Inverse
Jan 25, 2016 16:46:46 #
This shot was originally a three shot bracketed HDR with a 2 stop spread. Then I converted to B&W and finally chose to invert in Photo Shop. I like the effect, my wife does not. Wondered how you felt about the technique.
Jan 25, 2016 18:11:26 #
Frank2013
Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.
ebrunner wrote:
This shot was originally a three shot bracketed HDR with a 2 stop spread. Then I converted to B&W and finally chose to invert in Photo Shop. I like the effect, my wife does not. Wondered how you felt about the technique.
Always listen to the wife!!lol She was right about the shovel.
Jan 25, 2016 18:44:37 #
Frank2013 wrote:
Always listen to the wife!!lol She was right about the shovel.
Our Frank has a way with words Erich but speaks the truth. If you like it then its a success whatever others think but you may find the appreciation corner rather uncrowded. Its gimmicky and looks like its the beginning of a PP project not the end result.
Jan 25, 2016 18:54:07 #
ebrunner wrote:
This shot was originally a three shot bracketed HDR with a 2 stop spread. Then I converted to B&W and finally chose to invert in Photo Shop. I like the effect, my wife does not. Wondered how you felt about the technique.
Looks a lot like a process called solarizing. In the darkroom, when the paper is in the developer, if the room light is turned on ane then immediately off, the positive then looks like negative. I kinda like this one.
Jan 25, 2016 19:23:21 #
Frank2013 wrote:
Always listen to the wife!!lol She was right about the shovel.
Ok, wife wins. I posted a straight B&W version of this shot earlier today. Looking at both of them, I like the B&W better. I still like this technique; but not many share my enthusiasm. I really appreciate the opinion. Thanks.
Jan 25, 2016 19:24:54 #
Billyspad wrote:
Our Frank has a way with words Erich but speaks the truth. If you like it then its a success whatever others think but you may find the appreciation corner rather uncrowded. Its gimmicky and looks like its the beginning of a PP project not the end result.
.... beginning of a project, not the end result. That comment has gotten me thinking. Always a bad thing. Thanks for the opinion and the food for thought.
Jan 25, 2016 19:27:48 #
boberic wrote:
Looks a lot like a process called solarizing. In the darkroom, when the paper is in the developer, if the room light is turned on ane then immediately off, the positive then looks like negative. I kinda like this one.
Photoshop calls it "inverse"; but you are right. solarization is what it was called in the dark room days. I played with it a bit back then, and I still kind of like it. Maybe (judging by other opinions) it is time to move on.
Jan 25, 2016 19:35:33 #
Inverse = a negative, and with color images can make some very interesting and pretty results (dark green becomes light lavender).
Nik Color Efex "solarization" is more complicated, and mimics the Sabatier darkroom effect:
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/aboutus/page.asp?n=154
I would like this one, I think, if it was just the tree and bench. Too many small details that I can't identify makes this a bit busy and frustrating. Sorry, Erich.
Nik Color Efex "solarization" is more complicated, and mimics the Sabatier darkroom effect:
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/aboutus/page.asp?n=154
I would like this one, I think, if it was just the tree and bench. Too many small details that I can't identify makes this a bit busy and frustrating. Sorry, Erich.
Jan 25, 2016 20:27:51 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Inverse = a negative, and with color images can make some very interesting and pretty results (dark green becomes light lavender).
Nik Color Efex "solarization" is more complicated, and mimics the Sabatier darkroom effect:
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/aboutus/page.asp?n=154
I would like this one, I think, if it was just the tree and bench. Too many small details that I can't identify makes this a bit busy and frustrating. Sorry, Erich.
Nik Color Efex "solarization" is more complicated, and mimics the Sabatier darkroom effect:
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/aboutus/page.asp?n=154
I would like this one, I think, if it was just the tree and bench. Too many small details that I can't identify makes this a bit busy and frustrating. Sorry, Erich.
I was afraid of that. The more successful photos I've done with this technique usually feature a tree without leaves against a sky and nothing else. I would agree with your assessment. This image has too many elements in it that don't work so well with the inverse technique. Thanks for the opinion.
Jan 28, 2016 11:33:36 #
I really REALLY want to like this, but just can't. I think you lose too much detail.
It kind of reminds me of infrared, that didn't work.
Don't give up trying new things, it's just this time, (and just for me) it just fell a bit flat.
It kind of reminds me of infrared, that didn't work.
Don't give up trying new things, it's just this time, (and just for me) it just fell a bit flat.
Jan 28, 2016 17:25:05 #
bkyser wrote:
I really REALLY want to like this, but just can't. I think you lose too much detail.
It kind of reminds me of infrared, that didn't work.
Don't give up trying new things, it's just this time, (and just for me) it just fell a bit flat.
It kind of reminds me of infrared, that didn't work.
Don't give up trying new things, it's just this time, (and just for me) it just fell a bit flat.
I agree with you. I really wanted this to work; but it is somehow one sandwich short of a picnic. I'll do this again in the future. I think the subject has to be absolutely right for this technique to work. Thanks for viewing.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.