Landscape Pro Software - Before & After Image (Page 2): OK, I get that. I have nothing against photographic art.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

yssirk123 wrote:

Thanks for your comment. My goal was not to enhance the photo, but to see if I could create the image that I had in my mind.

OK, I get that. I have nothing against photographic art.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

I like what you drew out of the rocks and especially the waves below the rocks.
The sky and sand I feel is too much. So which particular programme did that? Adding lightening....probably not on that particular image but as a practice 'why not'.

have fun

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

kymarto wrote:

For me it goes way beyond the bounds of enhancing a photograph in post processing. I'm a believer in optimization, but not in addition.

I strongly agree. The lightening is a lie.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

G Brown wrote:

I like what you drew out of the rocks and especially the waves below the rocks.
The sky and sand I feel is too much. So which particular programme did that? Adding lightening....probably not on that particular image but as a practice 'why not'.

have fun

Thanks for your comment. The sky and sand adjustments were Topaz Adjust.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

Kmgw9v wrote:

I strongly agree. The lightening is a lie.

Thanks for looking.

GWR100 Loc: England

That is so refreshing to hear, there are far too many people ready to decry the art of producing a picture from an electronic image. Is it photography, yes of course it is, as it always has been. As for you picture, there is a lot that is very interesting on it, and while Im not familiar with the software you are using I can see where yours would benefit from control different elements of the picture. Keep working from you mind, I love it,

Geoff

yssirk123 wrote:

Thanks for your comment. My goal was not to enhance the photo, but to see if I could create the image that I had in my mind.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

BTW, I made a 16x24 print of this image using Qimage. Mike Chaney (creator of Qimage) has a new interpolation method that allows you to double the native resolution of your printer. For a Canon printer that means you can now print at 1200 dpi instead of 600 dpi. The output was pretty amazing.

If this is of interest, here is a link to the article on the ddisoftware website: http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/tech-prt.htm

I am not affiliated in anyway with Qimage, other than having used the software for the last 10 years or so. Hope all is well.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

GWR100 wrote:

That is so refreshing to hear, there are far too many people ready to decry the art of producing a picture from an electronic image. Is it photography, yes of course it is, as it always has been. As for you picture, there is a lot that is very interesting on it, and while Im not familiar with the software you are using I can see where yours would benefit from control different elements of the picture. Keep working from you mind, I love it,

Geoff

Thanks for your comment Geoff. I think its fun to try different things, and I am okay if it doesn't float everyone's boat.

GWR100 Loc: England

Good on ya, keep floating you boat-------

yssirk123 wrote:

Thanks for your comment Geoff. I think its fun to try different things, and I am okay if it doesn't float everyone's boat.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

GWR100 wrote:

Good on ya, keep floating you boat-------

Thanks for your comment!

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

NormanTheGr8 wrote:

So your a graphic artist now ? Although the special effects look great it really does , can you look yourself in the eye and say I shot that, or do you say I made that computer generated picture?

Who cares? Art is subjective. If you find the final result pleasing, what difference does it make?

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

I of course have nothing at all against what you did -- Actually Nice Effort - However -- From my personal perspective which only includes anything ever coming out of my camera ---
I just don't like it --
I say the real challenge is try shooting for the "real thing"

Pixelpusher Loc: S W Florida & N.H.

NormantheGr8"" So your a graphic artist now ? Although the special effects look great it really does , can you look yourself in the eye and say I shot that, or do you say I made that computer generated picture? ""

Let me pipe in.. I think also Kymarto, Spider 223 Have a valid point as well. this issue comes up from time to time.

Most of my work is Highly Manipulated to say the least. Although I do produce some photojournalistic work. With Abosulutely No manipulation

I pretty much stopped posting here as I didn't find any other work like mine.

they should divide this thread into Minimum post processing photo gallery and a Highly processed Photo Gallery

you can see from the attached example how far afield Iv'e gone

NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

yssirk123 wrote:

Thanks for your comment. The answer to your question is Yes, thats what I was going for.

NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

Who cares? Art is subjective. If you find the final result pleasing, what difference does it make?

All you really have to please is yourself and if your anything like me you are also your harshest critic. This being a photography forum I had to ask with all the things we can do now in post process it is easy to become graphic artist instead of Photo artists or a combination of the 2, Photoshop Artists

there have been many times I have tried to catch lightning and missed, having extra bolts on my hard drive would come in handy I like to see discussions like this on here makes the hog more fun !!