...something inside...

NeilL

Neil

black mamba

It's a striking image and I love it, Neil.

Tom

TonyCooper

I suppose you are going to get more flak about this not being appropriate
for this forum, but it's not going to be from me.

I don't think this forum is the place for this type of creative post-
processing, but if a regular contributor of images that are within
the brief of the forum wants to show off a new style, it's not
destroying this forum as we know it.

I think you'll get a better audience in "Other Cool Shots", but
the comments there will be more superficial.

I like this, and I liked the other one. You could do an
online tutorial of the steps and I'd try a few myself.

RSL

Another fascinating piece of work, Neil. Yeah, people are going to come down on you about the fact that it's neither street nor PJ. I should be one of them. When I first came on to Street & PJ I bitched and complained about the fact that the vast majority of what I was seeing was neither street nor PJ, but some of the folks now clobbering you were clobbering me because I pointed that out. Let's face it. Richard is the moderator and it's Richard's forum. He stated more than once that, as he put it, he's not concerned with taxonomy.

But at the same time it appears one of the few things in all creation BD and I agree on is that a forum named "Street & PJ" should attempt to confine itself to street & PJ.

On the other hand, even though good street photography is my favorite thing, I also love the work of a lot of painters and printmakers: El Greco, Edward Hopper, Albert Bierstadt, Picasso, all of the Impressionists, immediately come to mind. And I'm always on the lookout for something new, which is what I see in your new work. I think that anybody making any kind of visual art can learn something from others making any kind of visual art.

So, yeah, your stuff is a long way from street or PJ, but it's damn good stuff, and "Street & PJ" was a long way from confining itself to street & PJ long before you started posting this stuff.

michswiss

Russ, I save my more experimental stuff for LuLa. I attempt to stay within my own self-imposed constraints on S&PJ. Sometimes constraints are good in driving creativity. It forces me to find new and hopefully unique approaches to more literal captures. For what it's worth, I think Neil's compositions go beyond compositing or doubling up on exposures. I could, may very well be wrong but it seems like there is some dependence on packaged filters or effects in addition to the two core captures. If it really is all his own creation start-to-finish, cool. It'd be nice if there were a forum here for experimental, yet serious efforts. I'd certainly be adding a few there myself.

RSL

I agree, Jennifer. LuLa doesn't try to specialize, and it's a great forum. I wouldn't even think of posting something like Neil's fascinating compositions on something called "Street & PJ," but I'd make a splash with them on LuLa. In fact, I'd point Neil in that direction. I'll bet they'd get a roar of positive responses over there -- at least I'd like to think so.

But let's face it: at least since I first came on Street & PJ the forum's been dorking around with all sorts of things that are way outside the bounds of street and PJ. There don't really seem to be any limits. My own feeling is that if you can't beat 'em, you either drop out or join 'em. And unless Richard starts paying attention to what he calls "taxonomy" and establishes some boundaries, "Street & PJ" is going to continue to be a misnomer. We know there are some limits, because Richard bumped a series of bird pictures that I posted, and another that Javier just posted, even though both series were shot from the street. But there still aren't any clear indications of what belongs in and what belongs out. I now see that Rob Marshall just joined the argument with a series of visually distorted screws.

Yes! I'd love to see Street & PJ restricted to Street & PJ, and have another forum for the kind of thing Neil's done. I'm not sure I'd want to see it limited with the name "experimental." I think I'd rather call it something like "General Fine Art." But the name doesn't matter as long as it describes that's being called for. Along with that I'd like to see Street & PJ restricted to Street & PJ.

On the other hand, since it's almost impossible to define street photography with anything less than an extended series of examples, Richard would be in the position of Justice Potter Stewart who said he couldn't define pornography but knows it when he sees it. So I can understand why Richard doesn't want to tighten the screws. He'd have to be the judge, and he'd catch all sorts of flak no matter which way he went. Wouldn't bother me, but I think it'd bother Richard.

TonyCooper

michswiss wrote: »

Russ, I save my more experimental stuff for LuLa. I attempt to stay within my own self-imposed constraints on S&PJ. Sometimes constraints are good in driving creativity. It forces me to find new and hopefully unique approaches to more literal captures. For what it's worth, I think Neil's compositions go beyond compositing or doubling up on exposures. I could, may very well be wrong but it seems like there is some dependence on packaged filters or effects in addition to the two core captures. If it really is all his own creation start-to-finish, cool. It'd be nice if there were a forum here for experimental, yet serious efforts. I'd certainly be adding a few there myself.

I don't know for sure, but I think quite a few shooters here use the
built-in pre-sets for conversion to black and white in Lightroom, use
Silver FXpro, or use one of the other Photoshop plug-in programs
that are available for purchase. Even building your own pre-sets
in Lightroom is using a "packaged" product.

I don't, but I use Photoshop CS4 (without plug-ins) for my conversions.

It seems to be that anything more than an in-camera setting - with a
digitital camera - for black and white is employing some dependence
on "packaged" something...and that includes any Photoshop version.

Not that I object to any of the above. I do my own conversions
without aid of any program other than Photoshop because 1) I'm
too cheap to buy a plug-in, and, 2) because I like to mess with
'em myself.

NeilL

Thanks Tom, Tony, Russ, michswiss! Especially for your generosity!

Some of my thoughts here http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=219582&page=3, in post #55, are relevant to your comments.

Yes, Tony, I posted this image (and the other) here because I believe here is the relevant space for giving them consideration.

My development was done, after basic adjustments and RAW conversion in DPP, in CS3, using blending modes, blend if, an art filter, masks, curves and unsharp mask.

Neil

puzzledpaul

Reminds me of the sort of images I used to see in the days of pshop 3 / KPT / 'chops' etc ... when Kai Krause was a pretty influential presence (to some) and layers had just 'arrived'

pp

NeilL

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Reminds me of the sort of images I used to see in the days of pshop 3 / KPT / 'chops' etc ... when Kai Krause was a pretty influential presence (to some) and layers had just 'arrived'

pp

yes all of those things are relevant

Neil