b+w with red rose petals

P
Posted By
pshaw
May 6, 2007
Views
1316
Replies
46
Status
Closed
in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

steve

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

V
Voivod
May 6, 2007
On Sun, 06 May 2007 00:36:22 -0700, scribbled:

in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

He masked out each and every petal…
FS
Fat Sam
May 6, 2007
wrote:
in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

He isolated each rose petal.
Sorry Steve, but there really is no quick and easy alternative way to do this
D
Dave
May 6, 2007
On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:06:53 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

wrote:
in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

He isolated each rose petal.
Sorry Steve, but there really is no quick and easy alternative way to do this

none other than what I done here
but he worked hours longer.
http://dave.photos.gb.net/p38527112.html

Dave
FS
Fat Sam
May 6, 2007
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:06:53 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

wrote:
in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

He isolated each rose petal.
Sorry Steve, but there really is no quick and easy alternative way to do this

none other than what I done here
but he worked hours longer.
http://dave.photos.gb.net/p38527112.html

Dave

It’s a bit of a favourite technique of mine.
http://flickr.com/photos/swampy_bogtrotter/sets/721576000458 31332/
D
Dave
May 6, 2007
On Sun, 06 May 2007 11:25:33 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:06:53 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

wrote:
in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

He isolated each rose petal.
Sorry Steve, but there really is no quick and easy alternative way to do this

none other than what I done here
but he worked hours longer.
http://dave.photos.gb.net/p38527112.html

Dave

It’s a bit of a favourite technique of mine.
http://flickr.com/photos/swampy_bogtrotter/sets/721576000458 31332/

That Tulips are lovely but my favourite bottles are not Lucozade:-)

Dave
FS
Fat Sam
May 6, 2007
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 11:25:33 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:06:53 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

wrote:
in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

He isolated each rose petal.
Sorry Steve, but there really is no quick and easy alternative way to do this

none other than what I done here
but he worked hours longer.
http://dave.photos.gb.net/p38527112.html

Dave

It’s a bit of a favourite technique of mine.
http://flickr.com/photos/swampy_bogtrotter/sets/721576000458 31332/

That Tulips are lovely but my favourite bottles are not Lucozade:-)

LOL. My dog loves them
J
Joel
May 6, 2007
wrote:

in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

steve

It only need few basic Photoshop commands with a creative mind. There are 1001 different ways to archive the similar result and I can’t list all 1001+ different ways, but few simple combination

Hmmmm it’s way too many and may cause you more confusing than help, and it seems like you may need to master few basic commands of Photoshop to be able to understand more. Also, the info below isn’t in step-by-step order, but you can just use any combination (and with your own technique)

– Converting to gray-scale, if you know you can convert either the whole color image or the selection of color image to grayscale then you may have some idea how the whole thing works.

– LAYERS, if you want to work with multiple layers then you will need at least 2 separate layers for each (1) Color Image (2) Grayscale image. With the combination of either

– Lasso tool, Pen Tool, Quick Mask, Erase Tool (whatever you know best)

And all you need to do is to erase the selected area of the top_layer to see the lower_layer.
T
Tacit
May 6, 2007
In article ,
wrote:

in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

He isolated each rose petal.

Professional illustrators and retouchers who produce work for magazines do not take shortcuts. Yes, he almost certainly isolated every single last rose petal.


Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
K
KatWoman
May 6, 2007
"Fat Sam" wrote in message
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 11:25:33 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:06:53 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

wrote:
in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

He isolated each rose petal.
Sorry Steve, but there really is no quick and easy alternative way to do this

none other than what I done here
but he worked hours longer.
http://dave.photos.gb.net/p38527112.html

Dave

It’s a bit of a favourite technique of mine.
http://flickr.com/photos/swampy_bogtrotter/sets/721576000458 31332/

That Tulips are lovely but my favourite bottles are not Lucozade:-)

LOL. My dog loves them
your dog is so cute
you are right about expensive toys
my cats’ favorite toys are
cardboard boxes with holes cut in them
and the little plastic rings that come on drink containers
K
KatWoman
May 6, 2007
"tacit" wrote in message
In article ,
wrote:

in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

He isolated each rose petal.

Professional illustrators and retouchers who produce work for magazines do not take shortcuts. Yes, he almost certainly isolated every single last rose petal.


Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

OK if the roses were red to begin with
using "SELECT>color range" you can get most of them then use the other tools to remove areas like lips etc that get caught in the red selection
magnetic wand is good to remove the people from the selection or brush by hand on the mask
rest of background most likely has no red (grass buildings etc)

once you get a good selection make your conversion and it will be masked if you don’t know how to make good selections there are so many ways and thousand tutorials
it is worth the time as most good PS work revolves around making perfect selections
FS
Fat Sam
May 6, 2007
KatWoman wrote:
"Fat Sam" wrote in message
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 11:25:33 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:06:53 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

wrote:
in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

He isolated each rose petal.
Sorry Steve, but there really is no quick and easy alternative way to do this

none other than what I done here
but he worked hours longer.
http://dave.photos.gb.net/p38527112.html

Dave

It’s a bit of a favourite technique of mine.
http://flickr.com/photos/swampy_bogtrotter/sets/721576000458 31332/

That Tulips are lovely but my favourite bottles are not Lucozade:-)

LOL. My dog loves them
your dog is so cute
you are right about expensive toys
my cats’ favorite toys are
cardboard boxes with holes cut in them
and the little plastic rings that come on drink containers

Fantastic. We’ve just got a new kitten, and she doesn’t seem to even need toys. She just runs around the house pouncing at empty space. She has developed a rather annoying habit however.
If she’s on the desk while I’m working at the computer, she tried to pounce and catch the cursor as it moves around the screen.
So cute, LOL.
FS
Fat Sam
May 6, 2007
Fat Sam wrote:
She has developed a rather annoying habit however.
If she’s on the desk while I’m working at the computer, she tried to pounce and catch the cursor as it moves around the screen.

I captured a quick video of her doing it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBPSErDYZW4
D
Dave
May 6, 2007
On Sun, 06 May 2007 20:38:30 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

Fat Sam wrote:
She has developed a rather annoying habit however.
If she’s on the desk while I’m working at the computer, she tried to pounce and catch the cursor as it moves around the screen.

I captured a quick video of her doing it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBPSErDYZW4

LOL – that’s cute.
LCD or not?

Dave
D
Dave
May 6, 2007
On Sun, 6 May 2007 15:57:11 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

OK if the roses were red to begin with
using "SELECT>color range" you can get most of them then use the other tools to remove areas like lips etc that get caught in the red selection
magnetic wand is good to remove the people from the selection or brush by hand on the mask
rest of background most likely has no red (grass buildings etc)

once you get a good selection make your conversion and it will be masked if you don’t know how to make good selections there are so many ways and thousand tutorials
it is worth the time as most good PS work revolves around making perfect selections

and if the wanted color is concentrated to a region,
you can start by selecting the region with a selecting tool and use the ‘select’>color range in the selected area, which will minimize the selection of unwanted colors.

Dave
FS
Fat Sam
May 6, 2007
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 20:38:30 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

Fat Sam wrote:
She has developed a rather annoying habit however.
If she’s on the desk while I’m working at the computer, she tried to pounce and catch the cursor as it moves around the screen.

I captured a quick video of her doing it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBPSErDYZW4

LOL – that’s cute.
LCD or not?

Dave

LCD. A Xerox one. I’d strongly recomend the same model to anyone. It’s a great bit of kit.
P
pshaw
May 7, 2007
i was afraid of that …i was hoping for some neat trick that i don’t know … there were hundreds of them!

steve

On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:06:53 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

wrote:
in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

He isolated each rose petal.
Sorry Steve, but there really is no quick and easy alternative way to do this
P
pshaw
May 7, 2007
yes exactly that … times 100’s 🙂 … and small ones …sigh …

steve

On Sun, 06 May 2007 13:18:45 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:06:53 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

wrote:
in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

He isolated each rose petal.
Sorry Steve, but there really is no quick and easy alternative way to do this

none other than what I done here
but he worked hours longer.
http://dave.photos.gb.net/p38527112.html

Dave
P
pshaw
May 7, 2007
thanks …

actually i’m an advisor to photoshop 🙂 … but am always happy to learn something new … was hoping for a really cool trick to immediately isolate just the petals at one fell swoop 🙂 …

steve

On Sun, 06 May 2007 09:39:28 -0500, Joel wrote:

wrote:

in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

steve

It only need few basic Photoshop commands with a creative mind. There are 1001 different ways to archive the similar result and I can’t list all 1001+ different ways, but few simple combination

Hmmmm it’s way too many and may cause you more confusing than help, and it seems like you may need to master few basic commands of Photoshop to be able to understand more. Also, the info below isn’t in step-by-step order, but you can just use any combination (and with your own technique)
– Converting to gray-scale, if you know you can convert either the whole color image or the selection of color image to grayscale then you may have some idea how the whole thing works.

– LAYERS, if you want to work with multiple layers then you will need at least 2 separate layers for each (1) Color Image (2) Grayscale image. With the combination of either

– Lasso tool, Pen Tool, Quick Mask, Erase Tool (whatever you know best)
And all you need to do is to erase the selected area of the top_layer to see the lower_layer.
P
pshaw
May 7, 2007
i thought of that too … that’s probably the fastest answer (and best one!) …

and i actually enjoy magnifying the screen to 200% or so and go at it pixel by pixel … i find it relaxing 🙂 …

thanks steve

On Sun, 6 May 2007 15:57:11 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

"tacit" wrote in message
In article ,
wrote:

in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

He isolated each rose petal.

Professional illustrators and retouchers who produce work for magazines do not take shortcuts. Yes, he almost certainly isolated every single last rose petal.


Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

OK if the roses were red to begin with
using "SELECT>color range" you can get most of them then use the other tools to remove areas like lips etc that get caught in the red selection
magnetic wand is good to remove the people from the selection or brush by hand on the mask
rest of background most likely has no red (grass buildings etc)

once you get a good selection make your conversion and it will be masked if you don’t know how to make good selections there are so many ways and thousand tutorials
it is worth the time as most good PS work revolves around making perfect selections

D
Dave
May 7, 2007
On Sun, 06 May 2007 23:04:02 -0700, wrote:

yes exactly that … times 100’s 🙂 … and small ones …sigh …
steve

On Sun, 06 May 2007 13:18:45 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:06:53 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

wrote:
in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

He isolated each rose petal.
Sorry Steve, but there really is no quick and easy alternative way to do this

none other than what I done here
but he worked hours longer.
http://dave.photos.gb.net/p38527112.html

Dave

any possibility that he could have copy and pasted simply a few roses with different forms and sizes to many places?

Dave
FS
Fat Sam
May 7, 2007
wrote:
i was afraid of that …i was hoping for some neat trick that i don’t know … there were hundreds of them!

LOL. That’s dedication to your art.
I’ve been known to spend ridiculous amounts of time working on a chop. This one took me the best part of two days to do from start to finish. http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=318974850&context=se t-72157600045520675&size=o
K
keepout
May 7, 2007
On Sun, 06 May 2007 23:06:16 -0700, wrote:

thanks …

actually i’m an advisor to photoshop 🙂 … but am always happy to learn something new … was hoping for a really cool trick to immediately isolate just the petals at one fell swoop 🙂 …
You’re looking for something like this..
http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/bev/extras/art/index_3.htm the 1st 2 pix. the color image is my rendition of the B&W. There is no color image of the B&W, so any and all colors came from my imagination.
It was done with masking by selecting the B&W areas to work on individually as a layer. ie: EYES blown up 500%. and everything else the skirt blown up to full screen. and 500% to edge it. etc..

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
K
KatWoman
May 7, 2007
"Fat Sam" wrote in message
Fat Sam wrote:
She has developed a rather annoying habit however.
If she’s on the desk while I’m working at the computer, she tried to pounce and catch the cursor as it moves around the screen.

I captured a quick video of her doing it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBPSErDYZW4

I am familiar with this game~~~
and I do not encourage this behavior!!!
I also keep my keyboard in a drawer UNDER the desk for obvious reasons do not let your housekeeper "DUST" your keyboard either!! I come in here and all kind of windows are opened up………….

are you on a respirator? the sound track sounds like it
MR
Mike Russell
May 7, 2007
wrote in message
in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

This is an example of color popping – where a colored object stands out in an otherwise black and white image. From a cost standpoint, it’s unlikely that each of hundreds of petals was selected individually, though this amount of work could be justified for a big job, such as a full page magazine ad, a one off for an eccentric wealthy person, or an amateur project done for the sake of the result alone. More likely, the mask was created based on channel data, then cleaned up manually.

The exact method used depends on the specific image. If the petals are light against dark, the petals themselves, after a bit of manual cleanup, could form the basis of a layer mask for a layer containing the original image. At a wedding, there are probably no other saturated red objects in the image, so a mask can be created using the red channel, the a channel in Lab mode, or the blend if sliders in the a channel in Lab mode. —
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/
U
usenet
May 8, 2007
wrote:

in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

Create an adjustment layer for hue/saturation. Turn down saturation. Click ‘OK.’ Paint black into the adjustment layer’s mask, over the petals. You are now done.

The advantages of an adjustment layer are that it’s non-destructive, and you can change the adjustment layer’s opacity to bring back a hint of saturation if you desire.

You can also do this with layer blending options on the adjustment layer, if the colors you want to isolate are isolated enough. That way you don’t have to paint anything, just move some sliders. This works best in LAB mode. But then, everything works best in LAB mode. 🙂


http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html
R
Rob
May 8, 2007
wrote:
thanks …

actually i’m an advisor to photoshop 🙂 … but am always happy to learn something new … was hoping for a really cool trick to immediately isolate just the petals at one fell swoop 🙂 …
steve

What you need is PS CS3 quick mask tool have a look at the videos at

http://www.russellbrown.com/tips_tech.html

CS3: Converting Color to Black-and-White
(much more control in a single hit)

CS3: The New Clone Source Feature

Think you may have to get CS3 🙂

BTW there are some nice features that now really work, instead of beating round the bush.

On Sun, 06 May 2007 09:39:28 -0500, Joel wrote:

wrote:

in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

steve

It only need few basic Photoshop commands with a creative mind. There are 1001 different ways to archive the similar result and I can’t list all 1001+ different ways, but few simple combination

Hmmmm it’s way too many and may cause you more confusing than help, and it seems like you may need to master few basic commands of Photoshop to be able to understand more. Also, the info below isn’t in step-by-step order, but you can just use any combination (and with your own technique)
– Converting to gray-scale, if you know you can convert either the whole color image or the selection of color image to grayscale then you may have some idea how the whole thing works.

– LAYERS, if you want to work with multiple layers then you will need at least 2 separate layers for each (1) Color Image (2) Grayscale image. With the combination of either

– Lasso tool, Pen Tool, Quick Mask, Erase Tool (whatever you know best)
And all you need to do is to erase the selected area of the top_layer to see the lower_layer.

R
Rob
May 8, 2007
Woops

Meaning to add the important one from Russell Browns site

CS3: Quick Select and Refine Edge

Discover a new way to make selections in Photoshop CS3. Use the Quick Select tool, and then easily modify the selection with the new Refine Edge feature.

Having said that all the Videos are worth watching. The work flow is so much easier.
P
pshaw
May 8, 2007
they’re actually rose petals, singly, in pairs, in bunches .. .must have been a real headache 🙂 … i do like the "red selection" …but then he’d have to paint in the white part of each petal too …

steve

On Mon, 07 May 2007 09:36:36 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Sun, 06 May 2007 23:04:02 -0700, wrote:

yes exactly that … times 100’s 🙂 … and small ones …sigh …
steve

On Sun, 06 May 2007 13:18:45 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:06:53 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

wrote:
in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

He isolated each rose petal.
Sorry Steve, but there really is no quick and easy alternative way to do this

none other than what I done here
but he worked hours longer.
http://dave.photos.gb.net/p38527112.html

Dave

any possibility that he could have copy and pasted simply a few roses with different forms and sizes to many places?

Dave
P
pshaw
May 8, 2007
superb! 🙂 … my professional friends who have to turn out hundreds of wedding/little league etc each week laugh when i tell them the hours i’ve spent on one photo ..

once again ..very very nice ..

steve

On Mon, 07 May 2007 10:47:43 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

wrote:
i was afraid of that …i was hoping for some neat trick that i don’t know … there were hundreds of them!

LOL. That’s dedication to your art.
I’ve been known to spend ridiculous amounts of time working on a chop. This one took me the best part of two days to do from start to finish. http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=318974850&context=se t-72157600045520675&size=o
P
pshaw
May 8, 2007
somehow i think this took a bit of time 🙂 … well that’s how i do it too but was hoping for a neat trick 🙂 … i guess life sometimes doesn’t have easy short cuts …

nice work …

steve

On Mon, 07 May 2007 09:19:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 06 May 2007 23:06:16 -0700, wrote:

thanks …

actually i’m an advisor to photoshop 🙂 … but am always happy to learn something new … was hoping for a really cool trick to immediately isolate just the petals at one fell swoop 🙂 …
You’re looking for something like this..
http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/bev/extras/art/index_3.htm the 1st 2 pix. the color image is my rendition of the B&W. There is no color image of the B&W, so any and all colors came from my imagination.
It was done with masking by selecting the B&W areas to work on individually as a layer. ie: EYES blown up 500%. and everything else the skirt blown up to full screen. and 500% to edge it. etc..
P
pshaw
May 8, 2007
mike …

as always your comments are knowledgeable and superb …thanks … but in this case there was was a red brick church (it seems – the rest of the photo is b+w of course) which would have made it a bit more difficult …

i gotta dig out my channels/lab books again…thanks for reminding me …. hmmm….. thinking about it …lab might hold some answers …time to review and then play …

thanks again …

steve

On Mon, 07 May 2007 23:56:20 GMT, "Mike Russell" wrote:

wrote in message
in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

This is an example of color popping – where a colored object stands out in an otherwise black and white image. From a cost standpoint, it’s unlikely that each of hundreds of petals was selected individually, though this amount of work could be justified for a big job, such as a full page magazine ad, a one off for an eccentric wealthy person, or an amateur project done for the sake of the result alone. More likely, the mask was created based on channel data, then cleaned up manually.
The exact method used depends on the specific image. If the petals are light against dark, the petals themselves, after a bit of manual cleanup, could form the basis of a layer mask for a layer containing the original image. At a wedding, there are probably no other saturated red objects in the image, so a mask can be created using the red channel, the a channel in Lab mode, or the blend if sliders in the a channel in Lab mode.
D
Dave
May 8, 2007
On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:45:36 -0700, wrote:

superb! 🙂 … my professional friends who have to turn out hundreds of wedding/little league etc each week laugh when i tell them the hours i’ve spent on one photo ..

once again ..very very nice ..

steve

This was 2 hours work last night,
which brought me into the morning hours.
http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yngm2k&outx=600&nore size=1&nostamp=1

Dave
N
NascarDude
May 8, 2007
That is awesome….. I just happen to be surfin around and come across this isolation of sams link. That’s cool!!

Have you ever tried isolating a favorite driver from racing in a pack? I got to try that now. 🙂

ND

"Fat Sam" wrote in message
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:06:53 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

wrote:
in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

He isolated each rose petal.
Sorry Steve, but there really is no quick and easy alternative way to do this

none other than what I done here
but he worked hours longer.
http://dave.photos.gb.net/p38527112.html

Dave

It’s a bit of a favourite technique of mine.
http://flickr.com/photos/swampy_bogtrotter/sets/721576000458 31332/
J
Joel
May 8, 2007
Rob wrote:

Woops

Meaning to add the important one from Russell Browns site
CS3: Quick Select and Refine Edge

Discover a new way to make selections in Photoshop CS3. Use the Quick Select tool, and then easily modify the selection with the new Refine Edge feature.

Having said that all the Videos are worth watching. The work flow is so much easier.

I have seen the video tutorial of new CS3’s wizard wand seems to be a pretty good tool. Anyway, here I usually this technique on one or few wedding photos, and I do for large print not just for displaying.
P
pshaw
May 9, 2007
mucho thanks! i hadn’t checked his site in a month or so … downloaded them all … will have to set some time aside 🙂 …

right now working on some printing problems in cs3 🙁 …

steve

On Tue, 08 May 2007 11:17:40 +1000, Rob wrote:

wrote:
thanks …

actually i’m an advisor to photoshop 🙂 … but am always happy to learn something new … was hoping for a really cool trick to immediately isolate just the petals at one fell swoop 🙂 …
steve

What you need is PS CS3 quick mask tool have a look at the videos at
http://www.russellbrown.com/tips_tech.html

CS3: Converting Color to Black-and-White
(much more control in a single hit)

CS3: The New Clone Source Feature

Think you may have to get CS3 🙂

BTW there are some nice features that now really work, instead of beating round the bush.

On Sun, 06 May 2007 09:39:28 -0500, Joel wrote:

wrote:

in a mag for prof. photographers i saw a b+w conversion, but the rose petals (100’s) being strewn by the wedding party folks were red and white; how did he do this (without isolating each rose petal and masking the b+w conversion)?

steve

It only need few basic Photoshop commands with a creative mind. There are 1001 different ways to archive the similar result and I can’t list all 1001+ different ways, but few simple combination

Hmmmm it’s way too many and may cause you more confusing than help, and it seems like you may need to master few basic commands of Photoshop to be able to understand more. Also, the info below isn’t in step-by-step order, but you can just use any combination (and with your own technique)
– Converting to gray-scale, if you know you can convert either the whole color image or the selection of color image to grayscale then you may have some idea how the whole thing works.

– LAYERS, if you want to work with multiple layers then you will need at least 2 separate layers for each (1) Color Image (2) Grayscale image. With the combination of either

– Lasso tool, Pen Tool, Quick Mask, Erase Tool (whatever you know best)
And all you need to do is to erase the selected area of the top_layer to see the lower_layer.

P
pshaw
May 9, 2007
ok …which filter did you use? i have never used filters (i essentially always am cleaning up and printing travel photos and medical photos) …but its clear i gotta spend more time in the filter dept 🙂 …

nice work 🙂 …

steve

On Tue, 08 May 2007 09:34:58 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:45:36 -0700, wrote:

superb! 🙂 … my professional friends who have to turn out hundreds of wedding/little league etc each week laugh when i tell them the hours i’ve spent on one photo ..

once again ..very very nice ..

steve

This was 2 hours work last night,
which brought me into the morning hours.
http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yngm2k&outx=600&nore size=1&nostamp=1
Dave
R
Rob
May 9, 2007
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:45:36 -0700, wrote:

superb! 🙂 … my professional friends who have to turn out hundreds of wedding/little league etc each week laugh when i tell them the hours i’ve spent on one photo ..

once again ..very very nice ..

steve

This was 2 hours work last night,
which brought me into the morning hours.
http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yngm2k&outx=600&nore size=1&nostamp=1
Dave

Well you could have taken out the hard line/edge under the body.
FS
Fat Sam
May 9, 2007
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:45:36 -0700, wrote:

superb! 🙂 … my professional friends who have to turn out hundreds of wedding/little league etc each week laugh when i tell them the hours i’ve spent on one photo ..

once again ..very very nice ..

steve

This was 2 hours work last night,
which brought me into the morning hours.
http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yngm2k&outx=600&nore size=1&nostamp=1
Dave

Nice.
I can never get the painting filters to actually look like paintings. This is a nice job.
J
Joel
May 9, 2007
"Fat Sam" wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:45:36 -0700, wrote:

superb! 🙂 … my professional friends who have to turn out hundreds of wedding/little league etc each week laugh when i tell them the hours i’ve spent on one photo ..

once again ..very very nice ..

steve

This was 2 hours work last night,
which brought me into the morning hours.
http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yngm2k&outx=600&nore size=1&nostamp=1
Dave

Nice.
I can never get the painting filters to actually look like paintings. This is a nice job.

I don’t do that type of painting (more like oil than watercolor type) and usually it won’t take me more than 10-15 mins a pop. And if you are interested in turning digital photo into painting then you may wanna do some research about "History Brush" and trying to find some free "History Brush". I don’t remember the link but google for something like "trimoon" or something like that and you may find some

Also, it may take you 1-2+ hrs on the first try, but after you have mastered the technique then it usually won’t take more than few minutes. I don’t do this often, but I did few for almost poster size prints.
D
Dave
May 9, 2007
On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:27:04 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:45:36 -0700, wrote:

superb! 🙂 … my professional friends who have to turn out hundreds of wedding/little league etc each week laugh when i tell them the hours i’ve spent on one photo ..

once again ..very very nice ..

steve

This was 2 hours work last night,
which brought me into the morning hours.
http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yngm2k&outx=600&nore size=1&nostamp=1
Dave

Nice.
I can never get the painting filters to actually look like paintings. This is a nice job.

Thanks for the compliment, Sam. This was not done with a filter, but handpainted, brush stroke after brush stroke,with Corel Painter.

Dave
D
Dave
May 9, 2007
On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:19:49 -0500, Joel wrote:

"Fat Sam" wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:45:36 -0700, wrote:

superb! 🙂 … my professional friends who have to turn out hundreds of wedding/little league etc each week laugh when i tell them the hours i’ve spent on one photo ..

once again ..very very nice ..

steve

This was 2 hours work last night,
which brought me into the morning hours.
http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yngm2k&outx=600&nore size=1&nostamp=1
Dave

Nice.
I can never get the painting filters to actually look like paintings. This is a nice job.

I don’t do that type of painting (more like oil than watercolor type) and usually it won’t take me more than 10-15 mins a pop. And if you are interested in turning digital photo into painting then you may wanna do some research about "History Brush" and trying to find some free "History Brush". I don’t remember the link but google for something like "trimoon" or something like that and you may find some

Also, it may take you 1-2+ hrs on the first try, but after you have mastered the technique then it usually won’t take more than few minutes. I don’t do this often, but I did few for almost poster size prints.

few minutes, you said. Not oil or watercolor but pastels. Read my reply to Sam – this was not done with the help of any filter or even Photoshop, but hand painted in Corel Painter. Not a filter job but my own work.
I am member of a (closed) painting forum, and you should see the work done by the other members !

Dave
P
pshaw
May 10, 2007
darn … that leaves me out 🙂 … not a painterly bone in my body 🙂 …

steve

On Wed, 09 May 2007 18:09:06 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:27:04 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:45:36 -0700, wrote:

superb! 🙂 … my professional friends who have to turn out hundreds of wedding/little league etc each week laugh when i tell them the hours i’ve spent on one photo ..

once again ..very very nice ..

steve

This was 2 hours work last night,
which brought me into the morning hours.
http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yngm2k&outx=600&nore size=1&nostamp=1
Dave

Nice.
I can never get the painting filters to actually look like paintings. This is a nice job.

Thanks for the compliment, Sam. This was not done with a filter, but handpainted, brush stroke after brush stroke,with Corel Painter.
Dave
K
KatWoman
May 10, 2007
"Dave" wrote in message
On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:27:04 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:45:36 -0700, wrote:

superb! 🙂 … my professional friends who have to turn out hundreds of wedding/little league etc each week laugh when i tell them the hours i’ve spent on one photo ..

once again ..very very nice ..

steve

This was 2 hours work last night,
which brought me into the morning hours.
http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yngm2k&outx=600&nore size=1&nostamp=1
Dave

Nice.
I can never get the painting filters to actually look like paintings. This is a nice job.

Thanks for the compliment, Sam. This was not done with a filter, but handpainted, brush stroke after brush stroke,with Corel Painter.
Dave

did not know you had it in ya DAVE
nice!!
I am not a good illustrator
I would have to start with a photo
D
Dave
May 10, 2007
On Wed, 09 May 2007 23:02:13 -0700, wrote:

darn … that leaves me out 🙂 … not a painterly bone in my body 🙂 …

steve

On Wed, 09 May 2007 18:09:06 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:27:04 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:45:36 -0700, wrote:

superb! 🙂 … my professional friends who have to turn out hundreds of wedding/little league etc each week laugh when i tell them the hours i’ve spent on one photo ..

once again ..very very nice ..

steve

This was 2 hours work last night,
which brought me into the morning hours.
http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yngm2k&outx=600&nore size=1&nostamp=1
Dave

Nice.
I can never get the painting filters to actually look like paintings. This is a nice job.

Thanks for the compliment, Sam. This was not done with a filter, but handpainted, brush stroke after brush stroke,with Corel Painter.
Dave

you’re wrong , Steve. You are not left out. Do’nt believe it that you must be born with the talent in order to be able to do something. You can learn to do anything – you can learn to crawl, to walk, to run, to paint – and after many frustrations and thinking it stays the same, you compare with your first paintings, and say, "thanks Dave, for telling me I can learn to paint."

Dave
D
Dave
May 10, 2007
On Thu, 10 May 2007 13:28:54 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:27:04 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:45:36 -0700, wrote:

superb! 🙂 … my professional friends who have to turn out hundreds of wedding/little league etc each week laugh when i tell them the hours i’ve spent on one photo ..

once again ..very very nice ..

steve

This was 2 hours work last night,
which brought me into the morning hours.
http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yngm2k&outx=600&nore size=1&nostamp=1
Dave

Nice.
I can never get the painting filters to actually look like paintings. This is a nice job.

Thanks for the compliment, Sam. This was not done with a filter, but handpainted, brush stroke after brush stroke,with Corel Painter.
Dave

did not know you had it in ya DAVE
nice!!
I am not a good illustrator
I would have to start with a photo

LOL… thanks KatWoman!!
It tried for a giraffe
but it looks more like a pelican:-)

Jokes aside, although this is done in Painter,
I owe a few people here an apology
after saying PS can not paint. Indeed, it can!

If you want to start with a photo, do it.
Simply open a photo with in empty layer above it
and lower the opacity. Take your pencil and draw the outlines. And this is of course not said to an expert like you, but to the people that do not know it:-)

Luck strike everybody some or another time. Mine came in the form of now having the expert Jinny Brown as tutor.

Dave
P
pshaw
May 11, 2007
okey dokey …

after i master photoshop 🙂 …

steve

On Thu, 10 May 2007 20:00:27 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 09 May 2007 23:02:13 -0700, wrote:

darn … that leaves me out 🙂 … not a painterly bone in my body 🙂 …

steve

On Wed, 09 May 2007 18:09:06 +0200, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:27:04 GMT, "Fat Sam"
wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:45:36 -0700, wrote:

superb! 🙂 … my professional friends who have to turn out hundreds of wedding/little league etc each week laugh when i tell them the hours i’ve spent on one photo ..

once again ..very very nice ..

steve

This was 2 hours work last night,
which brought me into the morning hours.
http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yngm2k&outx=600&nore size=1&nostamp=1
Dave

Nice.
I can never get the painting filters to actually look like paintings. This is a nice job.

Thanks for the compliment, Sam. This was not done with a filter, but handpainted, brush stroke after brush stroke,with Corel Painter.
Dave

you’re wrong , Steve. You are not left out. Do’nt believe it that you must be born with the talent in order to be able to do something. You can learn to do anything – you can learn to crawl, to walk, to run, to paint – and after many frustrations and thinking it stays the same, you compare with your first paintings, and say, "thanks Dave, for telling me I can learn to paint."

Dave

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections