|
|
|
The Fifth Graphics.com Challenge Entries
|
|
|
|
Pollution - Last revision - lucdesaulniers (lucdesaulniers)
| Description: | The sharp focus of the background was bothering. Was making a bad contour transition with the the head. Si I slightly blurred the background image.
Here the results after reading all comments and exploring settings.
From: Barbara Garber (thebags) (Mon Oct 26 19:09:01 2009)
Very masterfully done ... not to mention scary.
From: DavidMac (DavidMac) (Tue Oct 27 07:07:07 2009)
Great idea. Especially the waterfall of tears. It's also worked pretty well in terms of the filter too. Very well done.
From: Dalibor (Dalibor) (Tue Oct 27 07:59:01 2009)
Nice one, and good idea with the woods / leaves pattern too. This face is impressive even without displacement maps.
From: lucdesaulniers (lucdesaulniers) (Tue Oct 27 16:27:28 2009)
Thanks. To create the displacement, I first increased the contrast, than create the displacement map with value of 10 twice (third one was creating obvious stretched pixels, so I've stopped at 2). Then, I use Overlay with 80% opacity and adjusted the Level on both layers. As a last step, I did Color Balance adjustment to come back close to the original colors of the head and leaves, water, etc. and to harmonize the blue tint of the background image with the natural light reflexion that was present on the head. Finally, I cleaned some the elements part of the head like nose piece and ear in order to eliminate the unwanted displacement artifacts.
From: DavidMac (DavidMac) (Wed Oct 28 17:36:03 2009)
Hate to say it Luc but I preferred the original. I follow your reasoning perfectly, but I think by blurring the ugliness of the background you have diminished the impact and message. Strangely, far more disturbing for me was, and is, the blurred outline behind his head. I am not sure if it is another figure or a mostly concealed mohican hairstyle. Either way I think a clean cut out of the back of his shaved head would be stronger - especially now you have softened the background. You've invited me to quibble now Luc, so lets not lose sight of the fact that this is still a very strong image.
From: lucdesaulniers (lucdesaulniers) (Wed Oct 28 19:27:37 2009)
David, I am a bit surprised at your comment. As a cinematographer, I would think that you would be the first one to be sensitive (if not to comment on) the depth of field. I understand that with today's digital camera, this effect exist no more 8-)
From: Joe E (popeslattz) (Wed Oct 28 23:14:40 2009)
I didn't see the original but even with the blurred background this is a really powerful image. The waterfall works really great.
From: DavidMac (DavidMac) (Fri Oct 30 04:37:37 2009)
Yes of course Luc. I consciously manipulate depth of field all the time. But usually a soft background is to concentrate the eye on the foreground. To me the background of this image is as important as the foreground, its an essential part of the narrative. Oh dear. That sounds really pretentious! It's morning here, I've just got out of bed. Seems that just woken up brings out the pompous in me. :o(
From: Dennis Windt (dwindt) (Fri Oct 30 11:27:22 2009)
2 different environments raising one major issue. Issues on opposite sides of the spectrum. The issue focused on in the fore; in clarity, is the issue of importance to he who is in focus. How it was in the beginning being clear and how it is becoming being hazy and polluted. Poety with pictures. I did not see the original so I cannot comment on that but I see a lot of intelligence, poetry, contradictions, passion and emmotion in this image. I like this. It reaches deep. Well done Luc'.
From: Dennis Windt (dwindt) (Fri Oct 30 11:37:45 2009)
David's also onto something. Maybe where the background image's foreground makes contact with the Indian, in that close vicinity it should be clear and sharp and lose it's focus as it receeds furture into the background.
From: lucdesaulniers (lucdesaulniers) (Fri Oct 30 13:23:08 2009)
Dennis, see the Variations section. I posted the "clear image" with close-ups of the annoying parts -- Oh! Thanks
From: DavidMac (DavidMac) (Sat Oct 31 04:46:05 2009)
" ..... see the variations section ......" An opportunity I have been quite unable to resist .... ;o) |
|
|
|
|
From: lucdesaulniers (lucdesaulniers)
(Wed Nov 4 19:06:58 2009)
OK, this is my last revision! If you want to follow the story, see Variations. Next time, I won't post so quickly. I'll do like any artist who paints: once you think you're finished, put the canvas face against the wall and leave it there for a couple days and then look back at it. You'll see all the annoying things.. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
From: Joe E (popeslattz)
(Wed Nov 4 19:49:46 2009)
I put my canvases upside down sometimes. This helps see compositional elements and color without being distracted by the image as much.
Not sure which version of this I like best. They're all good for different reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
From: DavidMac (DavidMac)
(Thu Nov 5 07:44:10 2009)
I think this is impeccable Luc. I shall be surprised if we don't see you up there in the leaders at the end of the month.
|
|
|
|
|
From: Barbara Garber (thebags)
(Fri Nov 6 11:53:14 2009)
FRONT PAGE today .... congratulations!!!
|
|
|
|
|
From: lucdesaulniers (lucdesaulniers)
(Fri Nov 6 15:58:29 2009)
That's nice. And many thanks for your comments.
|
|
|
|
|
From: Siggi
(Sun Nov 8 12:07:25 2009)
every time i have looked at thsi, the eyes seem to try to tell me something....this is a very powerful image and i can only hope we all take the message on board!!!!!! BRILL!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
From: Eftelibra
(Sun Nov 8 13:16:06 2009)
This is the best version. I prefer the sharper background. Great idea, brilliantly done.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Album: