Compare and Contrast

[MiniChris]

Got to playing with some inversion layers (ala Jiro's way) and made an accidental (on purpose) discovery in the process and have two prints for you to foist your much needed opinions toward. Thanks, in advance.





Does one command your attention more than the other, and of course, why?

[abhi]

Nicely done, Chris. Great detail in both. Personally, I prefer the color version over the B&W. The oranges are a little over-saturated for my taste, but I like it. Any particular reason for not making the background completely black?

[purplehaze]

I love the colour and luminosity of the first, Chris. I'm curious to read about your discovery. Should I be seeing it in these two examples?

[jiro]

I like the colored version for its strong commanding contrast. I would probably back off just a tad on the saturation as with the recommendation of Abhi.

For the black and white version, I would lower the contrast to see more texture on the petals. Both has its own strength and weaknesses though the similarity that I am seeing is the composition or arrangement of the flowers. I am hoping for a more dynamic type of composition.

[MiniChris]

The background should be absolutely black...hmmmm, may be time to recalibrate my monitor - or buy a new one. As per the composition, what is it about it you don't like?
Orange Saturation...will have to reduce it on the original as it's pretty much how it looked in camera. They were the orangish orange flowers I'd ever seen which is what drew me to them in the first place..

[jiro]

...As per the composition, what is it about it you don't like?

Too many flowers for me and too vertical.

Orange Saturation...will have to reduce it on the original as it's pretty much how it looked in camera. They were the orangish orange flowers I'd ever seen which is what drew me to them in the first place..

I thought it was a by product of the processing.

[MiniChris]

I love the colour and luminosity of the first, Chris. I'm curious to read about your discovery. Should I be seeing it in these two examples?

You would see it if you used Jiro's layering technique by which you make a duplicate copy, desaturate, invert, give a gaussian blur, then blend mode to either luminoisty or soft light, then change the opacity level to suit.

Only, I use Silver Efex Pro and really work the B&W side using filters, spotlights, structure and anything else I can find, then invert that, tweak it in curves again, blur the stew out of it and blend accordingly.

It was using a filter in SEP that led me to this B&W rendition as once finished in the color version, I took it back into SEP and played some more. I probably spend way too much time playing, but it sure is fun.

[purplehaze]

I probably spend way too much time playing, but it sure is fun.

Believe me, it (your playing) is fun for me, too. I would agree with Jiro that this is not one of your best compositions, but I love that you are constantly pushing past (what is for me) the conventional. I find your hits are more frequent than your misses.

[MiniChris]

I think these two are significantly better in all areas previously noted and critiqued...What say you?

[purplehaze]

My first thought was that that is not the best angle for the bloom on the left, which is a little past its prime. But the more I look at it, the more I find it has... character.

Sign me,
never photogenic at any angle, even in her prime

[jiro]

Sign me,
never photogenic at any angle, even in her prime

Care to show us some proof?

[purplehaze]

Care to show us some proof?

Hush! This is a family site. We don't want to scare the children.

Getting back to Chris's images, I should say that I think the older bloom looks better in b&w; the fresher bloom in colour. Still not my favorite composition overall, but I do love the colour combination. I did not find the original over-saturated, but maybe I am. (Kidding.)

[jiro]

Hush! This is a family site. We don't want to scare the children.

[Shambhala]

I think they are brilliant, I have nothing constructive to say.. LOL.. I just really like them! all versions.

[hoddo]

Could someone provide a link to the technique please? I tried the suggestion above but must be missing a step. Using luminosity after inverting send the image wappy. If the technique is about saturation, which looks like it's one one aspect, then why not convert to LAB in PS, change the mode to soft light or overlay, double click that layer and uncheck the L radio button and then play with opacity. Whilst in LAB you can then select the Lightness channel, sharpen, flatten the image if you want and convert back to RGB.

All said without obviously seeing the description of Jiro's.

Here's a small pic using the method I described...

[MiniChris]

Could someone provide a link to the technique please? I tried the suggestion above but must be missing a step. Using luminosity after inverting send the image wappy. If the technique is about saturation, which looks like it's one one aspect, then why not convert to LAB in PS, change the mode to soft light or overlay, double click that layer and uncheck the L radio button and then play with opacity. Whilst in LAB you can then select the Lightness channel, sharpen, flatten the image if you want and convert back to RGB.

All said without obviously seeing the description of Jiro's.

Here's a small pic using the method I described...

I don't have a link per se, only a series of notes back and forth between Jiro and myself. It is not unlike the LAB process which I am going through right now to learn but it is a pretty complicated series of steps, if one does every part of the process. I think both get you to the same place, and what I like about the LAB process more is its non-invasive nature to pixel. I also think the LAB process works best when used in conjunction with shooting a specified Zone system, another of those things I am currently learning.

On the steps given above, did you significantly reduce the opacity after the inversion, blur and either luminosity or soft light step?

[hoddo]

Hi Chris, thanks for your reply. Here's what I did in PS

created a dupe of the image, applied a slight blur then control+i to invert. Changed blending mode to luminosity and all that happened was that the image looked terrible. Playing with opacity had the effect of reducing contrast so all I can assume is that I've missed something.

The LAB method I describe above can be made into an action with stops in it for you to apply your particular settings relevant for that image. The action can then be made to 'continue' until the next 'stop'.

Regards
Paul

[MiniChris]

Hi Chris, thanks for your reply. Here's what I did in PS

created a dupe of the image, applied a slight blur then control+i to invert. Changed blending mode to luminosity and all that happened was that the image looked terrible. Playing with opacity had the effect of reducing contrast so all I can assume is that I've missed something.

The LAB method I describe above can be made into an action with stops in it for you to apply your particular settings relevant for that image. The action can then be made to 'continue' until the next 'stop'.

Regards
Paul

you did miss a step....dupe the layer, desaturate, invert, blur, then go to either Lum or soft light, then reduce the opacity accordingly. I generally get the B&W part as crisp and clear as I can, adjusting the contrast to the level I want in the final image, then invert, once again tweaking the negative in curves until I've gotten that contrast range I want...I generally do a relatively excessive blur of 3.8-4.5 pixels before doing the blend mode.

Instead of desaturating, I use Silver Efex Pro to build my B&W image, but only because I have that option.

[hoddo]

OK Chris think I've cracked it. The step I didn't action was the second invert. Here's two images, the left is the original and the right this method with the opacity set to 26% which is still a touch too much.

[MiniChris]

I find I generally have to do a saturation adjustment as it tends to over sat the colors a bit...a lot fewer steps than Varis' method.