Photo to line art

[Justan]

This was fun to make.

What do you think??

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The original photo (at least I assume photo #1 is the original) is already visually interesting enough not to need any further improvements. The other two versions might be interesting on their own in a certain context, but given the choice, I would always go for #1. And it is not that I am against post-processing manipulations in general (after all, I do it quite regularly), just that in this case I prefer the original.

[RSL]

Justan, I agree with Slobodan, except I'm not sure whether I'd choose #1 or #2. Interesting experiment.

[John R Smith]

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, my mates who were at art college and I used to get into a lot of stuff like this in the darkroom - B/W, of course, not colour. I think we could probably have got something like this with solarisation and then lith, on matt paper. It was a load of fun - paper negatives, lith, reticulation, all sorts. And part of the fun was that some elements of it with film were always a bit random and unexpected. Back then, there was pretty big emphasis on graphic design in the colleges, and one of my friends went on to work as a designer for magazines. None of the people I knew were studying fine art, and photography was seen as raw material for design. So that's the approach that your picture reminds me of, although that may not have been your intention.

So I would see your #3 image as being very suited to incorporating into a page of text and other illustrations, and for that it would be far more useful than #1. But #1 probably works better as something to print, frame, and hang on the wall.

I note that you say it was "fun to make". Good. That is a complete justification for doing it.

John

[Rob C]

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, my mates who were at art college and I used to get into a lot of stuff like this in the darkroom - B/W, of course, not colour. I think we could probably have got something like this with solarisation and then lith, on matt paper. It was a load of fun - paper negatives, lith, reticulation, all sorts. And part of the fun was that some elements of it with film were always a bit random and unexpected. Back then, there was pretty big emphasis on graphic design in the colleges, and one of my friends went on to work as a designer for magazines. None of the people I knew were studying fine art, and photography was seen as raw material for design. So that's the approach that your picture reminds me of, although that may not have been your intention.

So I would see your #3 image as being very suited to incorporating into a page of text and other illustrations, and for that it would be far more useful than #1. But #1 probably works better as something to print, frame, and hang on the wall.

I note that you say it was "fun to make". Good. That is a complete justification for doing it.

John

Ah, John, now I understand about the tweed! As long as it didn't go with cords...?

Rob C

[John R Smith]

Ah, John, now I understand about the tweed! As long as it didn't go with cords...?

Rob C

Ermmmmm . . .

Well, I'm afraid I like cords as well.

John

[Rob C]

Ermmmmm . . .

Well, I'm afraid I like cords as well.

John

John, you're making this difficult! I am at a loss for words with which we can both come out well, as in roses...

;-(

Rob C

[Justan]

The original photo (at least I assume photo #1 is the original) is already visually interesting enough not to need any further improvements. The other two versions might be interesting on their own in a certain context, but given the choice, I would always go for #1. And it is not that I am against post-processing manipulations in general (after all, I do it quite regularly), just that in this case I prefer the original.

Thanks for the comment, Slobodian. There have been so many dandelion fotos that I was after a variation on the theme. The idea was based in reply I made about your portrait a few days back, but this one was done in a different way. Of the 3, my fav is #2 due to the increased textures. It makes it more like a drawing and less like a foto

I've shown the print to 3 of my regular critics (all women) and they love it. I also changed the print to be horizontal, with the original foto on the left.

[Justan]

Justan, I agree with Slobodan, except I'm not sure whether I'd choose #1 or #2. Interesting experiment.

Thanks Russ!

[Justan]

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, my mates who were at art college and I used to get into a lot of stuff like this in the darkroom - B/W, of course, not colour. I think we could probably have got something like this with solarisation and then lith, on matt paper. It was a load of fun - paper negatives, lith, reticulation, all sorts. And part of the fun was that some elements of it with film were always a bit random and unexpected. Back then, there was pretty big emphasis on graphic design in the colleges, and one of my friends went on to work as a designer for magazines. None of the people I knew were studying fine art, and photography was seen as raw material for design. So that's the approach that your picture reminds me of, although that may not have been your intention.

So I would see your #3 image as being very suited to incorporating into a page of text and other illustrations, and for that it would be far more useful than #1. But #1 probably works better as something to print, frame, and hang on the wall.

I note that you say it was "fun to make". Good. That is a complete justification for doing it.

John

Thanks for the comment.

In the 70s I did some work similar to what you described – to reduce fotos to line art. Then I did it in part to make silk screens and as a means of sharpening. My original goal here was the bottom one and the middle one was a by product of that process.  The bottom one might have more continuity were the subject white against a greenish background. Perhaps a gradient. I’ll work on that.

[Justan]

John, you're making this difficult! I am at a loss for words with which we can both come out well, as in roses...

;-(

Rob C

Rob,

This forum is for constructive criticism and useful comments of and related to posted works. If you have no interest in doing that, as appears the case time after time, kindly refrain from posting irrelevant comments. Your comments are suitable for the “About this Site” and “The Coffee Corner” and any of a number of other chat forums on this site. They are inappropriate for this forum.

[Rob C]

Rob,

This forum is for constructive criticism and useful comments of and related to posted works. If you have no interest in doing that, as appears the case time after time, kindly refrain from posting irrelevant comments. Your comments are suitable for the “About this Site” and “The Coffee Corner” and any of a number of other chat forums on this site. They are inappropriate for this forum.

Absolutely right, Justan; I sit corrected!

Rob C

[popnfresh]

I concur with Slobodan and Russ. The first one is the best. I'm a big believer in the "less is more" approach to post processing.

[DarkPenguin]

I concur with Slobodan and Russ. The first one is the best. I'm a big believer in the "less is more" approach to post processing.

Less than what?

I like the third.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Rob,

This forum is for constructive criticism and useful comments of and related to posted works. If you have no interest in doing that, as appears the case time after time, kindly refrain from posting irrelevant comments. Your comments are suitable for the “About this Site” and “The Coffee Corner” and any of a number of other chat forums on this site. They are inappropriate for this forum.

Booooooo! Down with political correctness and self-appointed forum police! Down with "relevant and appropriate" boredom! Long live  unexpected, witty, out of the left field, quirky, and outright silly commentary! Long live freedom of speech!  

[John R Smith]

Booooooo! Down with political correctness and self-appointed forum police! Down with "relevant and appropriate" boredom! Long live  unexpected, witty, out of the left field, quirky, and outright silly commentary! Long live freedom of speech!  

Indeed. After all, this is only an Internet forum, for heaven's sake, it really is not that serious. Many of my own topics go a bit astray and rather off-message too but that is part of the fun. Rob's comment was actually rather witty but unfortunately a bit opaque if you had missed a previous exchange on a completely different thread elsewhere. And you probably had to be English and of a certain age to get the point  

John

[Rob C]

Umm... I hope that lump in my throat is only emotion!

Thanks for the vote of confidence - much appreciated.

Rob C

[Justan]

Less than what?

I like the third.

Thanks!

[Justan]

Booooooo! Down with political correctness and self-appointed forum police! Down with "relevant and appropriate" boredom! Long live  unexpected, witty, out of the left field, quirky, and outright silly commentary! Long live freedom of speech!  

I agree with some of that. And will add that if a comment is truly “witty” it will have some relevance to the topic. Otherwise, it’s just, ya know, blowing yer own dandelion ….which is a flavor of threadjerking, er, ahem, …jacking, er, well, mister monkey-as-self-portrait, hopefully you get the drift…