Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : New some fresh eyes

08-24-2005, 02:38 PM
Yes, I got the title wrong, I meant to put 'Need some fresh eyes' ;)

Hey, i've been working on this for so long I can't tell if i've overdone it or plain messed it up...

Trying to replicate some Ansel Adams dodge/burn effects in Photoshop :rolleyes: nothing new :


Some comments would be great! :thumbsup:

08-24-2005, 03:55 PM
l like the lower half. Try whitening up the clouds ala AA and I think you just might have it.

Good luck!

08-24-2005, 06:13 PM
yes, whiten the clouds, and a teeny bit of sharpening. I would crop it narrower, but I just like the 6x4 ratio.

08-24-2005, 10:24 PM
Those cloud tones should, ideally, match up with the house tones, but I think some of the houses have too much brightness on them so perhaps tone down the highlights on the house a tad and apply the same to the clouds, avoid blowing the clouds out for sure, you want to retain detail. The water tones are a better guide perhaps, they have some nice details even in the highlights.

08-24-2005, 11:29 PM
Thanks for your input! Here's a revised edition...


I'll try some new ones from scratch tomorrow ;)

08-25-2005, 08:48 AM
wow, way better! i saw this at work yesterday, but didn't have time to post. i guess my comments about the clouds are meaningless now...they look great! i love that shadow line across the crest of the hills...very cool.

08-25-2005, 09:03 AM
Cheers nords! I'm gonna leave it now cause i'll probably over do it :p

08-25-2005, 09:20 AM
Cheers nords! I'm gonna leave it now cause i'll probably over do it :p

Robb, I feel funny saying anything about it. You have about 100X the skill I do in this area. I would back off just a little on what you did. A touch lighter on the burns, and a little darker on the dodges.

But that is just an average enthusiasts view. You know better than I the effect you are trying to achieve.

Overall I feel the shot and what you are doing is gorgeous.

08-25-2005, 09:47 AM
Don't be modest admedia!

Anyway, I was aiming for a surreal look to it, Adams always tended to take it too far on a first glance...

^ I was using this as a guide...

An Adams enthusiast once lectured us at Uni about the history of photography and he seemed to have quite a bad skin condition, he says it developed trying to replicate Adam's effects in the dark room :p

He must have just got too close to the chemicals for too long!

08-25-2005, 10:20 AM

Yea, that's what I mean. You have formal education with regards to what you are going for, whereas I just take pictures and try and learn and develop from what I see.

This leads into another topic I was thinking about starting in here that might be interesting, excuse me for the hijack. Is photography art? I am of the opinion only some photography is art, and it is difficult for me to put my finger on where the line is that photography becomes art. I feel that what you, aversion and alot of others in here do is mostly art. Alot of others I see may be beautiful, but it is photography... anyways... maybe I should start that thread ;). Later.

08-25-2005, 10:39 AM
Is photography art?

Oooooooooooh controversy! Reminds me of this (http://www.flashkit.com/board/showthread.php?t=467435) thread.

08-25-2005, 10:56 AM
i believe art is about creating that will be absorbed by someone else, and photography certianly falls into that bucket. i think that 'traditional' artists get rubbed the wrong way because it takes FAR more training to paint with oils or sculpt with bronze than it does to snap a shutter. but, the inspiration, composition, and intended effects are all the same no matter what artistic medium you choose.

i think the line between photography and graphic design is more controversial. the artist spotlight i posted on loretta lux (http://www.flashkit.com/board/showthread.php?t=637858) is a perfect example. how much manipulation can you do before it stops being photography...?

08-25-2005, 12:17 PM
Yea, I am just saying strictly photography-wise. Some photos may be beautifully composed and technically flawless, yet qualifies as excellent photography IMO. There is nothing wrong with that. It does not necessarily fall into the category of art.

Other photos have something else that makes them art. What that thing is I cannot tell you. It is purely a subjective process for me. Some photos I say "That is an excellent photograph", other photos I can say "That is simply beautiful" as if it could be a painting or a sculpture, it doesn't matter what medium it is, it qualifies as art to me.

Maybe that is how I define art. Something that trascends it's medium.?

09-01-2005, 04:50 AM
this is my opinion as simply as I can put it.

all photography is "art" there is simply no escaping that fact.

As soon as someone creates something, by whatever means, that creation is art.

......this leads me quickly on to my next, and perhaps more important point on the subject - not all art is good.

09-01-2005, 05:13 AM
just waded through that thread that robb refered to.

Wish I'd done that before replying to this one!! it sort of all gets summed up in there.

Its a great thread for anyone who hasn't read it.

....personally, im thinking about printing it off onto a giant perspex sheet and entering it for the Turner Prize.