more shots from petchabun

I'm impressed with your subject interaction, especially the second shot. It's been done to death over the years but you've captured the "story" well.

I'm not sure about the treatment applied to last shot though. I can see were your coming from but it hasn't quite come off for me.

Good stuff though

Ignore the narrow minded hacks.

Totally agree - very interesting stuff. It's all about style and individualism and you've certainly got that.

Love to see more

you are confused. not interesting at all. if you consider the images and imagine them without the computer manipulation MOST, not all, of the portraits and extremely boring and flat with ugly content, and would not deserve a second look.

this is not photography its computer art.

the fascination is just that they do not look like photographs, which they are not, although the base imput is a photo

its similar to the fascination with lens-less photography some time ago in the pre screen obsessed age

i am being repetitious

Ignore the narrow minded hacks.

Totally agree - very interesting stuff. It's all about style and individualism and you've certainly got that.

Love to see more

you are confused. not interesting at all. if you consider the images and imagine them without the computer manipulation MOST, not all, of the portraits and extremely boring and flat with ugly content, and would not deserve a second look.

this is not photography its computer art.

the fascination is just that they do not look like photographs, which they are not, although the base imput is a photo

its similar to the fascination with lens-less photography some time ago in the pre screen obsessed age

i am being repetitious

You need treatment!

Guys like Edward Weston and Ansel Adams, spent days in the darkroom fine tuning image manipulation. If they had a computer they would have been all over it, because they knew the thrill of taking an image to its full potential. Think of all the darkroom techniques books that were available pre digital. In photo school I spent 90% of my time in the darkroom tweaking images.

Sometimes there is a great image waiting to come out of an apparently ordinary shot.

But kopiosatu's wedding stuff is not ordinary, it's really hard to bring those candid on purpose expressions out of people.

I can't speak for the whole volume of work he has shown here because it is varied and some of it is average. So I will keep my comments to the original couple of posts.

As 'The Vulcan' mentioned "yum-i-design" let see what you have to SHOW OFF, as all you have shown are thumbnail size photos and a crop or two of others photos when playing with "your computer Farts"

Yours truly,

Kan Win

my goodness, have i hit on some over exposed nerve.

i only offer a considered opinion back by some knowledge of the subject,

this is a forum right.

Guys like Edward Weston and Ansel Adams, spent days in the darkroom fine tuning image manipulation. If they had a computer they would have been all over it, because they knew the thrill of taking an image to its full potential. Think of all the darkroom techniques books that were available pre digital. In photo school I spent 90% of my time in the darkroom tweaking images.

Sometimes there is a great image waiting to come out of an apparently ordinary shot.

But kopiosatu's wedding stuff is not ordinary, it's really hard to bring those candid on purpose expressions out of people.

I can't speak for the whole volume of work he has shown here because it is varied and some of it is average. So I will keep my comments to the original couple of posts.

You are right, to a point.

i too have spent many years in the darkroom working on processing and printing using photographic techniques to affect images. But my point is simply that the images presented is computer art.

The value of which is up to the viewer. I would also suggest to you tha Ansel Adams did not manipulate images as you put it, but adjusted images using photographic processes

photography |fəˈtägrəfē|

noun

the art or practice of taking and processing photographs.

Modern photography is based on the property of silver compounds decomposing to metallic silver when exposed to light. The light-sensitive salts are held in an emulsion (in color film, layers of emulsion) usually mounted on transparent roll film.

You would be amazed at how average some of Ansel's images were before he did things like selective selenium toning on the negatives.

You can argue about semantics all you want, but I think most people would agree that the definition of photography you just posted is dated and will one day be considered humorous.

I'm impressed with your subject interaction, especially the second shot. It's been done to death over the years but you've captured the "story" well.

I'm not sure about the treatment applied to last shot though. I can see were your coming from but it hasn't quite come off for me.

Good stuff though

the one with colour seemed distracting to me

so i took it out, and let the boy hanging on the goalpost stand out against the textured background

can't please the whole world

we actually went outdoors to shoot t-shirts, but the model fell sick so that left the 2 of us.

then we just took this photo for fun before we left the location

i was on the way to a wedding in the couple's friend's car. he asked me if i could do a silly looking photo for him

this client got me to do portrait shots for him, then later used me for his wedding shots.

he's not much of a smiler

this is for a website

received an email from this guy and he wanted a shoot at his condominium

You would be amazed at how average some of Ansel's images were before he did things like selective selenium toning on the negatives.

You can argue about semantics all you want, but I think most people would agree that the definition of photography you just posted is dated and will one day be considered humorous.

Ansel's work was using photographic processes as opposed to computer generated imagery! These are facts not semantics

A spade is still a spade and will always be one

Ignore the narrow minded hacks.

Totally agree - very interesting stuff. It's all about style and individualism and you've certainly got that.

Love to see more

you are confused. not interesting at all. if you consider the images and imagine them without the computer manipulation MOST, not all, of the portraits and extremely boring and flat with ugly content, and would not deserve a second look.

this is not photography its computer art.

the fascination is just that they do not look like photographs, which they are not, although the base imput is a photo

its similar to the fascination with lens-less photography some time ago in the pre screen obsessed age

i am being repetitious

You need treatment!

please excuse me for not honoring you with a reply to your rude 'off topic' statement

Let's move on shall we?

Let's move on shall we?

i do agree with you on that

my friend was just stopping for a smoke

Hmong kids that my friends takes care of.

farmer with his pigs

more petchabun photos

walking to my friend's farm

his piglets

his pond aka swimming pool

i don't really shoot products

but i did say that i'd post the images up if i shoot anything.

this is actually the defective board, i'm waiting for the distributor to pass me the new boards when it comes end of may

Shots are nice but the Dave Hill copy actions are a bit much, need to light your subjects specifically for this kind of thing also, not just run some orton/DH actions in photoshop.

Shots are nice but the Dave Hill copy actions are a bit much, need to light your subjects specifically for this kind of thing also, not just run some orton/DH actions in photoshop.

photoshop actions are my own, and it is just the normal sharpening, dodge / burn, contrast

i can't copy dave hill because i am not dave hill

some of my shots are lighted with strobes at 3-5 points specifically at where i intended it to be, i do not just run the DI without thinking about the lighting or the final product

it would be nice if people stop relating this editing to dave hill because there a whole lot more people doing it differently

http://www.billsimonephotography.com/

http://www.pakkotoisto.com/mike/

http://www.georgefulton.com/

http://www.timtadder.com/

So your photos have nothing to do with Dave Hill?

is this what you are saying?

it's all your own?

So your photos have nothing to do with Dave Hill?

is this what you are saying?

it's all your own?

yes

i read up more on bill simone and calvin hollywood.

LOL OK

If you say so.

I wish i could believe the fact that you developed this style all on your own.

Anyway regardless of your PS actions, which pic are you most proud of?

LOL OK

If you say so.

I wish i could believe the fact that you developed this style all on your own.

Anyway regardless of your PS actions, which pic are you most proud of?

this editing style was from looking at bill simone and calvin hollywood

they have been doing it before dave hill.

for portrait shoots i look at www.lioneldeluy.com

i am actually a fan of www.davidlachapelle.com because of his photos, it made me want to try something different

calvin hollywood also provides some tutorials for beauty touch ups

i don't see why it is hard to believe. if you don't just rely on the name dave hill all the time and acknowledge the others who do it their own way too.

i only sharpen, burn and dodge selectively, adjust colour in raw. before that i already light my subjects up the way i want.

i don't have a proudest photo, i just generally like them. as long as the client is happy, i don't have anything to complain. in fact if you asked me what photo i didn't like, it would be easier to answer.

of course if you choose not believe, it is also of no issue to me.

i've been shooting enough to just let people say what they want. can't please the whole world, can't make everyone happy, right?

i'll do some explanation, but i really see no point in trying to convince someone who isn't sure about me from the start, especially on the internet.

the internet is one of the worst ways to communicate and getting the message across the way that you want to.

but if anyone asks questions i will gladly answer.

i just don't respond to praises or critiques because i really can't be bothered anymore.

OK well keep on doing what you are doing if you like it.

just me liking it is not enough.

doing it for the clients and seeing them happy with the results is more than enough

that's what pays the bills too

I have no probs with the style or enhancing pics in digital post, my issue is when you credit yourself on a style and don't clearly explain how you get there. A quick google will tell anyone who wants to know that high pass filter is part of your process, not just contrst,burn etc...

lets not forget that a few of us are a bit more clued up than you might imagine.

If your clients are happy....thumbs up.

I have no probs with the style or enhancing pics in digital post, my issue is when you credit yourself on a style and don't clearly explain how you get there. A quick google will tell anyone who wants to know that high pass filter is part of your process, not just contrst,burn etc...

lets not forget that a few of us are a bit more clued up than you might imagine.

sharpening:

high pass filter

blue channel sharpening

burning and dodging is non destructive

i use unsharp mask with blending modes to give it a 'pop'

i work with multiple layers like, hair, skin, pants, background

get the adjustments i want and then i brush them in selectively.

all these steps are available to you in google.

it is how you combine them.

like i said, i am not dave hill, i cannot get his effects or colours

but i do my own colour adjustments in RAW.

Ok I'm not in the mood to argue here, you do what you do and like it...just credit your inspirations when you are that close.