Honor Guard, 2005

found this to work best for me. Thoughts?

Stephen, I only say this because I alomost always like your work and the quality of the photos, but I have to say buddy, you should dump this one. I think its pretty atrocious. Why dont you try on the original doing a duplicat layer and then blending that layer in either as soft light or Multiply just to see what it will do. Sometimes blurry that can make them more interesing, play off the fact that they are so stationary.

Thanks for the comment. How do you add the soft light in the second layer. Thoughts?

 

Steve

In the layer palletete when you have the duplicate background as the active layer look up at the opacity slider, that aloows you to blend percentages, to the left that you see a little window that probaly says "normal" these are blending modes. if click on the little arrow you'll see a list. Soft light is on there as well multiply (often useful) and a bunch of others. Play around with those and see what you come up with. You can also do blending modes with your adjustment layers as well. Very usefule stuff in photoshop.

I tried layers for a while. Creates huge files, then I merged them when done, they got smaller. Always seemed to have to merge them or couldn't create a Photo.net image. I am sure there a lots of tricks to this. I will try your suggestion.

 

Thanks,

 

Steve

You can still merge them together when your finished.

Is this what you mean? Suggestions? BTW, thanks!

 

Steve

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3568384

 

 

Here is an in-focus one I tried a similar tactic as you suggested. Thoughts?

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3568420

 

 

The first one, I think, just isn't going to work. I would not use this photo. The second one looks nice, but do you like the look for that photo? Here's some of mine, where used soft lighting.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/3367878-lg.jpg

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/3440871-md.jpg

Yes, I actually love the shadow box photo. It is more specialized in subject matter. Not everyone cares about Navy stuff. If you knew the lighting and the place, you can appreciate the toughness of that shot. All handheld, wide-open, high-speed, natural light (no flash) shooting. I learned a great deal about the technique you taught me and this I can see will have a future role in some of my work. I wonder what you think about claiming a photo is not manipulated after you use those techniques. I have been able to check the unmanipulated check box on many of my shots because I only use dodge and burn and maybe unsharp mask. This new technique now makes me challenge that. Thoughts?

 

I do like the photos your posted. I have one photo similar to your top one that I may try that technique on. Bravo on all your help.

 

regards,

 

Steve

First Stephen, I didn't realize my photos would post on your page. Let me know if you want me to remove them. As far as "manipulation" .Technically it is, but its not like adding or subtracting what is or isn't there. I bascially don't worry about labeling it as manipulated or not, for me its photographic and its getting the image I want as an image maker. The idea is not to create a photoshop "graphic". I want a photograph, as opposed to some others that really alter their photos to the extrem to where they're more of a graphic than a photo. So I just dodge the argument (no pun intended).

Do my photos look like they are "photoshopped"? I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.

Sorry for the delay. No, your photos are very nice and don't look PS'd. But I will tell you that many of the photos that seem to be the top rated 3 day old photos you see first thing going into the database they have at photo.net all look heavily ps'd to me.

 

My highest rated photos are under 6's. Never do get any in the 6's, even though when I look at the various masters, my work seems more akin to their styles then to the more ps'd work. Not saying that my work is any where as good as theirs, rather, just saying that I believe one has to be able to say it is unmanipulated per the definition given on that check mark. Why? Because photography is first documentary, then whatever else it is, because photography in its a priori doesn't lie. It is what the lens saw, then it becomes something else.

 

vr,

 

Steve

How exactly did you post the pictures. I have been trying to figure out how to do that too?

 

r,

 

Steve