Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 8, 2005, 10:39 AM   #31
AMG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 144
Default

and if you are into the background blurring, but you need to perfect your skills on separating the subject from the background, even this one I did quick and there are 2 areas I would refine if I was doinga final result for print
Attached Images
 
AMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 10:45 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Stevekin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,611
Default

You are very welcome Aladyforty. Glad to see you have it sorted out, I was worried I wasn't giving the right steps, I've only just found/learned this procedure myself.

As I also said, this will look a lot better if the focal point of the image is moving off at an angle or leaning toward the part of image you are distorting. It creates a much better '3d' effect.

Nice changes AMD.

Regards,

Stevekin.

Stevekin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 10:46 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

I'm reading comments about which one everyone prefers and what photoshop tricks we all can do. There are few comments about how to make the images(portraits of Ross) more visualy effective, however.

If you are providing edited examples, I'd like to hear why you think the edit makes the image more effective.

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 10:50 AM   #34
AMG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 144
Default

Rodney, I actually thought they were quality pics to begin with, but I only posted because they were posted in this section, and I said ``if`` I were to change them, but by no means am I suggesting they need to be changed. cheers
AMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 10:54 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

My response was not directed at anyone spicifically. It is an observation of the entire thread and many others that are in the new forum here. We all like different things, but that doesn't necessarily mean the photo isn't visually effective.

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 10:57 AM   #36
AMG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 144
Default

I agree, and I didn`t think your comment was aimed at me, it just made me want to re-iterate that the photos could stand on their own
AMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 11:46 AM   #37
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 99
Default

Two words: double windsor.


Proxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 2:09 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Stevekin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,611
Default

Proxes wrote:
Quote:
Two words: double windsor.

I know full well what a double windsor is andconsequently the intimation behind it.

So, as it's me then, I'd better try to justify my posts in this thread.

My first edit, changing the collar and the 'double windsor', I thought needed no explanation or justification in doing. Sometimes we could all do with a little more time to compose our shots, but given the limited time afforded to aladyforty by her son, it is understandable little things like a collar can be overlooked, (and believe me I know exactly what this is like and I am pleased I now have a 16 month Grandson who doesn't mind at all if I shove a camera in his face). But no explanation asto why it was done was needed. IMHO.

My second 'edit' was as a combined result of Mockingbird feeling that "more could be done to make Ross stand out from the background" and my recent learning of the technique I used to distort the background in such a way as to reduce it's impact on Ross. Of course this sort of thing is not to everyones liking, but I felt it looked pretty good. As do all of the edits in the thread. Just a variation.

Aladyforty expressed an interest in the technique and as it is her thread I was very happy to try to explain it.

I find it difficult to critique in a lot of the conventional ways due to being colour blind, so thought this might make a refreshing change. After all, the heading of this new forum includes the word Techniques.

Just trying to join in and have fun as well. Try it.

Regards,

Stevekin.


Stevekin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 2:28 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

Stevekin wrote:
Quote:
Proxes wrote:
Quote:
Two words: double windsor.

I know full well what a double windsor is and consequently the intimation behind it.

So, as it's me then, I'd better try to justify my posts in this thread.

My first edit, changing the collar and the 'double windsor', I thought needed no explanation or justification in doing. Sometimes we could all do with a little more time to compose our shots, but given the limited time afforded to aladyforty by her son, it is understandable little things like a collar can be overlooked, (and believe me I know exactly what this is like and I am pleased I now have a 16 month Grandson who doesn't mind at all if I shove a camera in his face). But no explanation as to why it was done was needed. IMHO.

My second 'edit' was as a combined result of Mockingbird feeling that "more could be done to make Ross stand out from the background" and my recent learning of the technique I used to distort the background in such a way as to reduce it's impact on Ross. Of course this sort of thing is not to everyones liking, but I felt it looked pretty good. As do all of the edits in the thread. Just a variation.

Aladyforty expressed an interest in the technique and as it is her thread I was very happy to try to explain it.

I find it difficult to critique in a lot of the conventional ways due to being colour blind, so thought this might make a refreshing change. After all, the heading of this new forum includes the word Techniques.

Just trying to join in and have fun as well. Try it.

Regards,

Stevekin.
I'm sorry I tried to pull out more information and thinking from people who participate here. Looks like once again I should have kept my big mouth shut. :sad:

Stevekin, you've done a fine job explaing your technique. Thank you!

Rodney

RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 2:58 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Stevekin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,611
Default

RodneyBlair wrote:
Quote:
I'm sorry I tried to pull out more information and thinking from people who participate here.
As I have said to you before Rodney, and to others, when I've wanted people to understand what I mean, it can often be difficult to express oneself in the 'right tone of voice'. Which makes me now wonder just what your line above is supposed to mean. Is it simply that you feel that yourself or anybody else should only expect and acceptwhat others wish to offer.....................or is it that you feel that there is not much to offer from participants here ?

There is nothing wrong with trying to 'pull out more information and thinking from people who participate here', it's just my understanding of your meaning I'm not sure of.

Regards,

Stevekin.





Stevekin is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:37 PM.