the only one’s i recall specifically are at trevor morris’ site (the kid’s shoe) and at wacom’s tip section, the cowboys. if you’re interested i’ll link em.
Well, RetouchPro does this stuff all the time. They have contests and the like for posters to try their hand and explain what they did. It’s pretty neat, really.
Peace,
Tony
Wow r_, how did you find that?
Dave
No not them. I believe you participated in the Topic that contained this link to the tutorial.
YRBKMGR
Went to retouch pro, not helpful (enough).
The Topic was around approx 6-12 months ago.
The tutorial contained A Large photo of a baby. There was advanced methods in the tutorial like feathered layer masks (from selections), swatches etc..
hot_denim has dropped his/her standards. He/she only wanted the BEST answers before, but now it seems any old answer will do.
Dion G
No this post is for: a SPECIFIC TUTORIAL that was posted on a COLORISATION TOPIC. Not colorising information
Well there are plenty of resources available and some have been suggested. "Best" is subjective – you know of course that one size does not fit all.
With the resources suggested and a decent search engine, you should be well on your way to finding the best.
With the resources suggested and a decent search engine…
The search engines work yield better results with correct spelling of colorizing … or even the British variation colourizing. There is no "s" in either.
Here’s one:
http://www.mandarindesign.com/tutorials/colorizing.html
Chuckle….
English = England. Therefore the "correct" spelling is the British version "colour". The American "color" is the variation. Disallowing the fact that "colorizing" isn’t a word, anyway.
"Colouring".
Or in this case, more correctly:
"Tinting"
The IT butchery of the language continues unchecked.
Off the soapbox now……..
Fred.
(Not in any way an Englishman, either. Nor did I miss your very valid point about search engines, rrose.)
I know I could’ve done a google search, but it’s gettin’ to be an art form knowing how to dig with the right terminology, instinct and spelling.
Thanks for the pdf’s and links.
English = England. Therefore the "correct" spelling is the British version
"colour". The American "color" is the variation.
Yep. Just as the British "colour" is a variation of the American "color." Just depends on which side of the pond one is looking at it from.
Disallowing the fact that "colorizing" isn’t a word, anyway.
Really? The American Heritage Dictionary thinks colorize is word .. so we should be able to conclude the adverb usuage is correct also.
col·or·ize
tr.v. col·or·ized, col·or·iz·ing, col·or·iz·es
To impart color to (black-and-white film) by means of a computer-assisted process: "Be prepared… for the… colorized version of Topper" (Vincent Canby).
"Verbing weirds words." – Watterson
rrose – yup, what I said. English cometh from England, thus colour cometh before color, which makes color the variation (from vary – v. 1. to exhibit or undergo change, 2. to deviate) strictly speaking.
And if that is the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "colorize", then it vindicates what I said – it’s an IT invention, trying to make something sound more impressive than it is by, as Dave points out, "verbing" it (cripes, I’m catching the disease now….). What was wrong with using either "colouring/coloured" or "tinting/tinted"? I doubt very much you’ll find the word in the main body of any English dictionary in any context other than IT usage. So assigning it the status of "correct" is a somewhat moot point, I’d think. (The forum’s spell-checker doesn’t seem to think that it’s a word, either.) Fingernails down a blackboard is what it really is.
See Tim’s post before yours as to why a common standard would be helpful – aside from letting the English feel good about themselves as a magnanimous gesture ;-). If they won’t change to the Euro, you’d think there’d be no chance of them adopting "color", anyway.
To return to the topic: I have no recollection of the asked for tutorial but can say one thing, to do a successful job a fair bit of artistic ability in addition to PS, as well as a lot of practice (i.e. time) would be essential for any half-decent outcome. Relying on fills and gradients won’t cut it.
Shadows outdoors, such as those in folds of clothing and skin, are generally a bluer version of the non-shadowed part (or yellower indoors after dark, for that matter), which is but one reason why "colorizing" generally tends to look unreal. Fills and hue changes overall tend to just give a darker version of the colour in the shadows, not a bluer one. The only way I’ve found to achieve this is by individually brushing a blue tint over the initial colour with a light, feathered airbrush in the relevant areas – and you’d definitely need a pressure-sensitive tablet/pen to do this properly.
Fred.
colourize / v.t. Also *color-; -ise.E17. [f. COLOUR n. + -IZE.] = COLOUR
v. 1; spec. colour (a black and white film) by means of a computer.
colouri’zation n. coloration, colouring; (as Colorization, US proprietary name for) the process or technique of colourizing: M18.colourizer n. a colouring agent or process; (as Colorizer, US proprietary name for) a colourizing process: L19.
Both from Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
aside from letting the English feel good about themselves as a magnanimous
gesture <<
We feel fine about ourselves without you attempting to patronize us, Fred <vbg>
John,
Precisely what I said. Viz:
" I doubt very much you’ll find the word in the main body of any English dictionary in any context other than IT usage".
(Around here IT is generic for the computer industry & everything to do with it – I thought that was universal.)
It’s an invented word, not an English one. And it’s still fingernails down a blackboard, as well as being nonsense.
As well as being, in its proprietary sense, a bloody awful process.
Len,
Wouldn’t dream of patronizing the Mother Country. <ebg>
Fred.
PIERE
No not this one.
The baby i mention looks like a baby, not small child, i.e. about less that 2 years old. and mainly the head takes up; the photo.
YRBKMGR
I did try before I posted, I posted HERE as someone HERE posted it.
We feel fine about ourselves without you attempting to patronize us, Fred <vbg>
There, there, Len. 🙂
It’s an invented word, not an English one.
All words are invented – or perhaps more accurately, all words are "born". Language evolves from the grunts and clicks of primodrial man.
And not all inventions are good, either. As in this case, where perhaps the grunts & clicks would be better than a scraping sound.
All that are born must die, too, so here’s to an incredibly short life for "colorize".
Cheers. 🙂
Well Hollywood refers to the term when they talk about colorizing B&W films… so it MUST be a real word! <grin>
All that are born must die, too, so here’s to an incredibly short life for
"colorize".
I find it incredible that anyone can care so much about the existence or non-existence of this or any word.
It’s just a collection of letters (collection of sounds) that is able to transmit meaning … invented or otherwise. It’s neither good nor bad. It just is.
Cheers. 🙂
Likewise. 🙂
Maybe Fred is just a cunning linguist.
Sorry. I’ll go away now.
Sometimes threads get better when they go off-topic. I like this one much more now.
rrose
Have you tried therapy for that stutter?
If everyone were so uninterested in words, we wouldn’t have much literature would we?
The world would be a poorer place.
Maybe you’d like it like that. 🙁
"When you work with words, words are your work."
Who said it?
What movie?
And what was the character’s occupation?
Don Knotts, the ace reporter Luther Haigs in "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken"
Well that didn’t take long. Not to split hairs, but he WAS a typesetter first then ace reporter. 🙂
I knew that, of course, but thought he’d be better recognized by others as the reporter.
It sometimes seems as though the lack of utility of my knowledge knows no bounds. Sigh.
My utility of knowledge extends to playing the theme to that movie any chance I come across a pipe organ like in a church.
Makes people laugh when I do it.
I really need to get out more. 8/
I really need to get out more
<nodding>
Have you tried therapy for that stutter?
As someone who brought in the notion of literature (a writing art form) you perhaps should be aware from whence this ‘screen name’ is derived. Maybe you are and you’ve still chosen to joke about it, which is fine … but I suspect the joke indicates that you are not aware of who Rrose Selavy was, if one can properly say that Rrose Selavy was in fact anyone, really … strictly speaking.
If everyone were so uninterested in words, we wouldn’t have much
literature would we?
Seems you’ve missed the point. It’s not an issue of being interested or uniterested in words, but rather why anyone would have such difficulty allowing the ‘existence’ of any particulary word – or arguing that it’s not a real word or not, and looking forward to a time when it will leave the language. Words arrive (invented, created, are borne – but they never leave. They can and do, hovever, fall out of use and become archaic – but by doing so never actually leave the language. One of the foundational missions of works like the Oxford English Dictionary is to chronical such things historically – and, despite assertions to the contrary in this thread, the OED does chronical the emergence of the word Colourize (Colorize). Literature is far more about how words are used to convey meaning, indeas and feelings that it is about the words themselves and thier historical, linguistical path into the language which is the provence of linguistics and semantics.
The world would be a poorer place.
Indeed, but not soley due to these words – or their lack – themselves but more so how they are used. It’s part of the difference between great writing (literarture, poetry, etc.) and less great writing.
Maybe you’d like it like that. 🙁
Can’t imagine how you’ve arrived at such a speculation from what I’ve written.
Ironically this whole ‘argument’ about the so-called verbizing of words is specious. The process of nouns naturally finding a necessary verb form by the addition of the suffix ‘ize’ (or in some cases ‘ise’ – which is kinda where this all began) is a basic part of how language evolves.
Drama becomes dramatize.
Idol becomes idolize.
Anesthetic becomes anesthetize.
Tyranny (or tyrant) becomes tyrannize.
Material becomes materialize.
Colour becomes colourize.
Colour becomes colorize.
There are thousands of such examples.
Tim,
During the service???
I think we can agree though, that "alot" is really two words ‘eh?
rrose,
"I find it incredible that anyone can care so much about the existence or non-existence of this or any word"
A long memory for physical pain is why.
As a child in South Africa at an all boys school in the 1950’s, my grasp of spelling was accomplished by having to memorize, in order, the words on one page of the spelling book (about 25 words) per week. Students were selected at random each Tuesday morning to stand in front of the class and spell out loud (in order) each word from memory.
Each wrong spelling or out-of-order word was tallied and rewarded with a sound whack across the back of the leg at the knee joint with a half-yard steel-edged wooden ruler. Each correct word was rewarded by not being whacked. Being that the school uniform was shorts & long socks (which left the said area exposed), having this inflicted with the amplifying effect of a dry, cold Jo’burg winter could lead to a lasting psychosis.
As illustrated here.
(tic, tic.)
Ironically this whole ‘argument’ about the so-called verbizing of words
verbing. 🙂
verbing. 🙂
Yeah…I thought keeping it in the theme of "izing" was more annoying. 😉
It seems that the original question has not only been answered but long since forgotten.
R/O.
Bob
