How far to is it acceptable to go with photoshop? - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: How far to is it acceptable to go with photoshop?

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avelorn View Post
    Are you talking jpg and mean you should have it "as ready as possible" from the camera?
    I'm talking the perfect array of light through the lens the instant I snap the shutter. I'm digital these days so said RAW file

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garshnak View Post
    If you're cutting out the miniature after making the photo and then putting it behind the miniature, then no.
    Ever tried the magic wand tool - it can do it for you! It's right next to the 'make my work look good' button.

    Only joking - I agree with you - No, No... and thrice No.

    Regarding a vignette - is that not just a recreation of a sought after optical aberration that occurs in front of the mini?

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avelorn View Post
    What can be quite shocking though is how different miniatures look under different lighting.
    I think this is the key point. It's not about Photoshop really. Where is the line between forensic lighting and mood lighting...?

  4. #24

    Default

    Heh.

    Quote Originally Posted by TomasP View Post
    Regarding a vignette - is that not just a recreation of a sought after optical aberration that occurs in front of the mini?
    Yes. And the association that goes with that abberation is the source of popularization of the optical abberation. But it is a dramatization that diverges from clarification and realization of the true purpose of picturization of your miniature. Which is communication through digitalization. Any divergence from that can only cause misinterpetation and is a misrepresentation of your actual miniature and skill.

    Much like chromatic abberation, I'm glad that hasn't made its way into miniatures..

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garshnak View Post
    And the association that goes with that abberation is the source of popularization of the optical abberation. But it is a dramatization that diverges from clarification and realization of the true purpose of picturization of your miniature. Which is communication through digitalization. Any divergence from that can only cause misinterpetation and is a misrepresentation of your actual miniature and skill.
    LOL, that post is a classic. Of course you're right. I feel like putting that quote into my signature! Bravo Sir...
    Last edited by TomasP; 06-13-2012 at 06:57 PM.

  6. #26

    Default

    Another thing that people also don't always take into account is that every monitor displays differently unless they've been colour calibrated to the computer they're attached to (these monitors are still all different, but the difference is negligible).

    I use a dual screen setup at work and at home and am pretty confident that every single screen I use (two at work, two at home and two laptops) displays colours differently. My work screens are the most noticeable, my smaller screen is quite a bit darker to my main screen - I don't actually bother adjusting them as I find the difference can be quite useful in my job.

    What I do think people have a habit of doing is to colour adjust their pictures to match their computer, which will often skew the final result. That said, I believe (and others above) that a bit of colour adjustment is OK. Making sure that you're using the correct colour profile for your camera will help get this adjustment right.

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RuneBrush View Post
    Another thing that people also don't always take into account is that every monitor displays differently
    You're right - which would suggest that the true purpose of picturization of a miniature is communication through a popularization of misrepresentation (or something like that!)
    Last edited by TomasP; 06-14-2012 at 12:51 PM.

  8. #28

    Default

    To play devils advocate, what if you use photography to show your minis in a differnt way. The photos are the way the minis are surposed to be viewed in this case, rather than as we would see them in the traditional sense. In this case it could be argued that the photography is the result of the hobby rather than the making of the miniatures...




  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alextheartist View Post
    To play devils advocate, what if you use photography to show your minis in a differnt way. The photos are the way the minis are surposed to be viewed in this case, rather than as we would see them in the traditional sense. In this case it could be argued that the photography is the result of the hobby rather than the making of the miniatures...
    Indeed it could be argued that way. Since here it's obviously the case that portrayal of the scene has greater importance than the miniatures in them, where the miniatures are painted in a rather simple manner. And they'd probably get little more than a 3 or 4 otherwise.
    A lot of the colour is resultant of post-work (this is especially the case with the boats one), so it has little to do with the purpose of the coolminiornot website, where people judge on the skill of painting miniatures, not photographing them. Still, that's some pretty cool stuff.
    But what also could be said about this, going back on a previous point, that it's always better to incorporate as much information in the photographed scene of your miniature, however how simple it is, then to edit in later. As you'll have much more of a natural result.

    And that's what I'm personally advocating mostly against, people overlaying and backdropping effects on their miniatures, after photographing them.
    Still, too much of those, can still distracting and obscuring from the original miniature, which can be nice for the final picture. But I still feel that's against the original intent of this website, which is mainly focused on just the painted miniatures.

  10. #30

    Default

    There's nothing wrong with doing this, and these examples are AMAZING special effects (great use of forced perspective on the amphibious scene). But no, it does not show off the paint job itself well, at all.

  11. #31

    Default

    Wow! That's amazing photography.

    But NSA is right. Depends what your after I suppose; for what it is I'll say it again WOW!
    Victis hostibus tuis tibi rapitur videre et audire fletum mulierum. (or as near as google can do it!)
    Here be my ranking=
    Here be my gallery http://www.coolminiornot.com/artist/AndyG

  12. #32

    Default

    #Alextheartist - your examples are stunning. All the discussion was mildly interesting, but a couple of your photos was worth the time here. Very inspiring.
    What I saw on the McFarlane toys website a couple of years ago was a gallery for each model. And there were both "normal" and "over the top" pictures for most of them. They were using smoke, cool backgrounds and all kind of stuff. It kinda made me buy a couple of those. My point is same can be done here.

  13. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garshnak View Post
    ...since making a photograph of something, the normal way of course, only really changes the colours and contrasts linearly.
    I categorically disagree, based both on experience and theory. The emitted light spectra of artificial lighting is nonlinear. by that fact alone any photography of a subject using artificial lighting is bound to be influenced non-linearly. similarly digital camera capture and analysis of the spectra is non linear as well. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...ra-sensors.htm

    to the OP:
    IMHO, if the painting is good it will speak for itself. Dont get me wrong, a good picture is important, but subtly tweaking color balance of an already decent shot to make it seem slightly better is not my idea of fun hobby time. really poor lighting is a problem, though. level adjustment can be useful, but most of the time i find it easier and faster to just take the pic until i have one i'm satisfied with. as kathrynloch said, more time painting....
    if you really want to spend your time editing photos id stick to what others have suggested - stay true to the mini.
    Last edited by funnymouth; 07-12-2012 at 06:03 PM.

  14. #34

    Default

    Loving those WWII shots. Nowt wrong with adding a bit of drama occasionally...




  15. #35

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Privacy Policy  |   Terms and Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   The Legion


Copyright © 2001-2018 CMON Inc.

-->