Friday, January 05, 2007
Not titled yet
Firstly apologies for the title. I've been unable to decide on one yet. Secondly, and this is where stills comes in handy, I'm very unsure of the image. Specifically I've not been able to decide over a period of a number of days whether I prefer this version of the image or the one available for temporary viewing > here < so your views would be very much appreciated.
The above image is entirely photographic in origin with the ripples achieved using the Ocean ripple filter in Photoshop. The little Naiad/Angel character is my wife in real life. Just lose the wings and much of the glow. The trees were photographed on a local green late last year.
General comments on the image outside of the comparison are of course appreciated as well as thoughts on whether this kind of image should be kept off stills.
Permalink / posted by and copyright of JohnJo : 1:59 PM
Comments:
The 'temple' that is created by the branches leads to the 'angel' and grabs my attention very well.
The ripple filter has reduced the symmetry between top and bottom half in a good way but possibly not all of the base is required.
There are some very beautiful images around that employ the flip and stitch technique and I wonder why you feel it necessary to ask your last question?
There are quite a number of things to address here so excuse me if what I string together below is somewhat disconnected.
Compositionally, I can see the advantage of using the ocean ripple (sounds a bit like an ice-cream!) as Rex has pointed out but I'm not too keen on the look of it - it has the appearance of pixellation, even if that is not the case. So in some ways it is better than the link but my latter point cancels that out a bit.
These flip/stitches inevitably end up looking a bit Gothic ( I think that is the most appropriate term) and, in general it doesn't appeal to me that much. The predominant 'antler' look in this does look rather good though.
To be honest, I don't go a bundle on the naiad although it is well done (even if your wife might object to being told that she has lost her glow!) and prefer the other image as being more honest to the trees. Perhaps some artistic licence might delete the naiad's reflection to cause a doubletake.
In sum, I prefer the cleaner lines of the link because in that way the power of the trees is more evident. And I am not in favour of legislating against these sorts of pictures on Stills! After all, as you say, it is all a photo.
I much prefer the version that you posted on your own site. I think that this is because it allows me to use my imagination more freely, whereas the 'Stills' version is much more directing. Also, I can't look at the lower half with the ripple for very long without feeling distinctly ill - my eyes hunt for focus and sharpness which isn't there and I get an 'all at sea' result.
You'll guess from my own photography that I'm not into making contructed images. But that doesn't mean that I can't enjoy them. I see no reason to limit 'Stills'.
I welcome well done imaging and the one on your site is the version that works for me. The ripple effect is too common and in the Stills version is a little clumsy and over-powering. I'd like to see Naiad in your website version and perhaps play a little with its reflection.
I prefer this version, with the Naiad, as it provides a point of focus for the eyes. I'm curious how this would look on a print. Would the Naiad be so luminous?
As to whether this kind of image should be on stills, why shouldn't it be. I don't create this kind of image myself, but I certainly can apreciate the merrits of it.
Many thanks for the comments all. My reasoning for wondering about the acceptability of this image is simply due to the kind of remarks I see every now and again regarding images that use such heavy editing.
Post a Comment
The ripple filter has reduced the symmetry between top and bottom half in a good way but possibly not all of the base is required.
There are some very beautiful images around that employ the flip and stitch technique and I wonder why you feel it necessary to ask your last question?
Compositionally, I can see the advantage of using the ocean ripple (sounds a bit like an ice-cream!) as Rex has pointed out but I'm not too keen on the look of it - it has the appearance of pixellation, even if that is not the case. So in some ways it is better than the link but my latter point cancels that out a bit.
These flip/stitches inevitably end up looking a bit Gothic ( I think that is the most appropriate term) and, in general it doesn't appeal to me that much. The predominant 'antler' look in this does look rather good though.
To be honest, I don't go a bundle on the naiad although it is well done (even if your wife might object to being told that she has lost her glow!) and prefer the other image as being more honest to the trees. Perhaps some artistic licence might delete the naiad's reflection to cause a doubletake.
In sum, I prefer the cleaner lines of the link because in that way the power of the trees is more evident. And I am not in favour of legislating against these sorts of pictures on Stills! After all, as you say, it is all a photo.
You'll guess from my own photography that I'm not into making contructed images. But that doesn't mean that I can't enjoy them. I see no reason to limit 'Stills'.
As to whether this kind of image should be on stills, why shouldn't it be. I don't create this kind of image myself, but I certainly can apreciate the merrits of it.