What is Digg?Sponsored by FUNimation Enertainment
Bow before the frog. Sgt. Frog conquers the Earth? view!
funimation.com - Alien frogs are living among us! Vacuuming our rugs? Sgt. Frog - Season 1, Part 2 available 11/24
82 Comments
- dfnk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+51The first one is a great tip. The others I could do without...
- underthelinux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38...says the guy who types 'plz' and '2'
- sacherjj, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27My thoughts exactly. The first one is the only one without amateurish looking results.
- roywaits, on 02/02/2008, -7/+27Step 1: Take better pictures.
- Nerfdude, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21this article could just have easily been titled "How to Make Highschool Textbook Covers From the 1980's"
- warchant, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19imo, none of them really add anything of value to the pictures
- syco123, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19Step 2...
Step 3 - Profit! - baud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Here's another tip to make pictures pop like #1 (works mainly for landscapes):
1) Convert to LAB colour mode
2) Add new Adjustment Layer - Curves
3) On the "a" channel curve, bring the bottom left corner in, and the top right corner in, so you have a steeper slope that still goes through the centre point
4) Do the same for the "b" channel curve
Adjust transparency on the layer to lesser the effect if you don't like it. - furto, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14i was drawing a baloon in photoshop, and it popped! damnit gotta start again...
he... lame... - syco123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Do what the hell you what to a picture. Don't restrict your artistic ability with narrow guidelines.
However where a photo becomes 'digital art' is open for debate. - Necrontyr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8They all suck, hard.
#1 is an abridged version of the Orton Effect, which ends up looking most better most of the time
#2 is, as PRIME said, "90's"
#3 could have been cool, in fact, neon glow can be used to help you duo tone or quad tone your images in a pinch
#4 is almost #1 again, wtf is with that!
The Orton Effect: http://www.pcin.net/update/index.php/2006/11/01/the-orton-effect-digital-photography-tip-of-the-week/ - waynechng, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@manitoba98xp
Actually Illustrator competed against Freehand, while ImageReady competed against Fireworks. ImageReady and Fireworks are for cleaning up graphics, vector or pixel, for web publishing instead of print publishing. - furto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@GawtMilk
firstly, stfu.. maybe your way too pro for this tutorial but perhaps u should keep that to yourself.
secondly, #4 is a super simple process to make your pictures look like the bloom effect (my opinion) anyways they still are great and they are good for noobs to get a wider knowledge with the tools and affects of photoshop! - spargett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"4 EASY WAYS TO COMPLETELY DESTROY A PERFECTLY GOOD IMAGE"
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Personally, these are the only things I feel is okay to do to a digital picture:
1. Crop
2. Resize
3. Brightness
4. Contrast
5. Color balance
6. Gamma
all of the above are functions of the CCD you are using itself, and changing the gamma or color balance, for instance, still maintains the authenticity of the shot (you're basically tuning the conversion table from one arbitrary incoming watts/mm^2 to pixel value conversion to another, and these also help ensure that monitors display things as real life does).
anything beyond that, and i consider it an unauthentic shot. great for digital artwork and marketing, but not for the art of photography. - gboodhoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jugulator:
If you'd ever seen the before & after of a commercial photo shoot, you'd understand how essential post processing is in order to output what we consider to be professional images. That's commercial work, but part of the genius of a guy like Ansel Adams (for example) was to understand the role of pre-visualization, image capture and post-processing. Can pretty much guarantee that although what Adams captured on film was hardly accidental, what he output on paper whawas significantly different than the image seen thru the lens - gboodhoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4pretty narrow point of view IMO, but in the face of "limitless possibilities", it does make sense to define constraints no matter how arbitrary. Would posting the image to the web be acceptable, or would real output only be considered valid if it were a physical object? Not trying to mock you, just curious about the limits you've chosen for yourself.
You do realize that there's an entire approach to photography that doesn't even use a camera? The first photographs didn't use cameras. By those standards, using other machines to "dilute" the image is just plain vulgar! - manitoba98xp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Photoshop is also an Adobe product, and Fireworks was never intended to be the same thing. Fireworks competes more with, say, Illustrator. Fireworks is designed for web graphics, Photoshop was designed for photos (although both can be used for the opposite).
- Sarevok9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2wow.... i cant believe this made front page... let alone #1
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2no, i completely agree with and appreciate the concept of digital art and photoshopping. it's one field.
but i just also appreciate the art of the authentic photo, and the work that goes behind producing good, unedited photos. - diggsterbuddy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Crossmenjeff,
I agree with you . Maybe not the best, but still Photoshop tutorials is something we are interested in. I wish their where more . All you that commented on this PLEASE update this with your best tutorial . I will Digg it.
Thanks. - Crossmenjeff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2maybe not the best, but any tips are welcome.
- AHemp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I, too, don't understand how this god so many diggs.
- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Saska, you're right.. whenever someone brings up the "rule of thirds," I always think "well... it's more like the rule of making your pictures look good," because it is just a sort of pattern that emerges from a lot of good pictures that include a subject and background in proportion.
- board2, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1That's great find
http://www.nasavo.com
http://www.nasavo.com/acne
http://www.nasavo.com/forex
http://car.nasavo.com
http://tire.nasavo.com/
http://www.jurugan.com
http://health.jurugan.com
http://www.vrid.net
http://laptop.vrid.net
http://projector.vrid.net
http://tire.vrid.net
http://hyip.ej.am
http://car.ej.am
http://laptop.ej.am
http://health.bryansoft.com
http://hyipnews.freehostia.com
http://hyipnews.freehostia.com/hyip
http://nano-tech.freehostia.com - syco123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I agree, nothing special here.
S-Curve is a great way that work well on some images. Add a curve adjustment layer and add 2 points to the curve line 1/4 and 3/4 from one of the corners (where the grids cross the line) Move the upper point up and the lower point down. The curve line should now be a slight 'S' shape and it looks great but not on every image. You can achieve a similar effect by boosting the saturation and contrast. - saska, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you are a photographer and not just a blogger with a cameraphone, you should be shooting the rule of thirds purely by instinct. Also, if you are photographer, you know when the rule needs to be broken to keep your work from looking like junk stock photography.
On the other hand, it's true the internet would be a better place if more bloggers with cameraphones at least followed these rules in post-processing. - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Btw, upon thinking on it more, skilled photographers perhaps don't use this as a post-processing thing (they're skilled enough to snap the photo for this in the first place), but in the world of digital photography and cropping, I'd still like to call it this. It's a bit similar to how a skilled photographer may not need to apply other post-processing by thinking of e.g. lightning conditions better for making it more lifelike.
- blindr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1man those effects are really lame. I knew all of them years ago when i was a beginner.
- sych0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Baud: Seems to do the same as merely bumping the saturation.
nordy: the gausian blur adds a lot to the photo - nordey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Sych0
Only if you want the "hazy" look, if you are trying to increase the shape and saturation of the image without adding the glowy feel, then you would not want to use the gaussian effect. - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@mporcheron
Imageready is included in the CS3 beta.
So... - jepizacar, on 08/25/2008, -0/+1nice resource....
http://topforex.co.cc
http://skincare.freehostia.com
http://acnecare.890m.com
http://acne.ej.am
http://gofinance.890m.com
http://fastcar.890m.com
http://carbeauty.co.cc
http://gadingan.com
http://gadingan.com/indexsc.php
http://gadingan.wordpress.com
http://23ltd.info
http://jeniya.info - TNHitokiri, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2neon glow is not too bad as well.. but yea, most of them end up looking amateurish
- dDuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Rather amateur results, very obviously 'photoshopped' to look at.
- leeuk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sorry, not actually that good. Time spent learning about layer masks and alpha channels would be time better spent.
- vdxc, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1Adobe is replacing ImageReady with Fireworks for Adobe CS3 therefore one would asume, as waynechng pointed out, that ImageReady competed with Fireworks
- cubicz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0terrible posting
- saska, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1They're simplified versions of the Orton effect. Even in the article you linked, the instructions for getting the Orton effect amount to "Ingredients: lemons, eggs, sugar. Directions: make meringue."
- Provencalkid, on 12/07/2008, -0/+0I thought the first tip was quite interesting, and I endorse the comment of bigkyle28, just above. BTW, my opinion is that everyone's ideas are interesting. We are all trying to do different things; the different tips, therefore, may be useful to some people but not to others. I just mounted a show which included a picture in very large format, 39" x 50", that has TONS of noise; and yet it is a powerful and credible photograph (it does not look at all "Photoshopped") and my gallery LOVED it. Not everyone has to take exquisite, fine=grained pictures of sunsets and kitty-cats, or portraits that include every pore on the subject's face: this is art, boys and girls --or at least we hope it is art -- and we all have a right to explore the full potential of our cameras, Photoshop and any other devices or tricks that may come to mind.
After all, isn't that the joy and fun of photography? You do your own thing, using your own personal ideas, imagination, bag of tricks and techniques, and voila, with a little luck, someone gives you money for it! - bigkyle28, on 10/25/2008, -0/+0The first tip is really awesome.I wish I had found it yesterday as I just entered a state sponsored nature photo contest.I tried this on some of my entries and it increased the wow factor by many times.The other three are probably not something I would use except I may give # 2 a try as well.
- softat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0thanks too much.
http://americanahost.com
http://www.qwesz.com
http://www.qwesz.net
http://www.miracosoft.com - steveo2112, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The Digg.com streak of linking to really bad Photoshop tutorials, techniques, effects, plug-ins, etc. continues...
- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think you replied to the wrong thread there buddy... this comment was skeptical of the filters' benefits.
- americanahost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0thanks, see more :
http://brokensoft.com/adobe-photoshop-tutorials-best-free-adobe-photoshop-tutorials - madhaha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I hate to burst your bubble but the vast majority of (good? popular? National Geographic?) landscape photography is taken with a series of very specialised filters with films that are notorious for producing distorted and more vivid colours (Fuji Velvia, Agfa Ultra 100 etc.). Futhermore, almost all of these images are taken with one lens to form a 2D image with a field of view vastly different from the one we'd experience as humans. Now we're moving into digital. We have cameras that have more than one CCD built in (check out the new Olympus SLRs with live preview) but do we use it to pursue a more authentic, human-experience kind of image or do we use the technology to pursue a high quality, fresh image with high dynamic range through tone mapping etc. that was impossible with film? Ultimately you could pursue either but the majority of us hunt for the aesthetic and careful processing and post-processing is part of it. It is STILL photography.
- BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I never like to blur parts of a photo. Detail is interesting and there's no reason to remove it. I do like using some color adjustments to enhance areas of a photo to fill in parts of the composition that were drab looking originally. A well edited photo should never look edited.
- nify, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Quite strange Very Doubtful.
- Silvermink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Personally, I think one of the best tips is "don't use filters on a photo unless you're just experimenting, or unless you really know what you're doing." I've seen a lot of really horrific things done to photos with Photoshop filters (lens flare being the biggest culprit.)
-
Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is