Tamron f2.5 cross processed

[Rob Leslie]

The ‘Cross Processed’ look is achieved in Photoshop with a number of curve adjustment layers. A layer to adjust Red green and Blue A fill layer to add colour and a third layer to make final adjustments
Other sizes
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob-leslie/430358042/

The normal shot

[Katastrofo]

Rob, that's an interesting exercise. I'm trying to decide if I like it, compared to the normal shot which looks more natural to me. I do like
how it enhances the greens in the foliage, and the red/orange colors in the crosscuts of the logs.

Bill

[Attila]

Nice avatar Bill

[Rob Leslie]

Well the idea is to see if others like it or not and read some comments about the image.
That version is more like the traditional cross processed look with plenty of saturation. By some selective desaturating something like the below could be done. This is a version I like but others would shout that isn’t a cross processing look.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob-leslie/430534246/

[Katastrofo]

[Orio]

Maybe you'll say I'm a purist, but I still prefer the original untouched. It smells of wood and the others don't.

[Attila]

I guess untouched is rather my taste, processed very good for design in print for example.

[Himself]

I like the second too. I really don't like to touch my pics in PS unlless I have to.

[Rob Leslie]

To be honest I agree with all except ’Himself’ I am not too keen on the cross processed look but a few of us are having a thing about reproducing the many chemical processes in PS, inc toning.
That is the reason I do not agree at all with the idea “I really don't like to touch my pics in PS unless I have to.”
Photoshop Is the new darkroom. It even goes further, it is also your film manufacturer. We no longer have emulsion made according to another person’s idea of a colour, or a print lab that sorts out all the problems for you. Of course if you use JPEG straight from the camera then you are letting the camera do all the Photoshop messing about for you. But don’t kid yourself you are getting an untouched pure image. A straight RAW conversion or worse a camera JPEG is messing about with your pure image more than you may do by using Photoshop with a controlled workflow. There is very little done in Photoshop that we did not do in the darkroom. Only problem for some users is they never went into a darkroom so don’t really understand the basics and accept what a poor JPEG gives them in the same way as they accepted the prints Supersnaps gave them. (Not meaning himself)
Fact. Quality Digital photography doesn’t work without Photoshop or its equivalent, in the same way quality chemical photography doesn’t work without good darkroom work. Even if your goal is just to achieve the nearest possible to a straight, honest photographic reproduction of your scene.
Thank you for your comments. It really is good to be on a forum where you get some feedback.

[Attila]

I am lazy to modify picture in Photoshop generally, you have absolutely right about digital darkroom. Like a filters in analog technics, just more handy and powerful.