I was working with an image today, testing out some very rough ideas for a future TRA product, and decided to go ahead and finish out the treatment on the image I was working on, since I really liked how it was looking. I do truly believe that our stuff rocks, but sometimes I surprise even myself. Check out this image… I finished it off with Boutwell Magic Glasses, then ran Can-O-Whoopass over some areas that needed more detail and acutance.
Before:
and After:
Just makes a huge difference, IMO, having that extra bit of snap and detail in the final image.
In case you were wondering how we got to this image BEFORE the before image – some new goodies, mixed with a tiny bit of POS lens (from TRA2) with the highlight flare unchecked and the edge blurring turned down (and masked off the guy’s face).
The SOOC image looked like this:
Just workin’ away on new ways to make things even radder.
In other news – can the frickin Cubs PLEASE stop losing now? Every time they add another game to their losing streak, a little piece of me dies. Thankfully, the Brewers have decided to suck at precisely the same time, so the standings haven’t changed… but still…
mary wyar
i looove can o whooopass, really makes all the difference. the images totally pops!!
Sep 04, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
jeff tisman
What ever happened to just shooting a great image and letting it speak for it’s self. Yes your actions help but I think people are loosing the “art” of photography and learning how to make a picture. Notice I didn’t say take a picture. Get back to your roots. Ansel Adams, Henry Cartier Bresson. The images spoke for themselves . Enough “radding” out images.
Sep 04, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
Alan B.
@ Jeff
As you undoubtedly know, Doug makes (and sells) amazing PS actions and is clearly an expert at creative post production techniques. It’s totally fine if you are not into his style of work, but it doesn’t make any sense to come here and mouth off about it.
Sep 04, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
admin
Thanks for coming to my defense, Alan!
To Jeff – All that matters to me is that the end image is compelling… I do believe that you can accomplish that with or without heavy post-production, but I also understand the frustration with seeing the technique of the week take stage in the digital era.
FWIW, Ansel manipulated his images harder than anyone else before, and given today’s tools, I’ll bet he’d be Photoshopping things to a sinful extent. Check out “the print” (which I’m pretty sure I have a copy of around here somewhere), and try to tell me that he thought images were fine as straight prints. I know that’s sorta a twisting of your meaning to make that point, but he sure as hell didn’t just “shoot a great image” and then “let it speak for itself.” Post-production has been an inextricable part of photography ever since it became acceptable to think of it as “Art” (and in fact, you could make the argument that it’s BECAUSE of the extent to which Ansel, Weston, and the f/64 gang advocated and pioneered darkroom wizardry that photography is even considered art at all – it negated the art world’s critique of photography being just snapshots, proving that you could toil over a photograph, too)
HCB is another story, and though you can’t argue with a body of work built on beautiful moments seen beautifully, you can’t help but wonder what his work would look like if he was one of our contemporaries. We weren’t born into that era of photography, and thankfully, we can freely choose to create work in that vein, instead of being handcuffed into it by the techniques and tools at our disposal.
All of that is a long, roundabout way of saying – if you don’t like it, you don’t have to. You’re right for re-asserting that photography shouldn’t stand on the post-production alone, and I couldn’t agree more. But I also think that putting the forefathers of our art form on a pedestal for the purity of their work is both historically inaccurate, and also misses the point of the things they stood for back in the day anyway.
-db
Sep 04, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
jeff tisman
yo guys,
i lOVE the actions and i’m def. not knocking doug at all!!! he’s stuff rocks and influenced me as well and was a very cool guy to talk with. all i’m saying is go out and “rock” the shots to start. sometimes images are way over done with the photoshopping. (hey even joe buissink says so…)
and yes, i know ansel did a ton of darkroom stuff. as a matter of fact it wasn’t even him that was in there printing them.
hey it’s all good. doug, you rock. your actions rock! and oh yeah, congrats on the baby.
jt
Sep 04, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
Nicole Renee
I very rarely post things, but I thought I had to to say something…..So whenever I am checking my blogs for the day I always click on other people’s sites who have posted something and since Mr. Tisman was posting a comment that wasn’t very nice, although he backtracked a little later, I googled him since he didn’t leave his web address — I just want to say LEAVE DOUG ALONE! He and Chenin have an awesome product that they share with all photographers to help them. They could just keep their knowledge to themselves and make our work in photoshop much harder. But God bless them for sharing and making my life so much easier! I am just saying. I am not being a Jeff hater, just saying that I am pretty sure I saw some Old School and other TRAs on your pics on your blog. Don’t knock something you do yourself. Peace!
Sep 05, 2008 @ 9:25 am
jeff tisman
hey everyone,
I”m NOT DISSING DOUG!!!!!!!!!!!! I said his stuff rocks, his actions rock!!!! all i’m saying is some images, NOT DOUGS are over photoshopped. I said I use DOUGS actions. geez, give a brutha’ some slack! Maybe i was angry at the moment,along with Dougs Cubs, the Yankees suck! Let my make my official apology. I apologise to you Doug.
j
Sep 05, 2008 @ 9:44 am
admin
LOL – no prob… i figured as much… Closing comments on this post before it turns into a total shitstorm… thanks everyone for playing!
Sep 05, 2008 @ 9:46 am