Page 3 of 5
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:11 pm
by Doombrain
it's mint mate, i'll let you touch it in london
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:52 pm
by saturn
Don Carlos wrote:saturn wrote:Don Carlos wrote:
That is amazing
Hoe did ya do it?
- I added a quickmask on the car (painted on with brush)
- went out of quickmask, inversed the selection
- radial blur with zoom, value 15, moved off-centre (to the left)
- changed HUE till I had that pale blue
- added quickmask selection on the windows and headlights and changed hue again
- selection around the headlights and changed levels and contrast
- cropped the pic
- done
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:53 pm
by saturn
the 18-55mm Canon kitlens is shite....it blurs around the edges......at least, that's what all reviewsites say
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:54 pm
by Don Carlos
wtf is a quick mask?
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:56 pm
by saturn
Don Carlos wrote:wtf is a quick mask?
it's almost at the bottom of the left toolbar....if you're going into that mode you can "paint" a selection. I paint areas I want to select with a brush (colour black) and you see it becoming translucent red on the photo. When you click the "normal" mode button again, you've actually selected that area around it, so you have to inverse the selection.
It's the easiest way to have a selection in your photo IMO.
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:08 pm
by Don Carlos
hmmm...interesting...
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:23 pm
by Don Carlos
quick test
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:46 pm
by Guest
Doombrain wrote:Toxic, i've seen your work and it sucks. shut up.
Post what you've done then faggot. Btw, the lenses you got suck ass.
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:19 pm
by Chupacabra
db has posted his stuff numerous times.
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:07 pm
by saturn
Don Carlos wrote:quick test
[img]
not bad, work on precise selection methods....you can expand, contract the selection too if you want. Sometimes I use Feather (CTRL+SHIFT+D) to soften the edge of the selection to give it a more transitional effect when I throw a filter or color edit on it.
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:08 pm
by saturn
of course I forgot many small steps I do in Photoshop....
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:10 pm
by plained
i already know it so i doen ave to remember it ey
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:15 pm
by saturn
are you Don Carlos then?
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:00 am
by MKJ
saturn wrote:of course I forgot many small steps I do in Photoshop....
as everyone does i guess
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:36 am
by saturn
it's just little tweaks, like adjusting your balls in your underwear
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:37 am
by glossy
Don Carlos wrote:quick test
the best method i've found to achieve what you're trying to, is to use the "Magic Lasso" tool (the one with the magnet? next to it -- it snaps to contours of the actual photo) and with that, trace the outside of your object.
after that, go into quickmask and clean up the parts that Magic Lasso didn't do very well on.
good luck with it
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:47 am
by FragaGeddon
saturn wrote:hmmmm....having a bit of fun in Photoshop, haven't used it in a long time.
You left your window open. Quick and close it before it rains.
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:53 am
by MKJ
FragaGeddon wrote:saturn wrote:hmmmm....having a bit of fun in Photoshop, haven't used it in a long time.
You left your window open. Quick and close it before it rains.
theres a black hole in the car. he opened the window to make sure it wouldnt implode
hence the suction
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:54 am
by Doombrain
ToxicBug wrote:Doombrain wrote:Toxic, i've seen your work and it sucks. shut up.
Post what you've done then faggot. Btw, the lenses you got suck ass.
Saturn, i didn't buy it for the lens. and at 18mm it's as good as any other 18mm lens, only at 55mm it's not good.
ToxicBaby, i also bought this
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product ... 56III_USM/
and this
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product ... f3556_USM/
so shut the fuck up.
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:59 am
by saturn
the 18-55mm kitlens isn't sharp around the edges of lens....they often suggest just to buy the body and get another and better lens
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:27 am
by Guest
Congratulations, you bought two noob lenses, and one of them is completely useless if you've got the other one. Clue? You have a 75-300mm and a 28-200mm, why two useless, slow, soft, beginner telephoto lenses? Ok, I know that you can't afford a proper telephoto, but you could at least get a decent lens like a 24-70mm f/2.8 instead of that 28-200 crap. Either way, I don't like zooms, hence I stick to quality, trusted primes that blow any lens under $1000 away sharpness and color-wise.
Oh yeah, what are you gonna shoot with a 300mm at f/5.6? Better bring a tripod and shoot your neighbour's books or something. Its too slow for shooting sports or wildlife, which are about 99% of what a telephoto lens is used for.
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:53 am
by Doombrain
ToxicBug wrote:
Congratulations, you bought two noob lenses, and one of them is completely useless if you've got the other one. Clue? You have a 75-300mm and a 28-200mm, why two useless, slow, soft, beginner telephoto lenses? Ok, I know that you can't afford a proper telephoto, but you could at least get a decent lens like a 24-70mm f/2.8 instead of that 28-200 crap. Either way, I don't like zooms, hence I stick to quality, trusted primes that blow any lens under $1000 away sharpness and color-wise.
Oh yeah, what are you gonna shoot with a 300mm at f/5.6? Better bring a tripod and shoot your neighbour's books or something. Its too slow for shooting sports or wildlife, which are about 99% of what a telephoto lens is used for.
lol, OK mate.
ffs, you use sigma lenses, don’t talk to me about quality AND don’t talk to me about sports shooting after that fucking dreadful display you posted a bit back :lol:
PS, i have 2 tripods :lol:
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:01 pm
by Doombrain
ToxicBug wrote:Doombrain wrote:Toxic, i've seen your work and it sucks. shut up.
Post what you've done then faggot. Btw, the lenses you got suck ass.
what would you like to see?
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:02 pm
by Guest
Dude, my Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro has a fucking slow AF, its not meant to shoot sports. Btw, it *is* quality, it is the sharpest 50mm on the market, from any manufacturer. Your shitty f/3.5-5.6 noob lenses can't even compare to my primes. I had a Canon 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II kit lens that came with my EOS 300 and since I purchased the Sigma, I never used that fucking piece of shit lens again, ever, and then I sold it to some idiot. The optical quality cannot be compared. Then I bought a Canon 24mm f/2.8 and its a sharp as fuck wide angle, which puts the Canon 17-40 f/4.0 L to shame, I'm not even talking about that 18-55mm kit lens shit. Go read some reviews of real quality lenses and then think why you buy your F/3.5-5.6 shit.
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:03 pm
by Guest
Doombrain wrote:ToxicBug wrote:Doombrain wrote:Toxic, i've seen your work and it sucks. shut up.
Post what you've done then faggot. Btw, the lenses you got suck ass.
what would you like to see?
How about some sports pics.
