Beckham Digital • View topic

Our club competition topic this month is "Abandoned", so yesterday I drove out of Brisbane to look for something that may fit this topic. This is the tractor I found. I did and HDR (7 shots with 1ev) but the result was very busy, which I found with most of my HDR's, so I ended up with this image.
My critque question is "Does this fit the topic Abandoned" I'm thinking No!!!

Alizajane
I really like this image it has bags of appeal and is interestingly different. Is it abandoned? I would say yes it appears to be so. Well done.
Andy

HI alizajane

I think that with an ‘abandoned' theme you should bring out the entropy aspect of the image, rust, decay and dereliction.

I think you have the subject right; you now need to bring out things like rust, dust and age aspects. Try a full colour image first.

Hi Alizajane,

I am pretty well in agreement with Morturn on this one. I like the image and it's presentation but, to emphasize the 'abandoned' theme some rust and decay might help. Personally I think this type of image would benefit from a sepia toned monochrome approach - thereby perhaps adding to the appearance of age (and thereby abandonment). Take a look at Morturn's bicycle (posted last August) and Phil's 'modification'. I know this is not 'abandoned' but this type of treatment on your tractor could look good. All the same, a nice image and a good start to 2010!

Advanced Member Joined: 19 Dec 2008 Posts: 46

Sorry - I have to agree with previous comments. It would be interesting to see the original - hopefully some nice 'rusty' textures. If not, then a sepia or b/w treatment.

Dear Mrs(?) C************:

Sorry, sorry, sorry but for me this really doesn't say "Abandoned" in any way. I do like the image and think it has a lot of potential. It seems more like the very start of a renovation project - it's stored under cover (ergo 'of value'), the rear wheel has a chock (ditto 'of some future value'), everything is still there as far as we can see.

The actual treatment you have given seems more, by it's modernity, to accentuate the implied 'value' of the vehicle . If you really want to go with this image, I personally would start by losing all vestige of functionality in the surroundings (eg right-side-of-image vehicles, straight lines at right base). While Michael is probably on the right(ish) lines with his sepia suggestion - had you thought of making it colour, but faded by age & UV (partly desaturate the base layer, add another sepia layer above in 'Overlay' mode and reduced opacity to suit). I would also 'grunge' the whole image (if you can still find a piece of office carbon paper, scrunch that, flatten and scan then invert the tones sometimes works OK as a texture layer. Slightly blurred.). I think the 'grain' is also too sharp, perhaps the same amount but with a different choice of grain (soft, clumped, something like that).

Being completely at odds with everyone else's views, now seems a good time to shut up. So I will!

Here's another variation on the idea. Still doesn't say "Abandonment" to me though. Just something to twiddle with for a while (till the rest of my world gets their lazy a***s out of bed on this fine, crisp, bracing morning where it's only 25° or so colder than where Barry is).

Jane

You already know the answer really didn't you. Its on the edge to meet the subject.

First rule of competition, stay well withing the rules Laughing

Yes, I agree and thinking more about it, I don't know why it does not fit the catagory as it was left to rot in the shed!
Question, why does it not fit? I think it may be the SHED! it makes the viewer think that the tractor has someone looking after it, so if I change the colour etc: would it make any difference.

I think Barry is right, I am on the edge and will have to come up with something better, but WHAT!! need help with that one.

I was thinking I might borrow a little girl and have her on a road with a Teddy bear all alone! any help with this would be great.

I will send the other tractor ones to see if they are more into the "Abandoned" theme.

This is the other tractor and I think maybe the flat tyre adds to "abandonment"

Advanced Member Joined: 19 Dec 2008 Posts: 46

Just my opinion - but I think you need to go back to the original. The effects applied to the image (in Phil's too) don't reflect 'abandonment' - I would guess that the orginal has some fine 'rusty' textures.

alizajane

can you post an unmodifyed copy of 'tractor posterized old paper.jpg' please?

Hi Mortum, this is the original that came out of photomatics (excuse the wording all over the image) must pay!! it's getting so HARD to get rid of, but I must say I'm learning to use all the tools!!

The image came out of photomatics with not a lot of information and really no detail to work on.

I am also loading an image that I have been working on ALL DAY! and I think this suits the subject far more than the tractors! Barry I am sure you will agree.

I think this suits the subject! "Abandoned" 2 things here are left, the house and theTeddy! I may change theTeddy to an older version!
Cheers Jane

First an apology: I inadvertently introduced the word "abandonment" when the original was "abandoned" - different nuance but potentially damaging. Sorry!

Unless Antipodeans are much tidier at abandoning things than we are in England, I think the real problem here lies with the way in which the tractor has been 'set aside'. However, let's work with what's available. I seriously doubt if you could successfully follow through the 'little girl with teddy' idea, Jane - with the myriad images of real-life misery available to us now, not to say thrust down our necks, I think that concept is better left alone for fear of merely parodying actuality.

Unlike Don, I think there is more potential in the second image than the first. As Dave (Morturn) says, can we see the original (ie ex-camera sans twiddly-bits) of the second image. I reckon I can see something there.

Both your offerings, to my jaundiced eye, say 'Here is something which sort-of fits the brief.' However, the temptation to 'enhance' with filters has taken what potential there was and swamped it with a 'special effect' which actually detracts from the target statement. Please can we see the unadulterated original 2nd image - I'll bet there's something there if we look past the 'filter it to death' syndrome. Special effects & the dreaded 'filter' should enhance the content of the image rather than actually becoming the image in this instance.

Again being hyper-cynical, Mk 3 just looks too clean and totally contrived for me (and Teddy actually looks happy to be there!!). You're obviously a very tidy-minded lady! Thinking mucky, scruffy, not-really-very-pleasant-to-touch, ugh-I-need-to-wash-my-hands-NOW and I reckon you'll get much nearer to the theme. Not easy. Probably not intended to be easy Confused

Quote

I'll bet there's something there if we look past the 'filter it to death' syndrome

Yes I think there is something there in that second image too.

Sorry, I am unable to send the original as I took it on my new camera and I am yet to find a program to open it in CS3, the reason the others worked is because I put them straight into photomatics in there Raw state.

Are you asking for the middle version of the 7 images ?

Cheers Jane

Hi alizajane

Try connecting your camera to your computer, look in ‘my computer’ you should find your cameras memory card. Browse in there and copy the images. The middle one should be fine, top middle and bottom would be better.

You can attach the files to this forum

Regards

Morturn: Grabbing the files isn't the problem, Dave. Although we thought that there was no difference in RAW format between the D300 and the D300S, it seems that there is - the D300S isn't supported in Adobe Camera Raw until v5.x which isn't compatible with Jane's CS3 (or anyone else's).

However, a little bit of research this morning (pre small-boys-taking-over-all-Grandpa's-computers-forever) seems to suggest that Adobe's DNG Converter previously mentioned will do the job.
This is a FREE download (ie saved the cost of CS4 which would be something of a waste solely for RAW conversions) and is a stand-alone, therefore ought to do the job using ACR v5.x but outside of CS3. I'd hazard a guess that this is Adobe's way of supporting older Photoshop (and a lot of the other CS applications as well, let's not forget - it's not just Photoshop) without the expense of rewriting absolutely everything. It'd be naïve to expect them to support their older programmes indefinitely and CS5 must be just around the corner now - on the other hand, it'd be nice if they didn't immediately dump stuff the moment a newer version comes out. Hey ho, happy days - happy days "Rattling Round the Registries" and exploring the intricacies of Anglo-Saxon vernacular.

Jane: I have to confess real surprise that you find the Nikon programme supplied with the camera so slow. Usually, camera makers do at least support their products with half-way decent software even if it isn't quite as wide-reaching as Photoshop. But you've tried it and I've not so conjecture gets us nowhere.

Do have a look at DNG Converter, remembering that it ISN'T a plug-in, it really is a completely separate programme. It ought, from the many reports read, to do the job without invoking your 'student' (save him/her for future use).

Advanced Member Joined: 18 May 2008 Posts: 461

Phil,

I think that the only (?) difference between the D300 and the D300s NEF is the change in the way that the D-Lighting feature works. However this in itself would necessitate a difference in the code which, whilst it would make no difference in CSx, makes a difference to Nikon's RAW converter. Hence the new version of the NEF.

For example, the latest version of the Nikon RAW converter reflects the changes to the D-Lighting feature in the D300s and it can apply them (retrospectively) to the D300 NEF files.

I THINK the same compatiblity issues applies to Nikon's RAW converter - cameras released AFTER a major update to the software are not recognised by the older version.

DG