.jpg) |
| [Click to enlarge] |
I took the photograph of my wife's
Dahlia on June 7 with a Nikon D60. The original JPEG is shown to the right.
After darkening the midtones in Photoshop's levels adjustments (an option I'm grateful to Ken Marks for suggesting in order to emphasize the flower over its surroundings), I tried some "artistic" filter effects and selected the ones that appealed to me.
I cropped the original to retain the purples to the right of the flower; they harmonize well with some of the petal tip ends (particularly those to the left).
+120.jpg) |
Cropped and midtones darkened in
Photoshop's levels adjustments |
 |
| Fresco filter |
 |
| Poster-edges filter |
 |
| Water-color filter |
 |
| Cutout filter |
 |
| Colored-pencil filter |
.jpg)
+120.jpg)
Is there a connect-the-dots filter? I vote for the unfiltered version.
ReplyDeleteI haven't noticed a "connect-the-dots" filter, but I don't think there is one by that name.
DeleteThat fresco filter really pops, much more vibrant highlights and mid-tones. And the contrast against the dark area in the background gives much more depth to the photo. Can you adjust the number of layers in your cutout filter, and have you tried "stacking" filters by using multiple filter effects on a photo?
ReplyDeleteMotomynd, I did stack filters once but didn't make a study of it, mainly because I was quickly discouraged by the number of permutations. And I'm not savvy enough about Photoshop to know how layers are involved in filtering. As I said in the post, it's just that some of the standard results appeal to me, and I enjoy sharing them.
DeleteAnd some of the results really put me off, depending on the image; I rarely like "neon glow" or "plastic wrap."
Not true. The Fresco filter gives less depth. Notice that the curve in most of the petals has disappeared. The flower is much flatter and uniform in hue. All the subtlety is gone. What you have is basically an etching.
DeleteIf you layer filtered images, you'll simply overlay one image with another unless you lower opacity, use masking, or do both. In either case, my intuition is that you'll end up with a muddle. I've tried stacking artistic filters, and this usually produces a muddle as well.
ReplyDeleteI have a prejudice against the artistic filters. There are a few that I use occasionally; most I think are gimmicks. If you want to combine effects, I recommend trying a "respectable" artistic filter — Watercolor, Dry Brush, Paint Daubs — with a Pixilate or Texture filter. Emboss (under the Stylize filter) also looks promising, and I've used the Smudge tool with some success to re-create the appearance of an oil painting.
Ken, thanks! I appreciate the suggestions and will experiment.
DeleteKen, I meant more depth to the photo overall, not in the flower itself. Notice how the flower pops out against the background in the fresco filter image compared to the original.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree that "artistic" filters are gimmicks. As an old-school photographer from the 4x5 and medium-format era, digital imaging itself seems more gimmick than real photography, so if one is going to use the medium, why not use all the options? If I ever have to start driving an inferior handling, underpowered, front-wheel drive car because I can longer find a viable rear-wheel drive, it would seem silly to protest by refusing to use 5th gear.
I want you both (Ken and Motomynd) to know that I feel honored to be a spectator at this feasty exchange of information from your deep and long experience as photographers. Thanks for sharing your knowledge here.
ReplyDeleteI not sure I catch your drift. Are you saying, "If you've got gimmicks, why not use them?" Really?
ReplyDeleteThis may be the time to state Ken's Golden Rule of Correct Action: If doing something produces a welcome or constructive effect, do it. If not, don't do it. In other words, if a filter produces a change you like, use it. If not, don't use it. The fact that it's sitting there is irrelevant.
Moristotle, you are most welcome...I just hope my perspective doesn't drive away your readership in droves.
ReplyDeleteKen, more to the point I guess, what I am saying is "if you are going to use a gimmick-based medium, then yes, freely use every bit of its gimmickry to produce every possible positive result."
No, I would not suggest using a filter to make a good photo look bad, but I would never shy away from trying a filter on just about any photo to produce a new rendition of an old scene. I used film for 75% of my photography career and digital for 25% of it. In terms of dealing with multiple types of light sources, minimizing hours of labor and maximizing my bottom line, and producing excellent-quality large prints (by large I mean two-page magazine ads, life-size portraits, corporate boardroom displays, and roadside billboards) film beat digital hands down.
The only real advantage I ever saw with digital were the instant results, that it enabled people who were clueless about cameras to brand themselves as photographers, and the fact that if you knew what you were doing you could photograph the same scene or same board of directors year after year and do something wildly different with the images every time. Since digital enables one to make photos look completely different from film, then by all means try every filter and effect to find out just how different you can make those images. If not, why not just keep using film?
Moto, I agree that one should try something new, just as one should taste a new food. I've tried all the filters and spat most of them out.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious about the year your photography business ended. Digital photography has made great strides in just the last few years.
Ken, In the past 10 years of using digital I have learned that different scenes call for different white balance settings and special effects filters in the computer, much the same as professional slide film begged for warming, cooling or polarizing filters on the camera. You are probably right to have spat out most of the filters you tried, but there are at least 40 or so that work well much of the time. It just depends on the subject, setting and lighting.
ReplyDeleteAs for your question, my professional photography career is coming to an end on June 30. I am keeping three of my pro DSLRs for the major editorial and commercial print assignments that I hope still come along from time to time, but am otherwise downsizing in favor of the new, miniaturized cameras that shoot still images and HD video. My long-time video hobby is hopefully my next "photography" career.
There was a time I was loath to give up medium-format when everyone else was downsizing to 35mm. Then came digital, and I was slow to leave 35mm. This time I am getting ahead of the curve. Unlike the DSLRs that will create 4x6 foot wall displays nearly as good as my old 6x7 format film cameras, the new tiny cameras will barely manage a decent 11x14 print. They do however capture excellent HD video and allow a much more natural and instinctive style of imaging than does traditional cumbersome gear. Since the market seems to be veering evermore toward electronic and digital presentation that pays a pittance compared to what film photography once paid, and since these cameras weigh and cost a fraction of traditional gear, these one-pound wonders seem the way of the future. At least until all we "pros" find ourselves covering assignments with our cell phones...