I've been studying the works of Brian Kosoff and, adding my own technique, came up with some interesting effects. I used the smudge tool at about 10-15% on the following photos:
It would be fun to know your thoughts. I'm not sure if they are photographs anymore, but all I really did was soften things. I used the channel mixer to get the tones when I converted to b/w.
Thanks for posting David - besides this place, what has most benefitted my own photography is copying the techniques and approaches of the greats. Didn't know about Kosoff - thanks.
Your attempts are pretty effective; the first, obviously because of aspect ratio, is the more like him, and actually the more effective I think - they seem to need that horizontal space for their effect perhaps more than the vertical.
These are beauties, David (I had a feeling something would follow your introspective :-).
It is difficult to tell, how much of the final images are givens and how much are effects. This uncertainty on part of the viewer is, IMO, a concern. The only way I know of to stem (this potential distraction) is to scrutinize the final image for any ambiguity and redundancy.
Comparing with the original can (but ought not always) provide measure. I imagine evolving these types of scapes into a series also should provide a more accurate sense of what is just 'right'.
I really like these, especailly #1. I like the suggestion of the shape of the mountains repeated in the cloudscape. I like the smoothed effect, very well done, without being overdone. Would be interesting to compare with the originals.
I wonder what going to a tritone or quadtone would look like?
I had similar impressions to Zeus's. Looking at the first one, where the mountains are a much smaller feature, I initially just enjoyed the effect, particularly on the sky. When I opened the second, after a little while looking at it, the effect on the mountains seemed more and more "overdone" - they take on a bit too much of an artificial effect for my taste. I wonder (if you haven't already tried it) if maybe applying different levels of the effect selectively to the mountains and the sky (and maybe also the foreground) might balance this out better.
I had similar impressions to Zeus's. Looking at the first one, where the mountains are a much smaller feature, I initially just enjoyed the effect, particularly on the sky. When I opened the second, after a little while looking at it, the effect on the mountains seemed more and more "overdone" - they take on a bit too much of an artificial effect for my taste. I wonder (if you haven't already tried it) if maybe applying different levels of the effect selectively to the mountains and the sky (and maybe also the foreground) might balance this out better.
This is very helpful, Scott --and Zeus (and others). I'll have to decide how far to go with the technique, for I want it to look doctored and painterly, but I still want a 'photographic' element to it, too. It's all about enthusiasm, perhaps. Sometimes, for example, soft focus must be enthusiastically soft for the communication of softness to be clear--otherwise it just looks out of focus.
I did not manipulate the mountains much, they were left pretty much alone, though I did do a dust & scratches of 2-3 pixels when working with the large image. This helped rid the photo of noise.
