peterm1
Mentor
Perhaps because this forum is primarily about rangefinders and rangefinders have traditionally been used for street photography I find that many people here are resistant to the idea of doing much post process work. Post processing is like darkroom work in the analogue photo world - more the domain of art photographers. (In my mind I compare Ansell Adams - the artist who spent huge amounts of time processing / printing his images with Robert Capa the reporter. These kind of epitomise the two extremes for me).
I quite enjoy the possibilities post processing opens up and while most of my photography is straight forward I occasionally "go for broke" and turn images into something quite different from how they started.
Here are a few of my more "extreme" examples. Not great art, maybe but fun to do never the less. Lets see yours...............
CHIAROSCURA
Chiaroscuro in hood by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
TEXTURE ON A CITY SKYLINE
Textures on City by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
CITY WALKERS
Impressions by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
COUNTRY GRAVEYARD IMPRESSIONS
Abstract dreaming - churchyard by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
I quite enjoy the possibilities post processing opens up and while most of my photography is straight forward I occasionally "go for broke" and turn images into something quite different from how they started.
Here are a few of my more "extreme" examples. Not great art, maybe but fun to do never the less. Lets see yours...............
CHIAROSCURA
Chiaroscuro in hood by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
TEXTURE ON A CITY SKYLINE
Textures on City by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
CITY WALKERS
Impressions by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
COUNTRY GRAVEYARD IMPRESSIONS
Abstract dreaming - churchyard by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
[email protected]
Mentor
wow... very nice, esp the 2nd pics.. more plz.
dabick42
-
Very, VERY good work !
I'd gladly hang any one of them on my wall - indeed, ALL of them.... (!)
I'd gladly hang any one of them on my wall - indeed, ALL of them.... (!)
thegman
Mentor
Post processing is not really my cup of tea, but I do quite like the second one, although I wonder if the original would be every bit as good?
jarski
Mentor
am having same impression RFF of being conservative regarding heavily photoshopped material. there are other forums for that kind of images. but when cows fly over the rainbow there, I run back here 
nice images btw
nice images btw
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Let me guess ... these weren't done with an M3 and Tri-X right?
ChrisN
Striving
Nice work Peter, especially "Textures on city".
Interestingly, it reminds me of
borrowed from Wikipedia.
"This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person. It is believed that the use of this image may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information.
Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)."
Moderator - if this does not constitute "fair use" please feel free to remove it and let me know.
Interestingly, it reminds me of
borrowed from Wikipedia.
"This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person. It is believed that the use of this image may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information.
Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)."
Moderator - if this does not constitute "fair use" please feel free to remove it and let me know.
ricnak
Well-known
I think I have appreciated most of photo's that I see you post on RFF. Most seem heavily processed, but I think you get good results. Post processing takes skill and time. You seem to have both. I suspect your photo's are pretty good before you even start post processing. Your compositions are usually very good. Keep posting.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I won't go to the extremes that Peter has but I am prepared to push settings to get a look I want that is different to the reality of what I shot. In this case I deliberately blew the highlights and reset the black point to get what I wanted which was virtually a silhouette.
peterm1
Mentor
I suppose its all a matter of what you consider "strongly post processed". By the standards of this forum that's certainly true, as I would be the first to admit. But what I meant is that generally I am not fundamentally changing the image that comes from the camera - just optimizing it (in a "post processy" kind of way - tonal adjustments, saturation adjustments, dodging / burning, cropping etc - all pretty much within what could be achieved in an analogue world in a dark room.). In the images in this thread however, I am clearly changing the image in a much more fundamental manner - hence labelling it extreme.
But I am glad people seem to like it. For me the main consideration is the fun of being creative. Some times it works, some time mot so much.
MikeAUS
Well-known
I like 'Impressions/City Walkers' a lot, not sure on the others ...
daveleo
what?
I have enjoyed literally every image I've seen from you on this forum. I envy your vision and your skills. The images that you posted here are . . . . what's a word ? . . . excellent, "just great".
On the general topic . . . IMO, people who stop their image processing at the shutter click are basically stopping at first, maybe second, base. Why they do that, I have never understood (except in the case of documentary work).
I don't say "the more processing, the better". But (to me) you can make every OOC image better by some little work. And (with the right skills) you can create that wonderful image that's in your mind with a lot of work (others may not see it as so "wonderful" but so what - someone out there will "get it").
Lots of photographers skoff at processing images. Okay, but then there are guys like me who don't appreciate snapshots that some people label "great capture" or whatever.
No doubt this thread will go on, and I am glad that someone at your skill level is putting cards on the table.
Finally: I have often wanted to ask you "Do you care to share some of those processing secrets?" I love what you do with your pictures.
On the general topic . . . IMO, people who stop their image processing at the shutter click are basically stopping at first, maybe second, base. Why they do that, I have never understood (except in the case of documentary work).
I don't say "the more processing, the better". But (to me) you can make every OOC image better by some little work. And (with the right skills) you can create that wonderful image that's in your mind with a lot of work (others may not see it as so "wonderful" but so what - someone out there will "get it").
Lots of photographers skoff at processing images. Okay, but then there are guys like me who don't appreciate snapshots that some people label "great capture" or whatever.
No doubt this thread will go on, and I am glad that someone at your skill level is putting cards on the table.
Finally: I have often wanted to ask you "Do you care to share some of those processing secrets?" I love what you do with your pictures.
greyelm
Malcolm
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Peter M, those are terrific.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Peter,
Your work is normally among the best I ever see on RFF, but this is stunning -- especially the first. The only criticism I'd make is that I'd like to see more consistency of subject matter, as well as of technique. There are at least two series there, maybe more.
Wow!
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
peterm1
Mentor
Thanks for this guys, I appreciate your kind words. DaveLeo I particularly like your image. Very watercolor like (and I love color). Its amazing what can be done with quite straighforward images to produce interesting results.
RogerHicks, I am inclined to agree I should have more consistency in image types / subject matter. It is something I am working towards. At the moment as I work and photography is just a sideline hobby I tend to shoot whatever image that comes my way that I like. I guess "serious" photography requires the shooter to go out with an "assignment" in mind and shoot accordingly. I certainly don't do enough of that at the moment but need to.
Keith - your image of ladies talking framed in a nearby window I like. I think this kind of PP is important. Its the digital equivalent of dodging and burning. I do it a lot as its a kind of "foundation" technique that many images can benefit from and especially whens shooting people shots most will benefit from the effect as it concentrates the eye on the main subject. It can be done so subtly that one is not even aware that its been done or be done very dramtically as here.
I think the creative experience and experimentation is why I enjoy doing this post processing stuff. I am never totally sure what will come out of it when I start - although I have a fair idea by now as I have done it quite a bit. But I still experiment a lot and sometimes find that I end up with half a dozen or more different interpretations of the same image. most of which I keep on my PC- I usually pick one that I( like best to post on the web.
I am of course happy to share whatever knowledge I have if people are interested. I enjoy teaching others these skills and sharing their joy when they get a nice result. I am not quite sure how would be the best way to do this however but I suppose I could pick an image to process and by taking screenshots walk people though the steps involved????? That would be a bit time intensive so I would only do it if people want that.
Alternatively if someone wants some one on one advice I am happy to do this via Private Mail. (e.g. if someone is "stuck" and cant find how to advance in the PP of an image.)
Also someone suggested a standing series on this site of extreme post processed images (much as there are existing threads with particular themes in the Words / no words forum section). Would people be interested in that?
Keep those images coming.
Peter
RogerHicks, I am inclined to agree I should have more consistency in image types / subject matter. It is something I am working towards. At the moment as I work and photography is just a sideline hobby I tend to shoot whatever image that comes my way that I like. I guess "serious" photography requires the shooter to go out with an "assignment" in mind and shoot accordingly. I certainly don't do enough of that at the moment but need to.
Keith - your image of ladies talking framed in a nearby window I like. I think this kind of PP is important. Its the digital equivalent of dodging and burning. I do it a lot as its a kind of "foundation" technique that many images can benefit from and especially whens shooting people shots most will benefit from the effect as it concentrates the eye on the main subject. It can be done so subtly that one is not even aware that its been done or be done very dramtically as here.
I think the creative experience and experimentation is why I enjoy doing this post processing stuff. I am never totally sure what will come out of it when I start - although I have a fair idea by now as I have done it quite a bit. But I still experiment a lot and sometimes find that I end up with half a dozen or more different interpretations of the same image. most of which I keep on my PC- I usually pick one that I( like best to post on the web.
I am of course happy to share whatever knowledge I have if people are interested. I enjoy teaching others these skills and sharing their joy when they get a nice result. I am not quite sure how would be the best way to do this however but I suppose I could pick an image to process and by taking screenshots walk people though the steps involved????? That would be a bit time intensive so I would only do it if people want that.
Alternatively if someone wants some one on one advice I am happy to do this via Private Mail. (e.g. if someone is "stuck" and cant find how to advance in the PP of an image.)
Also someone suggested a standing series on this site of extreme post processed images (much as there are existing threads with particular themes in the Words / no words forum section). Would people be interested in that?
Keep those images coming.
Peter
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Peter,
"Assignment"? Not necessarily. Just shoot more (with series in mind) and select your series from what you shoot. At any one time I typically have at least two series on the go, e.g. Recycled Religion and 1000 Motels.
Cheers,
R.
peterm1
Mentor
I thought people might enjoy this one as well. Its the result of a cross between distortion caused by photographing a reflection in an uneven reflective surface and some PP. In this case I applied a series of effects to create a watercolor like effect to the reflected image. This was purely an experiment.
If there is one message I can get across it should be that willingness to spend time experimenting will pay you dividends. Chances are you will have the immediate enjoyment of getting results that you never anticipated plus you will learn skills that can be applied to other images.
Impressions 4 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
I think I have have posted the following image on this site somewhere previously. Again I have used the "natural" effect of an uneven reflection and heightened it by boosting its colour saturation etc. In my view often good processing (even "extreme" processing) will start with the characteristics of the image and use them as inspiration for / part of the final result. Otherwise you have to "fight" with the image to get it to do what you want. Its only when you scroll down and see a person in the lower right hand part of the image that its fully obvious that this is a photo of an office tower.
Office life by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
If there is one message I can get across it should be that willingness to spend time experimenting will pay you dividends. Chances are you will have the immediate enjoyment of getting results that you never anticipated plus you will learn skills that can be applied to other images.
Impressions 4 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
I think I have have posted the following image on this site somewhere previously. Again I have used the "natural" effect of an uneven reflection and heightened it by boosting its colour saturation etc. In my view often good processing (even "extreme" processing) will start with the characteristics of the image and use them as inspiration for / part of the final result. Otherwise you have to "fight" with the image to get it to do what you want. Its only when you scroll down and see a person in the lower right hand part of the image that its fully obvious that this is a photo of an office tower.
Office life by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
hteasley
Pupil
I've used Photoshop for image creation for a couple decades now... for most of that time, I didn't process photographs, but rather just painted with it to create images. I know it pretty well, at this stage, and the thing that ends up turning me off of "extreme post-processing" is generally being able to tell which 2-3 filters got used on an image. Especially when its obvious the filters were used at default settings...
Like HDR, there's a lot of badly PSed photographs out there, with the good stuff generally hard to find. I've ended up biased against "extreme post-processing", mostly because it's often used so very badly, to do something not very creative (either Instagramish, or some other solarized, found-edges, sumi-ed, craquelured attempt at mimicking other media).
That said, Peter's images in this thread aren't really examples of any of that.
Like HDR, there's a lot of badly PSed photographs out there, with the good stuff generally hard to find. I've ended up biased against "extreme post-processing", mostly because it's often used so very badly, to do something not very creative (either Instagramish, or some other solarized, found-edges, sumi-ed, craquelured attempt at mimicking other media).
That said, Peter's images in this thread aren't really examples of any of that.