Playing with mirroring

Remi M. · Jul 7, 2007

This is a shot I took in downtown vancouver:

I did my "usual" b&w conversion and post processing:

I was never really happy with it. I particularly hate the benches and the dark stripe on the right. This shot was taken literally seconds before it started raining. I planned to go back and re shoot from a different angle. In the mean time I wanted to see how much I could do in photoshop. So I mirrored the columns on the left. I did my best to not make that obvious by cloning out or moving details.

Is there anything that jumps out? I would like to tweak it before I post it in the forum gallery.

newrmdmike · Jul 7, 2007

the bricks down the middle.

BUT ITS OFF TO AN IMPRESSIVE START

newrmdmike · Jul 7, 2007

and do you mind me asking what your normal bw conversion and post is?

looks like unsharp mask and maybe a curves adjustment? what is it?

newrmdmike · Jul 7, 2007

i can see what i'm pretty sure is liquify marks down the middle of the bricks where you tried to hide the angle they come together at.

Remi M. · Jul 7, 2007

Thanks newrmdmike

Yeah the dark stripe down the middle of the bricks does bother me too. But I'm not sure how to fix that yet. Maybe localized levels adjustment?

I did not use liquify in the photo, I have never actually used it, I'm going to try it though, thanks for the idea

I used a layer mask to "weld the middle together" I painted the mask in sort of a zigzag manner, I think thats what your noticing. I'm going to have to work on that mask some more I guess.

As to my usual b&w conversion:
First I look in the channels to see what channel or a combination of would look best in black and white.
I use the channel mixer to convert to black and white. The most common ratio I use is %60 Red and %40 Green.
Next I use levels. I pull the white level and black level into the beginning of the histogram on each side. Sometimes I do multiple localized levels layers and masks especially if there is a sky involved. The adjustment of levels has the most dramatic change on photos taken on overcast "dull" days.
After levels I use curves and a mild contrast "s" curve. I don't do anything stronger with curves as the image is already near the end of the dynamic range anyway.
If I feel it needs more contrast I use the unsharp mask, then smart sharpening.
Finaly I use noise ninja if the sharpening made allot of artifacts.

Lately I have started using gradient masks when using levels. I used them in this image to give the floor some depth and to draw the eye towards the door.

Sw1tchFX · Jul 7, 2007

I like the 2nd better. I think it has better balance.

glaston · Jul 8, 2007

This a great photo!
When I saw the 1st one above(the original), I thought it was a 3D rendering!
Even looking at it right now it really looks like a rendering using global illumination.
The grayscale tones on the door especially, give it somewhat of a fake appearance. I don't mean that in a bad way either.
The lighting is so uniform it looks like a miniature or a computer model.

What kind of settings did you use to achieve this?

Remi M. · Jul 8, 2007

I fixed that dark stripe down the middle:

It wasn't as hard as I thought.

Glaston:
Thank you. My settings had no bearing on the uniform lighting (I took this shot with a 50mm lens at f2). The shot was taken just before it started raining, so the sky was overcast. The light from the sun was diffused by the cloud cover, leaving little shadow.

shorty6049 · Jul 8, 2007

thats really cool looking, i dont know how i feel about the fact that its not "real" but still very neat

glaston · Jul 9, 2007

dont know how i feel about the fact that its not "real" but still very neat

You mean it's not what was directly in front of the camera.
Why does that matter though?
All it means is that it was more difficult to achieve, so it's an even more accomplished feat.

This concept pops up here all the time doesn't it?
That's very unfortunate.

Chase · Jul 9, 2007

I think it tends to be a bigger issue when it is in a more regular gallery than when it is something done in here (the graphics programs forum). There is always a fine line between what a person considers to be a "photograph" and what someone considers to be "digital art", and I believe where that line falls is very different from person to person. Some people have a great love for post processing and others can't stand it, to each his own

shorty6049 · Jul 9, 2007

i just meant that the fact that i can never visit a place that looks like that, or that it doesnt even exist kind of makes me not like it as much, (not to says i DONT like it because i really really do) i do like post processing , and i do it all the time, and i'm definately not trying to start a conversation/arguement about wether it can be called a photograph or not, i just was saying that was my opinion. If i wasnt told that it was done in post processing, i would have no issues with it and i'd love it. its just sorta like the man behind the curtain...

glaston · Jul 10, 2007

There is always a fine line between what a person considers to be a "photograph" and what someone considers to be "digital art", and I believe where that line falls is very different from person to person.

I come from a graphic design background. The general philosophy behind digital art is more complex than you might think.
Manipulating images is NOT considered art in that community. Simply because it doesn't really involve design.
The closest thing is digital matte painting. Which involves combining multiple images for the base, then painting elements in to get the end result.

When you watch a movie, like lord of the rings, and it shows landscapes or cityscapes from a wide perspective that has elements which would clearly not be possible, that's a digital matte painting. Like a wide shot of the city of Coruscant in Star Wars, that's digital matte.

In the digital art community one major point of aggrevation for artists is that so many people take the un-informed position that works created with the computer isn't art. The misconception is that the computer does all the work.
That's majorly UNTRUE. If anything, art is more difficult with a computer because it brings together not only artistic concepts like composition, color palettes, and lighting. It also requires alot of technical proficiency.

I just get annoyed when people make these kind of comments.

newrmdmike · Jul 10, 2007

shorty, i strongly recommend you look at jerry uellsmans work.

its all about post conception. in my opinion its a higher form of art, it takes more than copying nature, it takes manipulating it. if he photographed just the building its really just a reflection of someone elses design, and artistic skill. BUT, when he changes it, makes it so much more surreal it becomes a creation of its own. more independently art if you wil.