While I was working on this my resident critic passed through the room and said "oh, you have made a collage of our garden fox". I quietly harrumphed "it's a composite" and then googled the definition of both. Collage, from the French, means to combine elements with glue. The simplest definition of composite used the words combining elements seamlessly. No glue used here but I know where my work must be focused....blending, attentions to edges, harmony of elements.....seamless.
A very sweet image (story, if you're into that term - which I am
). You have sharp details in the background and somewhat in the fox, so for me the softness of the statue is a bit of problem, especially because of her prominence within the frame. I have an idea or two, but if all is good for you and your in-house critic, all is good here too!
Linda From Maine wrote:
A very sweet image (story, if you're into that term - which I am
). You have sharp details in the background and somewhat in the fox, so for me the softness of the statue is a bit of problem, especially because of her prominence within the frame. I have an idea or two, but if all is good for you and your in-house critic, all is good here too!
The only reason I dare to post in this section is for ideas. The difference in sharpness in the three main elements was intentional, I softened the garden ornament but got stubborn about keeping the background sharp. I would very much like to see your ideas.
rockdog wrote:
The only reason I dare to post in this section is for ideas. The difference in sharpness in the three main elements was intentional, I softened the garden ornament but got stubborn about keeping the background sharp. I would very much like to see your ideas.
Linda, it was a very sweet moment, and I had other ideas for celebrating it. I hope to see more.
joecichjr
Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA
rockdog wrote:
The only reason I dare to post in this section is for ideas. The difference in sharpness in the three main elements was intentional, I softened the garden ornament but got stubborn about keeping the background sharp. I would very much like to see your ideas.
Such an awesome composition - and that fox is absolutely outstanding 🦊🦊🦊🦊🦊
joecichjr
Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA
rockdog wrote:
While I was working on this my resident critic passed through the room and said "oh, you have made a collage of our garden fox". I quietly harrumphed "it's a composite" and then googled the definition of both. Collage, from the French, means to combine elements with glue. The simplest definition of composite used the words combining elements seamlessly. No glue used here but I know where my work must be focused....blending, attentions to edges, harmony of elements.....seamless.
While I was working on this my resident critic pas... (
show quote)
You put one over on me, but I sure love it 🥇🥇🦊🥇🥇
joecichjr wrote:
You put one over on me, but I sure love it 🥇🥇🦊🥇🥇
Sorry Joe, didn't mean to confuse, I kind of hijacked my own topic here. Thanks for the multiple visits, The photo is from our back yard ten years ago.
rockdog wrote:
Linda, it was a very sweet moment, and I had other ideas for celebrating it. I hope to see more.
Your original is mighty special. I'd never have thought it was a real encounter and that you were there to see and document.
I love the ephemeral feel of your second edit! Not sure I can offer anything as lovely. But here's my idea: the fox is real; the statue and setting is a vision - and so the statue should be larger than the fox.
Like many of my composites, I went about it the hard way
I should have selected and saved the selection, then did careful cloning over where he is, then paste the new fox in position and size I desired. Instead I did the playful edits first.
I layered your "overexposed" edit onto your original, using luminosity blend mode at 67% opacity. Then two Topaz Studio 2 filters with some masking, then the cloning and moving the fox. Yes, the clone job is seriously
bad!!
Many thanks for the thread and challenge, Phil.
Linda From Maine wrote:
Your original is mighty special. I'd never have thought it was a real encounter and that you were there to see and document.
I love the ephemeral feel of your second edit! Not sure I can offer anything as lovely. But here's my idea: the fox is real; the statue and setting is a vision - and so the statue should be larger than the fox.
Like many of my composites, I went about it the hard way
I should have selected and saved the selection, then did careful cloning over where he is, then paste the new fox in position and size I desired. Instead I did the playful edits first.
I layered your "overexposed" edit onto your original, using luminosity blend mode at 67% opacity. Then two Topaz Studio 2 filters with some masking, then the cloning and moving the fox. Yes, the clone job is seriously
bad!!
Many thanks for the thread and challenge, Phil.
Your original is mighty special. I'd never have th... (
show quote)
Thank you very much Linda. The space between them and the size differential takes the encounter further in the direction I was vaguely headed. I like what you did with the statue and the way you used the b&w layer using blend modes. This is exactly the technical area I am trying to get a handle on, so thanks for the step by step and explanation. Regarding the op crop ver. I had a sense that the background needed a lot of softening, but I am so enamored with its complex vividness (just as it came into the UHH texture and background library) that I just keep trying to make it work!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.