING: PeterN Some NatGeo Birdies Savageduck[_7_] Digital Photography 5 July 13th 15 01:56 AM
One for PeterN PeterN[_5_] Digital Photography 4 October 25th 14 05:00 AM
One for PeterN Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 0 October 24th 14 06:20 AM
Ping PeterN: Sensor dust Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 12 September 21st 14 08:13 AM
Ping PeterN: LR Processing Exercise Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 65 May 11th 14 02:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.