It seems that when I add the 3 layers with the BW filter, I lose all color and it doesn't come back with my photo. Am I doing something wrong here (Obviously...)
It seems that when I add the 3 layers with the BW filter, I lose all color and it doesn't come back with my photo. Am I doing something wrong here (Obviously...)
Yes....you need to use the blend layers...watch the next step for that info...you will see me change them to blend modes....experiment for your own preferred results.
I'd really love to try out your work (as I have been wanting to learn this process) but my video stream here seems very very slow. So, I can't clearly understand your instructions (it's not your problem by the way).
In relation to this, I'd also like to know if there are text tutorials that brings about similar effect?
Also if you don't want to use Optikverve plugin (using Mac), are there other ways to achieve this?
Thanks so much!
If it is okay....please remind me of this in a few weeks time and I will get too and do up a text version to go with it. I have a couple of major jobs that I have to get out before I can allow myself to do that.
"The plugin runs only under Windows. optikVerve says a Mac version is under consideration. Rather than wait for a possible Macintosh version of the plugin, I installed it under Windows XP running on my dual-processor Mac through Virtual PC. This gave me the equivalent of a Macintosh version of virtualPhotographer, since image files can be dragged across from the virtualized PC's windowed desktop to the Mac's desktop and back again easily. (I reported on Virtual PC last week. See //aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/tec101004.html //aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/tec101004.html.)"
Awesome tute Judi! The IR one is also very informative. I much prefer tutes in video format and I think you did a great job on both. Thanks so much for you continued contribution to DPC and all us members! Keep up the great work!
It's never too late to change careers. Best of luck to you. :D
thank you, but in my opinion this is not art ... but then this is a free world, so I can speak my mind, don't I?
I'm not a photo artist, I admit, but I bet till I get 40 I'll know enough to get that damn shot out of the camera as I want, without having to spend 20 minutes on applying filters in photoshop. Maybe some levels, exposure correction and a color cast.. but that's all.
This is a free world, and you CAN speak your own mind, which you have freely. As has Art Roflmao.
Quote from your userpage: What I can add is that I have a love-hate affair with my camera. I love it, i love holding it and I love taking photos of things that interest me, but I hate having to edit and display and half the time the pushing of the shutter is all the gratification I need.
This is what I'm talking about. And now I'll shut up.
if this is digital photography processing... and that's how people get the WOWs, than I'm in the wrong field.
A bit abrasive for your first post here. This is a diverse and mostly friendly community that welcomes newcomers and respects their opinions and their subjective preferences and we all expect the same. We have personalities here ranging from photography purists to photoshop artists and everything in between. While we do have frequent, recurring debates on art vs. photography, it always ends the same - nobody's preferences are changed and we all agree to do what WE like and respect and appreciate each others differences.
Yes, I see it's a friendly community, and I joined a week ago I think, and yes that was my first post, but I just couldn't shut up on this one. I mean, photography is about putting your soul into the shot, to get it right, to show the world what you see, not to put a lot of Photoshop in it. Sorry if my opinion offended someone.
Now, Judi... I think this was a great tutorial and showed many aspects of PP that I was unfamiliar with. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.
I'm not a photo artist, I admit, but I bet till I get 40 I'll know enough to get that damn shot out of the camera as I want, without having to spend 20 minutes on applying filters in photoshop. Maybe some levels, exposure correction and a color cast.. but that's all.
ummmm....Judi's both a good photographer and has awesome Photoshop skills. She had a pretty good shot straight out of the camera. Then she showed what *can* be done with it, using Photoshop and some plugins. If I had started with the same original, I would have gone in a different direction, but I still appreciated seeing her approach, and learned a few things from the video. What's wrong with that?
Isn't photoshop just the digital version of a darkroom? It takes less time, but you can get the same results (I think...correct me if I'm wrong) in a darkroom with the proper equipment, depending on how far you want to go with your image.
Yes, I see it's a friendly community, and I joined a week ago I think, and yes that was my first post, but I just couldn't shut up on this one. I mean, photography is about putting your soul into the shot, to get it right, to show the world what you see, not to put a lot of Photoshop in it. Sorry if my opinion offended someone.
Just to offer a counterpoint, I would suggest for your consideration that "straight" photography, as you describe it, while it is indeed a wonderful and satisfying skill, is arguably less of an "art" than visualizing something like what Judi "saw" in this scene, and using tools of artistic expression (in this case, camera + photoshop + photomatix) to achieve that vision.
She and i are on the same page with images like this; there's a wonderful, creative freedom available in being able to use the mind's eye to create art from reality, and the camera as a tool along the way, not being limited to what the camera is able to do in its native rendering.
And this, of course, has been going on long before digital. Because I once worked with him, I use Ansel Adams as an example; many of his most famous and striking images bear only a superficial resemblance to what a tourist with a Kodak and some plus-x film could accomplish, in the same place and at the same time. His skills in previsualization and post-processing were legendary.
There's certainly room for all approaches.
**************
My only complaint here is I can't hear the voice-over, being deaf, so the tutorial is not as fulfilling for me as it is for the rest of you. But it seems very well done.
Yes, I see it's a friendly community, and I joined a week ago I think, and yes that was my first post, but I just couldn't shut up on this one. I mean, photography is about putting your soul into the shot, to get it right, to show the world what you see, not to put a lot of Photoshop in it. Sorry if my opinion offended someone.
Just to offer a counterpoint, I would suggest for your consideration that "straight" photography, as you describe it, while it is indeed a wonderful and satisfying skill, is arguably less of an "art" than visualizing something like what Judi "saw" in this scene, and using tools of artistic expression (in this case, camera + photoshop + photomatix) to achieve that vision.
She and i are on the same page with images like this; there's a wonderful, creative freedom available in being able to use the mind's eye to create art from reality, and the camera as a tool along the way, not being limited to what the camera is able to do in its native rendering.
And this, of course, has been going on long before digital. Because I once worked with him, I use Ansel Adams as an example; many of his most famous and striking images bear only a superficial resemblance to what a tourist with a Kodak and some plus-x film could accomplish, in the same place and at the same time. His skills in previsualization and post-processing were legendary.
There's certainly room for all approaches.
**************
My only complaint here is I can't hear the voice-over, being deaf, so the tutorial is not as fulfilling for me as it is for the rest of you. But it seems very well done.
R.
Thanks Bear...and everyone else. I have been following this discussion with intent. Curious to see what would come of it...and also what opinions came forth without me butting in.
I do apologise for not including a written tutorial as yet...but as I said earlier in the thread I just have to get a couple of major jobs out of the way and then I intend to put one together for Langdon to put with the tut.
Just to offer a counterpoint, I would suggest for your consideration that "straight" photography ...
OK, I admit I'm a rookie and I may have misconceptions about what photography is. I just expressed my point of view, with no intent to offend anyone. Sorry if I did.
As a beginner, learning by myself, I was always amazed by shots different people took and I just didn't seem to understand how they get those shots out of their camera. I thought it was because they used different techniques that I wasn't aware of and filters/lenses that I don't have at hand. I knew that digital photography involves Photoshop, I just never imagined that it's used to this extent. Now, as I watched this tutorial I felt like the kid who found out that there is no Santa. That's why I said what I said in my first post.
Yes, I see it's a friendly community, and I joined a week ago I think, and yes that was my first post, but I just couldn't shut up on this one. I mean, photography is about putting your soul into the shot, to get it right, to show the world what you see, not to put a lot of Photoshop in it. Sorry if my opinion offended someone.
Thanx for the welcome.
Befor I say anything.
Welcome to DPC.
Many ways your views are close to my views on photography.
But ...
Don't you think that art is to have an open mind to other's peoples ideas. Art is also to accept the ways and things which normally accepted out of way.
Whether what Judi presented is true art or not. Its a way of doing things. We shall be open to it and welcome it.
Hmm, loved the tutorial apart from one bit where i get stumped :(
The part where you apply the masked areas, for the life of me i cant understand how you mask the certain areas and bring them in?
I can get the white boxes there but havent a clue how to mask areas within the white boxes. Sorry but i am still very much learning the art of PS anyone explain this for me?
Hmm, loved the tutorial apart from one bit where i get stumped :(
The part where you apply the masked areas, for the life of me i cant understand how you mask the certain areas and bring them in?
I can get the white boxes there but havent a clue how to mask areas within the white boxes. Sorry but i am still very much learning the art of PS anyone explain this for me?
Very interesting tutorial though!!
Okay...I go through that area quite a bit in the tutorial. You have the white mask to start with. Make sure the mask is active...that is...the mask on the layer palette has a white border and the layer itself on the layer palette is showing blue. Now you can use a black brush and paint straight onto the image, like I do in a couple of areas in that tut. And that will hide portions of that layer. Remember...black hides...white shows that portion of that layer.
OR
You can flood fill the mask with black ...make sure your foreground colour is black first.... by clicking on the image and then using a white brush to paint the areas of that mask that you want to show.
Let me know how you go...I may do another tut next week based on that.
Thanks Judi just reading this has helped me considerably and although i think i have the idea it just needs ALOT of practice!
You make it look sooooo easy. Going to have a go at taking a shot today and following the tutorial through to see what mine turns out like......Dredd to think.
