Adding textures to landscapes?

[theymademedoit]

<p >Hi, </p>

<p >I have been thinking about different ways in which to process my images.</p>

<p >There are loads of cool looking images about and I wondered if anyone could enlighten me as to how to achieve them.</p>

<p >I have experimented with converting one of my images to black and white and then adding a coloured texture background and quite like the effect but I would really like to learn how I would achieve the look on the examples below.</p>

<p >Regards, </p>

<p >Alan </p>

<p > </p>

<p > <b>Images removed by Moderator. Do not post images that are not yours per the photo.net Terms of Use.</b></p>

[lennert]

<p>Alan,<br>

You are not allowed to upload pictures that are not yours on the forum, you should link to them. (I'm not the mod, but I mention it any way :-))<br>

basicaly you need a texture (color or not) and add it over your image, play with Opacity and blending modes until you get what you want. Try desaturating for that vintage look. I think you could get nice results if you checked on the displacement filter. add some vignet and some local dodge and burn. and you are done.<br>

(I based my answer on the 1st and 3d picture. I could not see the texture on the other pictures.)<br>

Good luck! looking forward to see your results on this very forum!</p>

[theymademedoit]

<p>Hi,<br>

Thanks for the tip on posting and also your help.<br>

I should have known about the posting of others images....so I apologise to the mods.<br>

I will have a go and see what I can come up with!</p>

 

[greslizzz]

<p>You can read the steps explained in "The creative digital darkroom" by Katrin Eismann and Sean Duggan (pags. 344-346)<br>

Have fun!</p>

[r_johnston]

<p>Spent over a year, "restoring"over 2700 images which looked like #1 and 3 for relatives and then posted them on my website so they all could get copies. The first just looks like a very dirty slide, that needs cleaning.<br>

<br /> Can't understand who someone would want to make new images look like them.<br /> Years from now, relatives would be paying good money to have them "restored."<br /> Damage to pictures in the opinion of many will never be considered "art."<br /> As for the last one it may have actually been taken on a foggy day or created in a program by NIK software.<br /> However, I prefer shots actually made in the fog, to simulated images.</p>

<p> </p>

[theymademedoit]

<p>Hi Robert.<br>

I think that its a very bold statement to say that it may never be considered art!<br>

So where do you draw the line? Levels? Curves?<br>

I take it you dont even use digital then?</p>

[r_johnston]

<p>Art is something which is original, not a copy of someone else's work.<br /> Ive been a photographer since 1937 and an artist painting in Oils for decades.<br /> No "Professional Photographer" Ive known ever considered a photo damaged with dust or dirt on slides or negative, Art. They did everything possible to avoid it, only felt it was an image damaged by tragic neglect.<br>

Perhaps one day someone will come up with a unique arrangement of "dirt" that would be considered art.<br>

Yes I use digital, and have probably longer than most, but all my work is original. Using PS from the early years.<br /> Not a combination of the work or ideas of others. Have done some "Digital Paintings" in Photoshop, not alterations of photography using "filters" but by using the brushes on a blank canvas, choosing my own colors, etc....<br /> Photoshop is the Modern Darkroom, but be original in your ideas.<br /> When attending Ansel Adams Seminar in Yosemite, he said, "Over 80% of my images are created in the darkroom. Though I learned _how_ he did it, would not copy his ideas or subjects and used how he taught me to process film and paper to do my own thing....</p>

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