Photoshop doodling

[mickeyobe]

I took a rather bad picture of a glass of water.
Added a little Photoshop.
Stirred vigorously and am rather pleased with the result and feeling too smug.

Now give me hell.


Mickey

[PeterW]

Well, it's certainly a striking image, Mickey. One of those images it probably doesn't pay to try to analyse.

It looks like ice floating in the water, and when you have two, or in this case three, transparent objects together, each with a different refractive index, they must act like combined prisms and produce some weird light effects. Hence the splitting of the white light into prismatic colours. At certain angles prisms reflect as well as refract. The octagonal shape of the glass posssibly has some bearing on this, too.

The arrow of light coming down from the top right leads my eye to the base of the glass, so why do I end up always looking at the top part?

How many of these effects were in the original picture, and how many did you add in Photoshop?

I like the "speed blur" effect on the tabletop. I suspect you also added a touch of hue/saturation /colorise with adjustment of the sliders. But then again, maybe not?

Sometimes I think it all looks "wrong", other times it all looks "right".

"Right" or "wrong", I like it. But I don't think I'd want it hanging on my wall. It would drive me nuts.

I'd better shut up before I go cross-brained as well as cross-eyed.

PeterW

[mickeyobe]

PeterW,

Thanks for this. I do appreciate your comments.

"How many of these effects were in the original picture, and how many did you add in Photoshop?"
I added nothing. I used only what the camera captured.
"It looks like ice floating in the water,".
No ice, Peter, only the water and the octagonal glass.

What I did on Photoshop was;
Crop. Then make the glass vertical and then return it to its original angle which I preferred.
Then Auto Smart Fix. I did not like the "fix" but I did like the warm cast as the original was blueish. So I kept the "fix".
Then I increased contrast considerably and darkened the image. That is when the colours intensified.
Healing brush to remove some bubbles and specks.
Finally I sharpened it.
And then I posted it to see if I could drive someone crazy.

I do enjoy Photoshop and the power it gives me to perform magic.

Mickey

[photax]

Mickey, a nice picture, it reminds me of the 1970`s Vodka advertisements BTW I have the same octagonal glasses in my household ( for water only ).

MIK

[GeneW]

I like it, Mickey.

I think we'd have all been more experimental back in the darkroom days if it had been as easy as Photoshop (not to demean Photoshop skills in any way -- it's just that the darkroom was a hard place to do extensive experimentation, for most of us, Jerry Uelsman excepted.)

I enjoy the freedom to experiment and push things to extremes in Photoshop, just to see how they look.

Here's a recent experiment of mine, merging three different photos:



Gene

[mickeyobe]

Wow.

In GENE ious as usual.

I guess I am still in Photoshop kindergarten.
But I am encouraged.

Mickey

[herron]

Neat composition. I have got to find the color prints I made in 1968 by combining color negatives with an Ektachrome slide in the enlarger.

Similar results to your, Gene, and long before Photoshop.


BTW Mickey. I like your shot of the glass. I might crop it differently, closer to the glass on top and cropping the image tighter on the right to make the glass rest in the right third of the frame. But that's just me.

[mickeyobe]

Ron,

Is this what you want?


Mickey

[daveh]

I am slowly wandering through the older photographs on this forum.

I believe glass to be one of the most difficult things to photograph well. The skill is in the preparation (as opposed to my "four for the price of one" which is merely post-production) whatever has been done later.

I never did like drinking out of those hexagonal tumblers. I do very much like the photo though, in both its forms - and GW's too.

[John Parry]

This kind of glass Daveh?



or this?



Only joking - you're not a million miles from me.

Regards - John

[John Parry]

Mickey

You know my thinking on the subject - there's no way either of those would have worked in B&W, although I accept that the mind would have 'reconstructed' the colours in the prism effect. A lovely shot.

Gene

You have a great eye for what works - and the patience to wait until it does!

I'm sorry we couldn't get together when I was over there, I passed your neck of the woods several times!

Regards - John

[GeneW]

Jun 1, 2010 16:51:18 GMT -5 John Parry said:

Gene

You have a great eye for what works - and the patience to wait until it does!

I'm sorry we couldn't get together when I was over there, I passed your neck of the woods several times!

Regards - John

John,

That would have been great. Next time!

Gene

[daveh]

John, I have been looking out my roof window, with a pair of binoculars, over to Lancashire and I am sure I spotted you! As you say we are not a million miles apart.

Where was (or still is presumably) the lighthouse in the photograph? It is a long time since I have ventured into one: the last being South Stack near Holyhead, Anglesey.

[mickeyobe]

John,

That first picture is one impressive hunk of glass.

Is it called a lens or a reflector? Or something else?

Mickey

[photax]

Mickey,

I think this is a so called "Fresnel-Lens", invented by the french physicist Jean Fresnel somewhat about 1830 ( learned that at school )

MIK