Testing some processing techniques

[Lars]

Jack - well it might not be blown in the image file, but in the camera (or on film?) is a different matter. I'm just saying that part of the scene is a bit tricky.

 

[Jack]

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?

Excellent point, but my point is I was trying to get "blah" images to look like something worthwhile. If they had been worthwhile to begin with, they would (should) have stood on their own. What it reinforces for me is I can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear so to speak

 

[Robert Campbell]

I can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear

Yes you can, but not from these images.

 

[jonoslack]

Hmm.
Well, I think the third picture might be a silk purse anyway. It needs a bit of work on it, but I can see real potential there . . . .
I'm not keen on the polaroid treatment, and I think that the second one could be fine. But the third one intrigues me.
More drama in the sky (which is dramatic anyway), more colour in the graffiti, and more concentration on the lines . . . . but none of this requires anything more than ordinary pp.

Personally, I'm a firm believer that it isn't worth trying to rescue a mistake (unless it's of the bride). I'm also uncomfortable about any post processing which wasn't 'envisaged' when you took the shot, and packaged effects always set my teeth on edge.

Still, I've looked again at that last shot - I think it's worth a little more work.

 

[mwalker]

Jack, I kinda like the road shot now....see what a little booze can do!