Testing some processing techniques

[Jack]

Feedback appreciated. These all originated from within Nik Color FX Pro, but all have added processing in CS4.

First is a Polaroid effect:

Next is an Antique/Slight-Sepia effect:

Final is a 300 (Bleach Bypass) effect:

~~~

I tend to see them as too too fake or too over-cooked to work for otherwise boring landscape shots, but I'm a traditionalist. This is my first foray into heavy cooking other than IR capture and processing, so am curious if others think they're interesting enough for me to continue experimenting or should I stick to more normal/traditional landscapes?

Thanks,

 

[Bob]

Too much, I agree.
Is the dark green threshold part of Color FX Pro or post that?
However, playing is good.
-bob

 

[Dale Allyn]

I agree with your "instinct", Jack, and Bob's comment. It's fun to play sometimes, and I have stumbled upon a couple of treatments that were well received as note cards for the particular images. I honestly felt funky for doing them (like petting the dog against the grain), never printed larger or posted the treated image, but I think there are still a couple of the cards around.

Funny, the last one reminds me of a dated 35mm Ektachrome slide. I have boxes of Kodachrome 25 and 64 slides that went a different direction.

 

[Jack]

Thanks for the comments guys --- let's me know my thinking is on track.

Is the dark green threshold part of Color FX Pro or post that?

On the Polaroid effect, that knock-out is part of the FX effect and is not tweakable to less, though you can make it stronger

 

[simonclivehughes]

Jack,

WRT #1, sometimes a border works for me and sometimes it doesn't. Also, the contrast seems excessive between background and foreground, but anaemic in the foreground itself. Personally, the saturation doesn't bother me overly although the lighter greens seem too much.

#2, personally, I prefer a darker brown effect (usually quadtone) for this type of thing, and I'd definitely punch up the contrast (with a curve) to darken the blacks.

#3, seems just too bleached... I know, that's the point, but from a personal standpoint, it doesn't work for me.

Cheers,

 

[TRSmith]

Another vote for playing and experimenting. Inevitably I find little things that set my "spider sense" tingling and store them away for another time. Sometimes it's good to color outside the lines. And I kind of like the first one, although it doesn't scream Polaroid at me.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The Polaroid one I kind of like the rest Love ya but they make me want to scream. LOL

 

[Lisa]

The effects don't do anything me, either, Jack. Some special effects can be fun, but I wouldn't class any of those three as at all interesting.

Lisa

 

[Robert Campbell]

Not my cup of tea, but then they are all more or less 'nature' or realism or pictorial.

Aren't these fancy effects more popular/useful for fashion pix - something that needs
the 'Shock of the New'?

 

[Jack]

Yeah, think it's three thumbs down myself...

On the upside, I did find two bottles of Hendricks gin today --- going to confirm some of that in the form of a bone dry, very cold martini in about 20 minutes

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Oh sure just tease us now.

 

[Jack]

Okay, just for you bud, I'll have two!

:ROTFL:

 

[moggi1964]

I love the support and humour found here as well as the honest and constructive feedback. 'Gin-baiting' should be banned though

I do think Number 2 has more potential; lacks contrast as I think someone else suggested.

It's fun to play (as I am finding out with LR2).

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Photography Rule Number 3 . Have fun and experiment. Rules 1 and 2 still under development. LOL

 

[mwalker]

Jack, drink those martinis and post them again...I bet they'll look better.:grin:

 

[Jack]

LOLOL! Okay, here's a redo of the second image after the two matinis. All I did here was the basic B&W conversion, added my basic film response curve, added some grain, added a vignette edge burn.

Still sucks IMO :ROTFL:

 

[Lars]

The Polariod effect looks...interesting. Too digital with the clipped shadows, but if you can fix that to get more of a chemical look and perhaps hold back the effect "a bit" then it might be useful with a select few images.

For the tree photo in B/W I think you need better control over the tonal response curve, also the blown highlights in the foliage is tricky to make look good. Perhaps not the best image to test your process on? Also, a well-know side-effect of martini is the clipping of shadow densities to black. That's usually not a problem with Islay single malt, you get much smoother tonal gradations.

 

[Jack]

Ironically Lars, nothing in the tree image is actually blown in the original color file or the jpeg conversion, save for maybe one or two tiny speculars hidden here and there. (Copy it and measure ) A few of the highest tones were set to 253, but unless they got clipped during the jpeg compression upload, which I guess is possible, nothing much should be over over 253 --- moreover I suspect most are closer to the mid 240's...

 

[Robert Campbell]

Still sucks IMO :ROTFL:

It does; I find my eyes drawn along the avenue but the contrasts are too great and looking at it becomes unpleasant - and if there's anything I'm being led to I can't see it.

 

[ddk]

Hi Jack,

IMO the effects aren't the issue here, the files that you chose to experiment with are the problem, they're too blah, for lack of a better adjective and nothing's going to bring to life. I used to enjoy cooking the negatives and manipulating the prints in the darkroom and find that digital cooking can be just as rewarding with the right images, why not try experimenting with worthwhile files?