PDA

View Full Version : Girl and Flower

Rhinotherunt
Sep-22-2009, 02:02 PM
For those that love and hate it! :)

After:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2513/3945967218_95c12d9126_o.jpg

Before:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2487/3945967026_7dcd9ca125_o.jpg
kidzmom
Sep-23-2009, 04:20 AM
WOW. I love the edited shot!!! I CAN NOT BELIEVE that is possible with photo editing software! I am a newbie to photography and I just know NOTHING about doing magical things to my pictures. What software should I buy to get that finished look????!!! WOW, that is neat!

For those that love and hate it! :)

After:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2513/3945967218_95c12d9126_o.jpg

Before:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2487/3945967026_7dcd9ca125_o.jpg
RicherSea
Sep-23-2009, 04:45 AM
Nice effect. Maybe a little overdone for looking at from a foot away on a screen, but it would be a very nice print i suspect. What channel did you blur, or was it all of them?
GP Images
Sep-23-2009, 05:42 AM
Too overdone for me. The original appears to have the focus on her hand and not her eyes. Cute picture otherwise.
SLRdude
Sep-23-2009, 08:19 AM
I quite like it, as long as I do not look at it as a "photograph". :thumb

Have you tried using about a 60% opacity on it? I duplicated your result the other day using the smudge tool and I really liked it around 50..60% with some added masks here and there. It maintained the photograph look while doing wonders for her skin and hair.

With that being said, I like your version a whole lot.
Rhinotherunt
Sep-23-2009, 09:03 AM
WOW. I love the edited shot!!! I CAN NOT BELIEVE that is possible with photo editing software! I am a newbie to photography and I just know NOTHING about doing magical things to my pictures. What software should I buy to get that finished look????!!! WOW, that is neat!
Not really about software as much as technique. :) I use the smudge tool in PhotoShop. This is all done by hand. I stroke the smudge tool on every part of the image.
Rhinotherunt
Sep-23-2009, 09:04 AM
Nice effect. Maybe a little overdone for looking at from a foot away on a screen, but it would be a very nice print i suspect. What channel did you blur, or was it all of them?I painted on all channels. This is meant to be printed 16x20 or larger to see the strokes. I also only offer them on canvas.
Rhinotherunt
Sep-23-2009, 09:06 AM
Too overdone for me. The original appears to have the focus on her hand and not her eyes. Cute picture otherwise.Not meant to be a photograph, but an artistic rendering. It is supposed to be like an oil painting. ;)
Rhinotherunt
Sep-23-2009, 09:07 AM
I quite like it, as long as I do not look at it as a "photograph". :thumb

Have you tried using about a 60% opacity on it? I duplicated your result the other day using the smudge tool and I really liked it around 50..60% with some added masks here and there. It maintained the photograph look while doing wonders for her skin and hair.

With that being said, I like your version a whole lot.Thanks SLR DUDE! I have a few faster routes I use when doing a Photograph. As you know this is a time consuming process. :)
Dave Clee
Sep-23-2009, 09:32 AM
I have not heard of this technique before, but in both images it appears the eyes are OOF. Which for me doesnt work, edit or no edit.

Cheers

Dave
marikris
Sep-23-2009, 10:34 AM
I have not heard of this technique before

It's mostly used in digital painting. I tried it once, but I'm more a traditional kind of illustrator. Only Copics for me!

@Rhinotherunt
Yea, the OOF eyes got me, but you were able to overcome that quite well in the edit imo. Since it'll be quite large and printed on textured canvas paper, it should look pretty awesome imo.
Rhinotherunt
Sep-23-2009, 11:16 AM
It's mostly used in digital painting. I tried it once, but I'm more a traditional kind of illustrator. Only Copics for me!

@Rhinotherunt
Yea, the OOF eyes got me, but you were able to overcome that quite well in the edit imo. Since it'll be quite large and printed on textured canvas paper, it should look pretty awesome imo.Thanks Markris!
Scott_Quier
Sep-24-2009, 02:18 AM
:agree - as an artistic rendering this is stellar work. I really, really like it. The re-work you did with the eyes is quite nice as well (though, if the focus of the original had been right, I suspect this work would have been much less needed).

That being said, I think you might want to re-visit her right thumb. One first (and second) inspection, it looks to me as if it's been amputated :dunno
Rhinotherunt
Sep-24-2009, 08:54 AM
:agree - as an artistic rendering this is stellar work. I really, really like it. The re-work you did with the eyes is quite nice as well (though, if the focus of the original had been right, I suspect this work would have been much less needed).

That being said, I think you might want to re-visit her right thumb. One first (and second) inspection, it looks to me as if it's been amputated :dunnoThanks Scott! Yeah, missed focus happens... not often though. Sensitive topic... she does not have a thumb. Just kidding.
ivar
Sep-24-2009, 11:32 AM
I'm definitely not a fan of this technique myself, but as far as the technique itself goes: well done!
I do agree with Scott that the original is a bit too soft.
Rhinotherunt
Sep-24-2009, 01:01 PM
I'm definitely not a fan of this technique myself, but as far as the technique itself goes: well done!
I do agree with Scott that the original is a bit too soft.Yeah, this is not for everyone. This is for those that want to have a oil painted, but cannot afford $1200 plus for one. The original was posted to show what it started out as and what the end result would be.