Postprocessing exercise

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by michaellinder, May 1, 2016.

  1. Try this one.
    00dueU-562729584.jpg
     
  2. Original file . . .
    00dueV-562729684.jpg
     
  3. why bother?
    If you're going to put up an 'exercise', pls make it marginally interesting.
     
  4. It's as interesting as you care to make it, Howard. Or, better still, why don't you post an exercise?
     
  5. It is not as interesting as you make it, it is as interesting as it is, which in this instance is, not at all.
    If you want people to be involved then offer them something that they would not hit the delete button after having shot themselves.
     
  6. Precisely.
    I don't believe in the equivalence model that says everything has 'value' or is 'interesting' and while it can be interesting and of value to see what others can do, the photo (if I were to post one), is *my* image and I took it for some reason and had some 'vision' of it when I snapped the shutter so ultimately, I care more about my interpretation and what it says about what I see. If someone wants to comment/critique my interpretation, I'm more than willing to listen. But, as the other poster said, this particular image wouldn't have made it out of the camera or even past first cull so I wouldn't expect anyone else to care or spend 10 seconds on it.
    Feel free with this if you so desire:
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1427442
    Some people indicated that they would crop it differently. After thinking about it and playing w/ it, I decided that changing the crop is not what I wanted.
     
  7. End, Howard - Some time ago, Bill Jordan had the idea to start a thread, which was referred to as the Weekly Postprocessing Challenge. He offered the opportunity for members/subscribers to post a challenge image on a rotating basis. When Bill decided to bow out of the picture, Rick Bortnick picked up the reins. In turn, the weekly challenge faded away due to a lack of volunteers. Since then, he and I voluntarily post images, not necessarily on a regular basis.
    Gentlemen, there never was a requirement that the image posted for the exercise must be of the highest quality. I did not post the image on this thread for critique. I did post it for people to utilize their postprocessing skills however they see fit. I offer you the same opportunity. If you choose not to do so, then it's time to bid you farewell.
     
  8. It gets interesting. @Michael: perhaps next time add a short sentence that it is a weekly challenge to test the creativity of pnet members. Just to avoid the discussion above. And for those who don't find the picture challenging: make it challenging; show us what you can do with it. For instance make it look like the picture in this link: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3272802 :)
    But seriously: the picture as proposed can be improved a bit in a RAW converter but that will not make it an interesting one but I'm sure that someone with Photoshop skills can do interesting things with it.
     
  9. I realise that there is no rule against posting a boring photo, however if the point of the thread is to get people to participate then what is posted, is relevant. These "exercises" get very little participation. Howard offered a legitimate reason why this is so. I concurred. Neither of us have to offer you our own example in order for our observations to have merit. By all means continue to post, bin worthy, images if you think that is the best way forward.
     
  10. Thanks, Jos, for the constructive suggestion.
     
  11. First attempt, LR only; next will follow tomorrow (couldn't find the instructions, have to look up a few things).
    00dul3-562754384.jpg
     
  12. Here's a quick attempt, no real target in mind, just playin' with it for a bit in LR.
    00dumk-562756584.jpg
     
  13. Jos, thanks for posting your version. It brought out more detail, for sure.
    Jim, you forgot your version!
     
  14. Michael, not sure I know what you mean, I'm seeing what I meant to post?
     
  15. "If you're going to put up an 'exercise', pls make it marginally interesting."

    Sometimes the point of an exercise/challenge is to use something basic. Learning post processing techniques doesn't require a fancy image, or even one that passes a critique. Some of us are in the beginning levels of learning post processing. This image is quite good for that. It's simple and easy to see what effect an applied technique will have.
    For those who have more refined post processing skills, this may or may not be your cup of tea, but there's no need to simply lodge complaint. Part of the reason for the lower participation in this thread is because it is no longer a regular weekly item. It's not because the images presented aren't up to snuff. Some images on this thread have received some very humorous and creative treatment. Kudos to Michael for his diligence in keeping the thread alive.
    There are also people on the sidelines who learn, but do not post. I fall into that category, though I did offer a challenge a couple of times. I watch and see what people do, and I learn from it. I really don't care about the quality of the challenge/exercise image. It is a basic, raw ingredient. The process of making it into something different, of cooking it and making something new is the point.
    Howard and Ends, if you don't want to participate for whatever reason, that's fine. But, do try to appreciate that some greater good is being served here, even if you can't see it, or have missed the point of it all. Bring a photo for the challenge instead of an uninteresting and tired complaint. Be part of the solution to what you think is a problem.
     
  16. it seems that some people either don't/fail to understand the nature of the PP challenge. Like most challenges, it is an internal one - What to do with the image, not if you like the image. One either accepts the challenge & posts, or reject the challenge, leave quietly and closing the thread softly as they depart. Many who accept the challenge go down a corrective avenue: adjusting curves/levels, saturation, B&W conversions. Others go down a more interpretive approach, delving into dark corners of their PP software usually not visited. Again the challenge is an internal one. One makes of it as one will/wants too.
    Clearly a few don't understand the Post-Processing Challenge is in the Digital Darkroom forum. It is about the processing, not about the merits of the image, or if you like it - there is a forum for that. Its called Photo Critique, try it, you may like it.
    As to whether you would keep the image, delete the image, or a discussion about the "equivalence model that says everything has 'value' or is 'interesting'", again their is a forum for that. I would direct your attention to Philosophy of Photography. Those questions posed there will probably garner the attention you may be seeking.
    The thread is about post processing, merely that. And that is all the relevancy needed for those that must seek such things.
    When one sets themselves as the standard
    ... *my* image and I took it for some reason and had some 'vision' of it when I snapped the shutter so ultimately, I care more about my interpretation and what it says about what I see ...
    what else is there? All that is left is ones self; seeing reflections of their perfection, distorted by their own limitations, as if in a Fun House Hall of Mirrors.
    00dumv-562756884.jpg
     
  17. Sorry, Jim. I must have missed your version, it is superior to mine, especially when it comes to detail.
     
  18. Laura and Rick, thanks very, very much for the backup.
     
  19. Quick one in FotoSketcher
    00duoT-562760384.jpg
     
  20. Laura and Rick are correct of course, and folks are free to participate in such threads as this as they see fit, but I do think the 'challenge' lost some interest because some of the challenge photos presented simply didn't hold much interest in terms of post-processing. So while I don't think "Howard's End" necessarily responded in the most tactful way, I do think they communicated what some might have been thinking when they left the challenge, and once they were gone, I don't think they were likely to come back.
    When I initially started the challenge, my hope was that participants would post shots they genuinely wanted input on. One of the 'rules' was that the challenge poster would then choose which post-processing they liked the most, and the 'winner' (so to speak) would post the next challenge. When it didn't go like that and I and a few others became the regular challenge posters, I simply felt that the effort to keep the thread going wasn't worth it - well, that and the fact that I lost interest in sitting in front of the computer for extended periods of time processing images (I now do just pretty basic stuff on my own images). I also always felt that burying the challenge in the 'digital darkroom' forum started its death knell. I think a lot of folks who don't visit this forum due to its specific nature would have benefited from it. Kudos to Rick and Michael for keeping the exercise alive, but I think the less complimentary comments in this thread do have some merit.
     
  21. Capturing the surreal
    00dupu-562764284.jpg
     
  22. Using the same plugin as above, I adjusted some parameters and got this.
    00duqS-562764584.jpg
     
  23. And one more. Previous image inverted and then pixel bender applied
     
  24. Bill, I appreciate the acknowledgment you gave to Rick and me. With all due respect, I must disagree with your assessment of the "... less complimentary comments in this thread ... ."
    As Laura and Rick have confirmed, there never was, nor is there currently, a presupposition that the images posted for the WPPC and the subsequent pp exercises were superior or even halfway decent. They were, and still are, posted for those who choose to participate for the purpose of not only displaying their own pp skills, but also enabling them to compare notes with versions other participants have submitted. The current thread is the best proof of this I can offer.
     
  25. Michael,
    I never suggested they should be superior or 'half-way decent,' and in fact, in many instances might have been considered 'inferior,' which would have contributed to the challenge. Since I no longer have any involvement in the challenge, it's not for me to compliment or criticize any of the entries, but as previously stated, I do think Howard and 'End...' have a valid point that might have contributed to some withdrawing from participation. With the picture you posted this week, for example, I would have been at a loss for how to or even why to improve it, and simply applying filters and clicking cool effects in my processing software just to see what would happen wouldn't have been of interest to me.
    Respectfully,
    Bill
     
  26. Bill, it's not necessarily been the goal to improve the image.
     
  27. Having read the responses and viewed the images posted in this thread, I have a better idea of the purpose of these "challenges". I had previously thought that it was about posting an image which for whatever reason was challenging to post produce and could benefit from some post production to improve the photo. I now see that it is about posting anything at all, for no particular reason and then bludgeoning it with filters. Please excuse my initial confusion and carry on.
     
  28. I stand corrected Michael. I should have said 'process' vice 'improve.' The original impetus for the challenge was a shot I posted in a different forum that someone suggested some alternate processing ideas for. To him that would probably have 'improved' it, but not necessarily to everyone.
     
  29. Well put, Bill.
     
  30. End, that is your first name, right? Some research into the images posted for the WPPC and subsequently those posted for the pp exercises might lead you to change your thinking. Then again, you are so busy with your bludgeoning that you might not notice. And, by the way, if you take the position that the images I've posted from time to time are crap, just have the cojones to say so. I have fairly broad shoulders and a fairly thick skin. And I'm done.
     
  31. "I had previously thought that it was about posting an image which for whatever reason was challenging to post produce and could benefit from some post production to improve the photo."

    There is NOTHING stopping you from doing this. Why don't you go back to when this thread originally started. Do some reading and see how this thread has evolved. You clearly don't understand what people are doing here, but your complaints and baseless accusations don't accomplish anything constructive. Then, on the other hand you could meet the challenge and offer to post something "interesting". Why don't you do that?
     
  32. My turn.
    00dusj-562771584.jpg
     
  33. Ray House

    Ray House Ray House

    Maybe we can lighten up a bit and have fun too. Thanks Michael for keeping this going...
    00duuK-562777784.jpg
     
  34. I think it needs to be made clearer that the term "post processing" also includes "editorializing" the subject of the image similar to Ray's treatment as opposed to just making the image look better in color, tone and simple cropping and touch up. The two do require different mindsets creatively speaking not to mention some level of imagination.
    In fact as a former cartoonist, production assistant and graphics professional those distinctions between the two were strictly made clear with publishers and production houses and required more than one person each with their own training and skill set.
    I mean we're doing stuff to images in this thread series that 30 years ago would've made highly paid editors pull their hair out and most likely be amazed at the same time on the level of imagination and technical ability. Heck! National Lampoon magazine might've hired some here just on their style of bad taste.
    To me the image is kind of funny on its own because I can't understand how a photographer can look through the camera's viewfinder through very dark sunglasses. I just can't think of a way of manipulating the image to emphasize that point which would be considered more as editorializing instead of just post processing.
     
  35. Ray's version is great, and very funny.
     
  36. I'm new here, so I have no idea if this upload is going to work...but it was this thread that prompted me to join up. Post-processing allows us to hone in on the elements of the scene that originally attracted us, and I was attracted to this picture because of the wonderful contrast between the hands and the camera, with that magnificent blue behind them. Boring? No way. Some of the most rewarding moments in photography are finding cool things in unexpected places.
    00duyQ-562787884.jpg
     
  37. Tony, I am quite impressed with the effects you added. Jos, the line drawing has dramatic contrast. Rick M., whatever you did with the background, begs for a viewer's further exploration. Igor, basic modifications seem to work quite well. Ray, thanks for the comic relief; I am wearing a red nose as I'm writing this. Finally, Leslie - your words are encouraging to say the least. I love your crop; the image perfectly matches the title you provided.
     
  38. Hi, I have no processed image to submit but wish to add that reading all the comments has been most entertaining. At first glance maybe the image did look a bit boring and not the best photograph ever taken. But out of all the interesting attempts to find a processing technique to improve it, Leslie has shown the way. All that was needed was a crop, Leslie I congratulate you.
    Ger.
     
  39. Well said, Gerald.
     

Share This Page