Photoshop Contest PhotoshopContest.com
Creative Contests. Real Prizes. Essential Resource.
You are not logged in. Log in or Register

 


Photoshop Contest Forum Index - General Discussion - entry discussion - Reply to topic

Goto page 1, 2  Next

Was Granulated right?

Dang! He was!

53%

53%

[ 8 ]

He was not. Only drugs. Now stfuac

13%

13%

[ 2 ]

Who are you and what are you talking about?

33%

33%

[ 5 ]

Total Votes: 15

dunno

Location: here

Post Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:50 pm   Reply with quote         


hi folks... lately i have hardly a brain cell left for things like "recreation" or such, which includes also PSC, at least in my life.
Howsoeverwhatnot - tonight im just hangin around here and the "New Votes and Comments" line catched my eye, still listing votes from my last posts out of August. In there was one with a bear, which ended up with 16 votes:
http://photoshopcontest.com/view-entry/157470/eye-of-the-bear.html#

Now i wonder... was Granulated right with his comment there?
I dont know, since i got hardly other comments, even though i asked for.

If Granulated was wrong and it was just an average chop, then i would now like comments on how to improve.

If, however, Granulated was correct... well...
the more i think about it, the more i feel, i should be happy with it - because it would mean i did a good job. Right?

if this post made no sense to you, you might want to read my next one, 3 steps down, for explanation.
you might want to get a cold beer and watch a movie instead as well...




_________________
Take it easy!

Tesore

Location: On the way to Utopia!

Post Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:25 pm   Reply with quote         


I saw the reflection, for this reason I wrote 'Cool!'

Wink




annajon

Location: DEAD THREAD DUMPINGGROUND NEAR YOU

Post Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:29 pm   Reply with quote         


I liked the reflex work on the eye and had no problem with that at all




dunno

Location: here

Post Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:46 pm   Reply with quote         


sheesh... i am somewhat.. uhmm... blurry ... about that.

ok

no idea if it looks stupid, but i will just explain what i did (and what Granulated probably saw).

I zoomed the source image 5x. I cropped to the part which you see in my entry.
* I rebuilt the complete image with crisp and sharp externals - there's actually no source image to see anymore.*
it still lines up with the original x 5, if you overlay.
oh, and i put indeed this reflection in the eye, yep...

I actually tried to use the "FBI-SuperZOOM-Pixelperfect-Plugin" Rolling Eyes

let me ask differently maybe... is there anybody out, who i could make believe that i just zoomed in or did everybody see the work and found it plain boring?
if somebody bought the "simple zoom": is it because its so bad - or because it is actually good?




_________________
Take it easy!

Eve
Site Moderator

Location: Planet Earth

Post Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:24 pm   Reply with quote         


dunno...Maybe your comment "5x closeup. go big. comments welcome." confused ppl. It's actually a marvelous chop and I'm sorry I failed to vote for it.

46 entries for that comp...wow. You did good. Very Happy




_________________
If your going to walk on thin ice, you may as well dance!
seelcraft

Location: High Bridge, New Jersey

Post Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:08 pm   Reply with quote         


I dunno. I think people don't pay attention to the work unless you shout about it.

I got only 6 votes for the following chop, where I had to completely redraw the copper sphere and even added my own reflection as the photographer.
http://photoshopcontest.com/view-entry/145402/bigger-ball.html

I guess ppl assumed that I just zoomed in.

It's too bad that you have to market your chops! Sad

Doug




_________________
Seelcraft
Chemists have solutions!
ReyRey

Location: In a world of $#!t

Post Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:13 pm   Reply with quote         


A short description would have helped. Sometimes I show steps so people know what I did. See my comments here.
http://photoshopcontest.com/view-entry/127861/ocular.html Wink




_________________
I try to think, but nothing happens.
Splodge..you rock!! Wherever you are.
I keep checking the obituaries to see if my name is there. If it's not, then I figure I'm ok.
Tawiskaro

Location: New York

Post Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:38 pm   Reply with quote         


I don't recall why I didn't vote for it. I'm inclined to think I didn't "go big" and, therefore, missed the details. I should have voted for the effort, but even with the work that went into the entry it's a rather unexciting image, imho. Please don't take offense at that. I've produced an avalanche of images that I'm sure others thought were dull. I put a lot of work into one that collected sixteen votes: http://photoshopcontest.com/view-entry/149289/peace-bonnet.html

A lot of viewers either didn't "go big" or thought it was rather unexciting, I guess. Life goes on.


.




Michel

Location: Montreal, Canada

Post Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:12 am   Reply with quote         


dunno wrote:
I actually tried to use the "FBI-SuperZOOM-Pixelperfect-Plugin" Rolling Eyes


It's unbelivable the number of times I have seen this on TV. Someone's looking at some crappy digital video camera recording and they want to be able to view a detail closer, they just zoom in and the pixelation dissapears; you can suddently see they murderer's face clearly or read some fine print that will lead to an incriminating clue. It's hard to just brush it off as some trivial incoherent detail.




dunno

Location: here

Post Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:20 pm   Reply with quote         


ok. thanks to those, who understood my question ( Huh.. ) and took the time to answer.

@seelcraft: that i was wondering. would it really have helped to "market" the chops??? (nice one btw)
@Rey: very nice idea (and cool pic)! i might try that, but....

i think Tawiskaro nailed it. It does probably not matter, how much effort it took or how good/bad the result is - even knowing what was done, the image remains... boring
But, as always, i had fun with it and could learn something. thx for the input.

Since it was fun, i thought i would "finalize" this subject and made for Michel and all the others who wondered about the zoom abilities on tv the
ultimate behind-the-scene exclusive insight report about the above mentioned
FBI-SuperZOOMPixelperfect plugin. Shocked

Here (photobucket, ~2MB !)

whatever... case closed. Cool




_________________
Take it easy!

glennhanna

Location: Eugene, Oregon

Post Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:39 pm   Reply with quote         


Michel wrote:
dunno wrote:
I actually tried to use the "FBI-SuperZOOM-Pixelperfect-Plugin" Rolling Eyes


It's unbelivable the number of times I have seen this on TV. Someone's looking at some crappy digital video camera recording and they want to be able to view a detail closer, they just zoom in and the pixelation dissapears; you can suddently see they murderer's face clearly or read some fine print that will lead to an incriminating clue. It's hard to just brush it off as some trivial incoherent detail.


I've worked with security camera footage, trying to do just that. These tv shows have given the impression that this can be done, so people used to want me to do it. Security camera footage is by far the worst quality image there is in video.
My favorite tv-show hoax is when the murderer isn't in view of the camera, and they say, "wait, zoom in on the woman in the corner, it's Karen Velentine. What's that? Zoom in on the pupil of Karen's eye. Look! There's a reflection of a guy with a gun, that guy is clearly, in HD quality, our suspect, Frank Warner. BOOK HIM!"




Tawiskaro

Location: New York

Post Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:05 pm   Reply with quote         


The fun is the thing.

Nice animation. Clearly shows the work done.




Michel

Location: Montreal, Canada

Post Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:37 pm   Reply with quote         


glennhanna wrote:
Michel wrote:
dunno wrote:
I actually tried to use the "FBI-SuperZOOM-Pixelperfect-Plugin" Rolling Eyes


It's unbelivable the number of times I have seen this on TV. Someone's looking at some crappy digital video camera recording and they want to be able to view a detail closer, they just zoom in and the pixelation dissapears; you can suddently see they murderer's face clearly or read some fine print that will lead to an incriminating clue. It's hard to just brush it off as some trivial incoherent detail.


I've worked with security camera footage, trying to do just that. These tv shows have given the impression that this can be done, so people used to want me to do it. Security camera footage is by far the worst quality image there is in video.
My favorite tv-show hoax is when the murderer isn't in view of the camera, and they say, "wait, zoom in on the woman in the corner, it's Karen Velentine. What's that? Zoom in on the pupil of Karen's eye. Look! There's a reflection of a guy with a gun, that guy is clearly, in HD quality, our suspect, Frank Warner. BOOK HIM!"


I've never seen that one, but that's really pushing it far!




Michel

Location: Montreal, Canada

Post Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:53 pm   Reply with quote         


dunno wrote:
ok. thanks to those, who understood my question ( Huh.. ) and took the time to answer.

@seelcraft: that i was wondering. would it really have helped to "market" the chops??? (nice one btw)
@Rey: very nice idea (and cool pic)! i might try that, but....

i think Tawiskaro nailed it. It does probably not matter, how much effort it took or how good/bad the result is - even knowing what was done, the image remains... boring
But, as always, i had fun with it and could learn something. thx for the input.

Since it was fun, i thought i would "finalize" this subject and made for Michel and all the others who wondered about the zoom abilities on tv the
ultimate behind-the-scene exclusive insight report about the above mentioned
FBI-SuperZOOMPixelperfect plugin. Shocked

Here (photobucket, ~2MB !)

whatever... case closed. Cool


It looks like a lot of work! I like the boring pictures, if they go in a different direction than everyone else is going. It's also good to experiment and learn new things. The fact that some people might've thought you only zoomed might indicate the good quality of your chop.

Personnally, I had to use the Pen Tool for the first time on my upcoming November 11th chop! It takes more time to use than the lasso tool, but I see the advantage in keeping all the paths and being able to rework more easily.




dunno

Location: here

Post Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:30 pm   Reply with quote         


Michel wrote:

It looks like a lot of work! I like the boring pictures, if they go in a different direction than everyone else is going. It's also good to experiment and learn new things. The fact that some people might've thought you only zoomed might indicate the good quality of your chop.

Personnally, I had to use the Pen Tool for the first time on my upcoming November 11th chop! It takes more time to use than the lasso tool, but I see the advantage in keeping all the paths and being able to rework more easily.


I dont remember how long i worked on it, but i think it took a while. thanks. i really liked the idea of "doing the impossible" behind it, so maybe i will try such zoom stuff again - and maybe i can find a way to make the image more exciting at the same time.
however, the pen tool i used already, regularly...

*checking Michels profile* - March 2004, 127 entries

Shocked

this is your first... you mean... this was for you... you are like... you've been... a pen tool virgin all these years?


and?

how was it? Mr. Green




_________________
Take it easy!

Goto page 1, 2  Next

Photoshop Contest Forum Index - General Discussion - entry discussion - Reply to topic

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Navigate PSC
Contests open  completed  winners  prizes  events  rules  rss 
Galleries votes  authentic  skillful  funny  creative  theme  winners 
Interact register  log in/out  forum  chat  user lookup  contact 
Stats monthly leaders  hall of fame  record holders 
PSC advantage  news (rss)  faq  about  links  contact  home 
Help faq  search  new users  tutorials  contact  password 

Adobe, the Adobe logo, Adobe Photoshop, Creative Suite and Illustrator are registered trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated.
Text and images copyright 2000-2006 Photoshop Contest. All rights reserved.
A venture of ExpertRating.com