|
the_alpine
Jun 5, 2004, 7:48 PM
Post #1 of 10
(1821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2003
Posts: 371
|
I've never been a big fan of altering pics to the point where the alteration becomes obvious (ie: photoshop filters, color replacement, etc..), but in this instance the radial blur effect is very affective at conveying a sense of exposure, height or even falling. What do you guys think?
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=33568
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Jun 5, 2004, 8:38 PM
Post #2 of 10
(1821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
This is kinda interesting. It does kinda portray something like the photographer just looked down, and this is him going "woah, this is really high" and kinda freaking out a bit. The feeling is there, although the pic doesn't really look all that good. I'd probably rather see this pic without such a strong filter. Maybe a bit less strength would look better, I dunno, but as it is, it's just kinda ugly. :(
|
|
|
|
|
rckclimbergurl
Jun 10, 2004, 10:44 PM
Post #3 of 10
(1821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2002
Posts: 748
|
I like it, but what if you used a little less of the blur?
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Jun 10, 2004, 11:06 PM
Post #4 of 10
(1821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
perhaps only apply the blur to the background, or less blur on the cimber/climbing equimpement.
|
|
|
|
|
the_alpine
Jun 10, 2004, 11:46 PM
Post #5 of 10
(1821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2003
Posts: 371
|
Hmmm. Biff, the blur IS only applied to the background and not the climber or swineage. I made paths around both to keep the blur from affecting them, but as you can tell there's some bleed. Any ideas how to keep them completely unaffected?
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Jun 11, 2004, 1:10 AM
Post #6 of 10
(1821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
create 2 layers (one rock background, one climbers)
On the background layer, roughly clone in overtop of the climbers (it doesn't have to be great since it will be coverd by the climbers in the upper layer). That way the climbers won't affect the blurred layer, and you can better control the blurr desired in the climber layer.
|
|
|
|
|
the_alpine
Jun 11, 2004, 1:47 AM
Post #7 of 10
(1821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2003
Posts: 371
|
OK. So on the first attempt I did make 2 layers, but I still had the climber and bags getting blurred around the edges. For this one I made 3 layers: An untouched one, background with climber and bags deleted and blur applied, and the untouched climber and bags. The blurred layer still had bleeding around the edges of the climber and bags, but this time it was fading to empty background since the climber was deleted. Next it was just a matter of adjusting the opacity between the untouched background and the blurred background layer in order to get the edges of the climber and haulbags to standout. Whew. I do think it looks better.
http://www.2ndlight.com/...black%20dihedral.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Jun 11, 2004, 8:47 AM
Post #8 of 10
(1821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
Yeah, definately better, but still something missing. My eye is drawn to the climber like there's something wrong there. It seems like maybe the rock around him should be blurred less, but I don't know really. :?
|
|
|
|
|
rodney
Jun 11, 2004, 9:31 PM
Post #9 of 10
(1821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2003
Posts: 18
|
In reply to: I like it, but what if you used a little less of the blur?
Exacktly me feeling... less is more ;)
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Jun 12, 2004, 2:21 AM
Post #10 of 10
(1821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
Maybe if the climber was up higher. He still looks fecked up. Even though you took the blur off the climber, I find that my eye blurs him a bit still because of all the surrounding distortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
