round

[Jeremy Roussak]

Comments?

Jeremy

[RSL]

The graphics are good, Jeremy, but I think I'd have blurred that view through the hole. It's distracting. You still can do it with a selection and lens blur.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I agree that the graphics are great. I'm not sure the background needs blurring, but since Russ says it does, it probably does.
If you can give it a try without bending yourself out of shape too much, I'd like to see it.

Eric M.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Good idea/seeing.

I would experiment with a much more graphical approach (i.e., stronger contrast) and would go perhaps with a total obliteration (overexposure) of the view through the hole. The way it is, it is too realistic, which distracts from the inherent geometric and graphical components.

[RSL]

Here's another possibility, though I didn't take time to get the selection exact.

[Rob C]

The graphics are good, Jeremy, but I think I'd have blurred that view through the hole. It's distracting. You still can do it with a selection and lens blur.

I don't usually like to rearrange another's images, but this time I felt Russ was onto something: so I kept the general form, did the blur and added some colour in Photoshop 6.

What do you think? Or have I taken the adjustments too far from the original intent?

;-)

Rob C

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I don't usually like to rearrange another's images, but this time I felt Russ was onto something: so I kept the general form, did the blur and added some colour in Photoshop 6.

What do you think? I have I taken the adjustments too far from the original intent?

;-)

Rob C

That's just what Russ was talking about.   

[Jeremy Roussak]

I don't usually like to rearrange another's images, but this time I felt Russ was onto something: so I kept the general form, did the blur and added some colour in Photoshop 6.

What do you think? Or have I taken the adjustments too far from the original intent?

It's an interesting take on my original, Rob, but I can't help feeling that the fundamentally land-based ethos which prompted me to take it has been, if not wholly lost, at least obscured; and nautical elements have started to intrude. There's an irony too in your reintroduction of colour, which I'd so painstakingly removed.

Good idea/seeing.

I would experiment with a much more graphical approach (i.e., stronger contrast) and would go perhaps with a total obliteration (overexposure) of the view through the hole. The way it is, it is too realistic, which distracts from the inherent geometric and graphical components.

Obliteration gave a rather strong white streak, which didn't appeal to me.

I've tried a simple, strong blur with a curves adjustment, which produced the first result below. I've also tried your suggestion of much increased contrast and strong clarity in LR; that produced the second result, which I rather like. Is it what you had in mind?

Jeremy

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I like what you are doing in these last two versions, and I think part of what you have done with contrast and clarity helps, but I think II-2 goes just a bit too far. I'd try for about 2/3 of the way between the next-to-last variant and the last variant.

Eric M. (picky, picky, ...)

[Narkan]

Last version gets my favor indeed!
By processing that way you obliterate the distraction of the far background and give the image a vintage-y, fineart-sy look that marries well with the B&W and the square crop.
I would stick with the II-2 processing with this kind of shots which (my last 2 bits) I like.

[wolfnowl]

I'm okay with blurring out the background a bit, but I don't find it too distracting.  What catches me are all of the straight lines and angles within the circle - a wonderful collaboration.
Mike.