Postprocessing exercise

[jordan2240]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>Respectfully,<br>

Bill</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Bill, it's not necessarily been the goal to improve the image. </p>

[endof_days]

<p>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.</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>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.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Well put, Bill.</p>

<p> </p>

[michaellinder]

<p>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 <em>cojones</em> to say so. I have fairly broad shoulders and a fairly thick skin. And I'm done.</p>

[Laura Weishaupt]

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

<em> </em><br>

<strong>There is NOTHING stopping you from doing this</strong>. 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?<em><br /></em></p>

[igord]

<p>My turn.</p><div></div>

[Ray House]

<p>Maybe we can lighten up a bit and have fun too. Thanks Michael for keeping this going...</p>

<div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

 

[Laura Weishaupt]

<p>Ray's version is great, and very funny.</p>

[Leslie Reid]

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

[michaellinder]

<p>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.</p>

[Gerald Cafferty]

<p>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.<br>

Ger. </p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Well said, Gerald. </p>