Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

I can make them too
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:46 am    Post subject: I can make them too Reply with quote
the cheap effects. I just wanted to show that I can make them, too. Razz



Wink


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thats pretty damn good for a cheap effect.

So, how do you do it, cheaply ?


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Can't say it is a becoming effect, regardless of cost. But it seems to be
popular so I must be in the minority.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
Thats pretty damn good for a cheap effect.
So, how do you do it, cheaply ?


It's very simple, you make a duplicate layer in photoshop, desaturate it, and with the eraser, remove the parts that you want coloured (the layer below will surface).


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Katastrofo wrote:
Can't say it is a becoming effect, regardless of cost. But it seems to be
popular so I must be in the minority.


It's popular because it makes an impact at low cost.
For cost, I mean "cost of intelligence (fantasy, creativity)".
Here's why I say "cheap"... you buy it at no fantasy cost...

My picture here takes it one little step further than cheap... at least I gave the effect a meaning. I hated to make it completely stupid... Rolling Eyes

But look around the galleries on the net and you will see that in many cases, not even the effort of giving it a meaning is used: people just apply it to anything that just "looks cool"... regardless of what it would mean in the photo... it's the portrait of our age: the show, the first impression, and behind it: nothing.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes I must agree it is a cheap effect.

Good Photoshop work should not be seen.
I think here we are looking at an effect that has no purpose and makes no contribution to the image.

I agree.
'It's popular because it makes an impact at low cost.
For cost, I mean "cost of intelligence (fantasy, creativity)".

I would also take it one little step further than cheap... It is an effect used by those with no real photo knowledge and is one of those effects often used in a false believe that it adds impact to a mediocre or poor photo.
I think you are looking at too many galleries posted by children!

Here is a gallery you can ‘Get your teeth into’
I really like this guys work. It is very creative most of it is IMO true ‘Art’
http://flickr.com/photos/sfduggan/
Now if you can recreate that? Smile

Last edited by Rob Leslie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:26 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rob Leslie wrote:
Yes I must agree it is a cheap effect.
Good Photoshop work should not be seen.
I think here we are looking at an effect that has no purpose and makes no contribution to the image.


In this specific case, I disagree (strange, eh?) Laughing
Because I used the effect to a meaning (the Carnival is something that only children can live in all colours while adults have lost the native ingenuity)

So I think it actually gives the image a meaning that was not there originally.

THe problem is that the effect is so overused, abused, overseen, that it has lost the potential strenght.

This is what happens with all effects, sooner or later.

David Hamilton looked cool in the beginning when he first published his pictures of foggy young ladies.
Several decades and an undetermined number of imitators after, the effect has reached the point of unbearable (at least for me).

This is why I always try to rely and resort to photographic resources only. If your photo is strong to start with, it will live without the need of any artificial help.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Rob Leslie wrote:
Yes I must agree it is a cheap effect.
Good Photoshop work should not be seen.
I think here we are looking at an effect that has no purpose and makes no contribution to the image.


In this specific case, I disagree (strange, eh?) Laughing
Because I used the effect to a meaning (the Carnival is something that only children can live in all colours while adults have lost the native ingenuity)


Sorry IMO using the effect (Even if I had never seen it before and it wasn't so overused) hasn't worked in the way you intended.
The idea is there but any meaning is lost.
Again it is a very good example of using an effect which although the intention may have been good has only succeeded in spoiling the picture.
I believe everybody used this effect in an effort to empathise a point or feature and in my opinion it never worked.
If manipulation that is obvious (Such as many of the shots in the link I posted) is obvious then it must also add to the overall image and be creative.
If the children where in the foreground and the adults were out of focus in the background then your idea may have worked. One could then see the idea behind the manipulation and perhaps appreciate it.

I have to go out. I'm not being rude I'm just not here again till this evening!


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Actually, I think that sometimes this effect makes sense but only at very rare occasions.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rob Leslie wrote:

Sorry IMO using the effect (Even if I had never seen it before and it wasn't so overused) hasn't worked in the way you intended.
The idea is there but any meaning is lost.

If the children where in the foreground and the adults were out of focus in the background then your idea may have worked. One could then see the idea behind the manipulation and perhaps appreciate it.


Sorry, but I disagree on your criticism. The focused subject (the fairy girl) is well visible and most obviously the main subject. The other children don't need to be all visible and in the foreground, it is not a military parade, and secondly the audience is not made by idiots who need the things slapped on their face for them to understand.
As long as the other children (the "support" children) are coloured and visible, they enhance enough the concept. The centre of attention remains on the little girl.

The reason why the effect is weak is not in the execution, as you imply. It is simply in the fact that this effect was overused in these last years, and all audience is now bored by it.

-


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is really cool, I like it pretty much!


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Normally I dont like this effect, but I think this very good quality image saves the day Wink

Most often with his effect I come to think of the Schindlers Lizst movie with the little girl in red jacket, that has very short time in the film and almost just appear in the background, but thanks to the red jacket stands out. In the film I thought it was good, but therefore I often think of the film when I see this on photos.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Prometheus wrote:

Most often with his effect I come to think of the Schindlers Lizst movie with the little girl in red jacket, that has very short time in the film and almost just appear in the background, but thanks to the red jacket stands out. In the film I thought it was good, but therefore I often think of the film when I see this on photos.


Yes, Spielberg made it popular.
He used it in a very expressionist way - clearly "over the line" while the rest of the movie was more mainstream hollywood movie.
It surely obtains the effect of schocking the audience, but aesthetically speaking, I have my reserves on the choice he made, because it is not consistent with the rest of the film.

If I think of the movies by Roberto Rossellini (not because he was Italian), he was able to obtain deep impression in the audience, but without these gimmicks - so I prefer his consistency.

I also love directors like David Lynch whose films are at the opposite of the realism of Rossellini because they are all in the register of surreal/oniric. In Lynch movies this type of visual effects are consistent with the tone of the whole film, the are organic to the film. I love that consistency, I think it's important in an artwork.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
For me it works okay, but I think this effect works better on simple compositions. Personally I think the variation of this effect where the background is only semi-desaturated tends to work better.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I will start off by saying that I do not like the effect.

This is what I saw when I FIRST looked at the photo:
I saw all the children with their brightly colored costumes and immediately thought this was an event or parade for children to enjoy. So on first impression I got a meaning from the photo.

This is what I saw when I NEXT looked at the photo:
I saw the 2 adults that are wearing costumes, but not colored up. Then the first meaning was completely lost to me. My thoughts then were that the adults should be included in the highlight, as they were participating in the event like the children.

Anyway, that is what I got from looking at the photo.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
It's popular because it makes an impact at low cost.
For cost, I mean "cost of intelligence (fantasy, creativity)".
Here's why I say "cheap"... you buy it at no fantasy cost...

My picture here takes it one little step further than cheap... at least I gave the effect a meaning. I hated to make it completely stupid... Rolling Eyes

But look around the galleries on the net and you will see that in many cases, not even the effort of giving it a meaning is used: people just apply it to anything that just "looks cool"... regardless of what it would mean in the photo... it's the portrait of our age: the show, the first impression, and behind it: nothing.


Yes, you're right, I've seen this treatment where it doesn't make any sense at all, no message, subliminal or not so subliminal as in yours, can be discerned. It's a gimmick that replaces originality and creativity and I don't respect or care for it, doesn't reach me on an artistic level.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Katastrofo wrote:

Yes, you're right, I've seen this treatment where it doesn't make any sense at all, no message, subliminal or not so subliminal as in yours, can be discerned. It's a gimmick that replaces originality and creativity and I don't respect or care for it, doesn't reach me on an artistic level.


Thanks, happy that you agree, I was fearing of being the only one with this opinion Smile


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Let’s be sensible here but I will try to be polite.
I think you have an excellent example for the very correct argument of an effect being used to try and improve a poor photo.
We have a snapshot which is no worse or better than hundreds that were probably taken that day
The photo is poor for the following reasons.
The first third of the frame is taken up with an out of focus man who is adding nothing to the image. If he is there by intention I don’t see the point of it he is taking up almost a third of the frame? What is he contributing to the subject or composition? Is he there by accident ?

So IMO the photo as it is needs cropping which leaves ‘B’
This crop has not improved the image. We are still left with a poor snap that has no composition or obvious subject matter. It is IMO made worse by the top of the head of the child on adults shoulders being cut off and a third child hidden behind the balloon and clown. A closer look reveals a fourth child in a push chair hidden by the balloon. The balloon almost in the centre of the cropped image is now the main area that catches the eye and the effect of colouring it has heightened that also the figure on the far right does nothing for the picture so lets crop her out which leaves ‘C’
With ‘C’ we now at least have the main subjects prominent and a slightly more pleasing composition. Let’s turn the image back into a straight BW image ‘D’
That’s a bit better? Lets stick with the original idea of highlighting the children and do a selective blur on the adults and I see the man far left background as a distraction so lets burn him down a bit and finally do a curves adjustment to lift the contrast and add a bit more impact. E.
In many and most cases it is a waste of time applying adjustments, manipulations and effects to a poor photo but anything can be improved with a bit of thought.





PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
EDIT: I see that you have erased your last rant Mr. Leslie.
(Which caused me to unwantedly erase my first reply also, because not seeing your message, I thought it was a duplicate of this one.)
Now this reply of mine will sound strange to the readers, because people will not be able to read what I am replying to.
Anyway...


Mr. Leslie it's very simple.
Do I really have to repeat it again?

You said that "any meaning is lost"

I say that a viewer with average intelligence can easily notice that the children are coloured and the adults are not, and from this, understand that the colouring has not been done casually but that it's been done with a symbolic intent.

I think it's a very simple statement to understand.

So sorry, but clear for you, or not, I will not repeat it for a third time.

As for symbols:
Semiology says it, symbols are signs of connotative nature, not denotative. This means they have to be recognized and interpreted. People with average intelligence and education are able to understand simple symbolic associations such as this one, even if there are no instructions or written explanations. This kind of symbolic associations are very common not only in the figurative arts but also in films and commercials, and it's part of the everyday experience in the multimedia society.

As for your aesthetical criticism, it is completely off subject. This picture has never meant to be a beautiful picture. It was only, and very obviously, meant to be an example in a discussion and to prove a point.

And again, I will not repeat again this point for a third time. So, either it is understood now, or never.

You previously said you made an effort to be polite in replying to me.
I don't understand that remark of yours, because I did not made any offense to you.

In any case, please do not make any effort for being friendly or polite with me. There is no need for such thing. And never will be.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hey guys chill out we're just sharing impressions on a forum Smile

I think that a "cheap effect" in general can hardly improve a poor snapshot, not only because of being an often overused and abused effect but also because it will usually fail in its purpose, in this photo we're talking about in particular, it seems too artificial and typical but also it's not much effective, because the little kid is already in a bad position to attract attention and the other kid is already attracting some attention with his "magic" robe's highlights.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is no problem Orio - I agree with ‘naplam’ Lets Chill!
I deleted my last ‘Rant’ in the interest of keeping things friendly. You had not replied to it and I thought you had done the sensible thing of ignoring it.
I have only just spotted your post as I have been out all day having an enjoyable time and taking a few more photos.

“In any case, please do not make any effort for being friendly or polite with me. There is no need for such thing. And never will be. “
I’m sorry to hear that. You have not made any offence to me.
In the interest of good manners I will disregard the remark. I’m sure you don’t mean it.
I can’t see I have made any offence to you. But sincerely apologise if I have.
I will always make an effort to be friendly, polite and honest with everybody.
You are at liberty to throw me off your forum
but I hope you don’t as you have some very nice members here.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's a nice idea but looks a bit gimmicky to me. How old do you have to be when you get greyed out? I was greyed out years ago. Smile

Just wondering what it would look like if you tried the same idea with other effects - keeping all the colours but have the currently grey areas fuzzy or with a semi-transparent mask possibly?


PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rob Leslie wrote:
There is no problem Orio - I agree with ‘naplam’ Lets Chill!
I deleted my last ‘Rant’ in the interest of keeping things friendly. You had not replied to it


Am I supposed to reply to your posts instantly?

Quote:
and I thought you had done the sensible thing of ignoring it.


Why should I? You did write, I did reply. I assume you are adult and aware of the things that you write on a public forum.

Quote:
I’m sorry to hear that. You have not made any offence to me.
In the interest of good manners I will disregard the remark. I’m sure you don’t mean it.
I can’t see I have made any offence to you. But sincerely apologise if I have.


It's the second time that you say "I will try to be polite". Well don't. I have no idea why you should have made efforts in the first time to be polite since I did say nothing to you. This is just an indirect way you use to be provoking and I don't accept it. I prefer if you speak directly even if this means insults.

Quote:
You are at liberty to throw me off your forum


First, I am not this kind of person. Others are, in similar group. Not me.

Secondly, this is not my group. This is our group. Where "our" means mostly those people who stayed in this group since the beginning and helped make it what it is now, and they did this by staying here even when the group was visited only by few people - while others left this group when there was little people in it to feed their egos as audience, and only came back when the hard work was done, to collect the fruits. Do you have anyone in mind who did this?

As far as I am concerned you can stay as long as you like. I never banned anyone in my life and I will never do. I believe in the freedom of speech and in opportunity for everyone to express their opinion without any form of moderation. You will never be banned and your messages will never be moderated as long as I will be the admin of this forum.
I don't see any problems forecoming as long as we will ignore each other, something that from now on I will certainly do.

-


PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I find this interesting on a number of levels,

Firstly the blurred guy on the left seems to be using a MF camera and looking at the back so a Digital back on an MF camera! this guy is walking around with half the cost of my house round his neck at a carnival, and none of you gear spotters have picked this up yet!! Laughing

The Image itself, for me was that the children were enjoying the carnival on a different level than the adults, A childs enjoyment is magical, it is lost when they become adults. Even though the adults are dressed as clowns etc, they cannot enjoy it as a child does, we are bland compared to their colourful minds Hence we experience the world in monochrome compared to them. The mundaneness of the (pro?) cameraman and the bored looking audience only heightens this. The guy with the video is capturing the scene (which we cant see) for remote enjoyment of the event at a later time, We cannot see what they are looking either at so we are enjoying the event by proxy too. There are several themes of distance and remoteness running through this. It is distant and remote for the adult viewer of the image and the adult viewers in the image. We are the observers and the children are the participants.


Quote:
Because I used the effect to a meaning (the Carnival is something that only children can live in all colours while adults have lost the native ingenuity)

I didn't read this before coming to that conclusion by the way! So the Photographer has had an intention and I have correctly interpreted that Pat on the back for us! Smile

Is this effect overdone? Surely this enters the realms of fashion. Saying an effect has been done too often and needs to be left for newbies showing off their new PS skills to impress their Auntie Mabel smacks of photographic snobbery. The effect when used in the right circumstances can still be very effective, maybe I have not seen it enough to become tired of it yet!


PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hacksawbob wrote:

The Image itself, for me was that the children were enjoying the carnival on a different level than the adults, A childs enjoyment is magical, it is lost when they become adults. Even though the adults are dressed as clowns etc, they cannot enjoy it as a child does, we are bland compared to their colourful minds Hence we experience the world in monochrome compared to them.


Yes, that was the idea behind it.


Quote:

I didn't read this before coming to that conclusion by the way! So the Photographer has had an intention and I have correctly interpreted that Pat on the back for us! Smile


Smile

Quote:
Is this effect overdone? Surely this enters the realms of fashion. Saying an effect has been done too often and needs to be left for newbies showing off their new PS skills to impress their Auntie Mabel smacks of photographic snobbery. The effect when used in the right circumstances can still be very effective, maybe I have not seen it enough to become tired of it yet!


My goal was to show that even when it is used with a purpose (the meaning above), and not just to "hit the eye", this kind of effects quickly come to bore the viewer. Because it is perceived artificial, even when there is a reason to use it.

This is my opinion of course.
-
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2