The final thought on this series: a side-by-side comparison of the rendering applied to a single image:
The original (on Flickr):
Original Rendering (posted to Flickr)
Final Duotone Version
Final Result, Cyanotype processing
I’m not really sure which one I prefer…
I tried, guys – I really did. I wanted to buy from you. I always want to buy from you, or someone – anyone – who specializes in photography.
Don’t get me wrong: I love the convenience of Amazon, but when it comes to quality listings and specialized knowledge I like to stick with the specialists. Like you.
Unfortunately, you don’t like me. I live in another country, as far as you’re concerned. Like our brothers & sisters in Puerto Rico or Hawaii, you add the “not us” tax. Contiguous 48 states? Free shipping! Alaska? Twenty bucks minimum, give or take. It’s probably worse in Hawaii.
I just wanted a monopod – figured I’d grab one & reward The Online Photographer at the same time. Add on a head & a tabletop tripod and you’ve got my order. And your prices: on par with everything Amazon offered, even a tad cheaper.
But with shipping? 12% more expensive.
And that’s why I order from Amazon every other month, but from you guys only once every other year. It adds up, guys.
It adds up.
Continuing and contrasting with the concept in yesterday’s post, the concept of cyanotype processing. Except, unlike in the link just preceding this, I refer to *digital* processing of a cyanotype.
Following the duotone instructions, it’s certainly possible to achieve a similar result, but it’s not really true-to-form. Then again, nothing in the digital world is. But the folks at Nik have done a pretty good job of getting close with their Silver Efex pro tool. Click to continue »
Duotone. I suppose the first thing to say about them is to take a look at a few, to get a feel for what a duotone is. The Wikipedia link gives a good idea, with a pretty good example.
It’s pretty easy to make a duotone in Photoshop – I’ve been using PS since version 5.5 and I don’t remember it *not* being there (although I didn’t really use it until CS2 came out, so my memory may be faulty). The effect can be quite nice, and it’s a favorite technique that I often use with infra-red photos.
So, how to convert your image: Click to continue »
Flickr is getting ready to roll out a new design and interface. I’m not sure I really like it, though – seems to run a little slow, kinda hard to find things.
Some things are better, though – adding your photo to groups is much more efficient (once you figure out how to do it).
Guess we’ll see what comes of it…
I noted a short while ago that I was pretty enamored with Photoshop’s new “Merge to HDR Pro” feature in CS5. I need to reiterate: when it comes to merging the images, there’s just no comparison: CS5 merges far better.
However, after a few days of heavy use I’m really noticing that it’s rendering is… well, passable. But Photomatix kicks CS5′s but all over town.
So the bottom line: for HDR shots that don’t align too well, CS5 is probably better. But your tone mapping will be the poorer for it, unless you can get it into Photomatix.
I’ve wasted far too much time trying to get the images to move over with quality between the two; for now, I post this. In a day or two, maybe more.
Along the lines of yesterday’s post: another pair of pictures that bear comparing between the color and B&W versions. I trust you can tell the difference:
Rolling Kohala Hills
Rolling Kohala Hills, B&W
Look at the two images below and compare. They’re from the same image, but rendered in a slightly different manner.
Schoolyard Abstract, Color
Schoolyard Abstract, Black & White
The first is full color (despite appearances). The second has been converted to B&W with Silver Efex Pro. Any preference?
I personally lean toward the full B&W version – I find that the appearance of selective color distracts a bit due to the proximity to cliche.
Chalk this up to a lack of an artistic background, but I never knew that Ansel did some work in color. Logically, it’s obvious. The man had bills and interests. Color was important work, and he obviously did color work.
I’m tempted to say “fine work,” but I’m not sure that it is fine. Passable, certainly – but not great.
I get this from a limited view: from “Ansel Adams in Color
And yet, he was not completely dismissive of color. I find it curious (and a bit obvious, in hindsight) that he considered all color tones to be a subtle lie. I find this to be self-evident: colors in photographs are representative, yes. But not spot-on, somewhat limited in their range, and sometimes misleading.
Having read this book now: I’m glad I did. It’s heartening to see images from the greats that failed to match their mastery, and it’s equally heartening to see his mastery of exposure translated into color.
The transition from CS4 to CS5 seems to be going pretty well – there are a few changes, but nothing that’s really thrown me for a loop. A couple things are extremely (potentially) cool, in the sense that it takes very little time to issue certain fixes. Take the image below, for example:
A View from the Kihei Boat Harbor
This is a crop from the original, but it has the important part (I’ll post the non-cropped version in a day or two). Take a close look at the palm trees: looks like a great silhouette of a lone palm, right? Well, the reality wasn’t so: there were two bunches of palms, one just to the left of the ones you see here. I didn’t like these extra palms – I felt it distracted from the overall feeling of individual oneness: one set of palms, one Molokini, One Kaho’olawe, one ocean… so the extra palms needed to go.