3 photo edits

[rdking647]

testing out a new program,topaz glow

what do you think

[Adsos Letter]

1. I do like the effect in the first one.

How is Topaz compared to Lightroom?

[rdking647]

2. its a plug in for lightroom

or it can be a standalone program

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Very cool! I like the effects a lot. n/t

[Stevenmarc]

4. It's similar to the iPhone app Tangled FX

[mnhtnbb]

5. Very cool.

I really do like the first one, too.

[NV Whino]

6. I think those sorts of things are fine for creating an arty look for a project

Such as illustrating an article. But as an end unto themselves, I don't like them. That said , these are really cool effects… if used judiciously.

[CrispyQ]

7. I love them all!

The bird in the last one is fab!


on edit: Would like to see the original of at least one of them. Pretty please.

[rdking647]

8. these are the originals

[CrispyQ]

9. Thank you. Fun to compare.

I like the touched up version of the first one better. I think it would make a nice Holiday card. It looks kind of like NYC on the left, Bethlehem near the back right, and an Indian tepee front center - a kind of cross cultural Holiday greeting.

Fun stuff.

[Curmudgeoness]

10. They don't even look like photos.

Especially the owl, which is a very nice and interesting look. But I would be hard pressed to identify it as a photo.

Although I really like the effects, and think that they would make some really nice cards or posters, I feel like it is cheating...making it look as if the user is more of an artist than the effort warrants. But then again, I am kind of a purist about photography. I have no problem with a photo being taken and then used to create a painting like the owl. But just to use a few tweaks with a photoshop program seems too easy.

[rdking647]

12. im of the opposite opinion

it doesnt matter how easy or hard it is to do all that matters is the final result

[Curmudgeoness]

14. I remember this discussion not long ago.

It is a purist/artist debate, with no wrong answers. As I said, I think that the use of the photo that is altered so significantly matters and this is great for some purposes.

But I really did love the effects. In fact, I liked the owl so much I would probably hang that on my wall.

[rdking647]

16. i could arrange that

[Curmudgeoness]

18. LOL.

I will have to look for a place on the wall.....I am big on paintings that are all over the place.

[ManiacJoe]

15. What's wrong with easy?

I have no problem with a photo being taken and then used to create a painting like the owl. But just to use a few tweaks with a photoshop program seems too easy.

These are great examples for reminding folks that photography exists on a sliding scale from "photo as documentation" to "photo as art" to "art that started off as a photo".

[Curmudgeoness]

17. The sliding scale is valid.

And I love easy as much as the next person. It is just that when I think of how much work goes into a painting done in a style like that (which I think is so cool), it seems like cheating. I want to give the developer of the technique a lot of credit for that artwork....more than the photographer.

Now if the photographer were to develop a particular technique to photoshop, THAT would be commendable. That is the difference to me. But I know it is a debatable subject. This is my side of the debate, and it doesn't make the other side wrong.

[alfredo]

11. The last one looks like a feature in G'MIC. Nice work

[ManiacJoe]

13. Very cool.

I like the dark ones. The effect does not work on the nature/wildlife for me.

These are great examples for reminding folks that photography exists on a sliding scale from "photo as documentation" to "photo as art" to "art that started off as a photo".