Postprocessing exercise

<p>Try this one.</p><div></div>

<p>Original file . . .</p><div></div>

<p>why bother?<br>

If you're going to put up an 'exercise', pls make it marginally interesting.</p>

<p>It's as interesting as you care to make it, Howard. Or, better still, why don't you post an exercise?</p>

<p>It is not as interesting as you make it, it is as interesting as it is, which in this instance is, not at all.<br>

If you want people to be involved then offer them something that they would not hit the delete button after having shot themselves.</p>

<p>Precisely.<br>

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.</p>

<p>Feel free with this if you so desire:<br>

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1427442<br>

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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>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 :-)</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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 <em>what</em> 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.</p>

<p>Thanks, Jos, for the constructive suggestion.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>First attempt, LR only; next will follow tomorrow (couldn't find the instructions, have to look up a few things). </p><div></div>

<p>Here's a quick attempt, no real target in mind, just playin' with it for a bit in LR.</p><div></div>

<p>Jos, thanks for posting your version. It brought out more detail, for sure.</p>

<p>Jim, you forgot your version!</p>

<p>Michael, not sure I know what you mean, I'm seeing what I meant to post?</p>

<p><em>"If you're going to put up an 'exercise', pls make it marginally interesting."</em><br>

<em><br /></em>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <em>do</em> with the image, not if you <em>like</em> 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.</p>

<p>Clearly a few don't understand the Post-Processing Challenge is <em>in</em> the Digital Darkroom forum. It is about the processing, not about the <em>merits</em> of the image, or if you <em>like</em> it<em> - </em>there is a forum for that. Its called Photo Critique, try it, you may like it.<br>

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.</p>

<p>The thread <em>is</em> about post processing, merely that. And that is all the relevancy needed for those that must seek such things.</p>

<p>When one sets themselves as the standard</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... *<strong>my</strong>* <strong>image</strong> and <strong>I took it</strong> for some reason and had some '<strong>vision</strong>' of it when I snapped the shutter <strong>so ultimately, I care more about my interpretation</strong> and <strong>what it says about what I see ...<br /></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<div></div>

Sorry, Jim. I must have missed your version, it is superior to mine, especially when it comes to detail.

Laura and Rick, thanks very, very much for the backup.

<p>Quick one in FotoSketcher</p><div></div>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

 

<p>Capturing the surreal</p><div></div>

<p>Using the same plugin as above, I adjusted some parameters and got this.</p><div></div>

<p>And one more. Previous image inverted and then pixel bender applied </p>

<p>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 ... ." </p>

<p>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.</p>