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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |