It seems here John that you are focussing on my 2nd aspect in my intro ... [(2) the process involved ('push button computer effect') is not as valid, presumably as compared to the traditional hand created art-form it is derived from - this is despite the result, it is the actual method of production that is being doubted.]

You clearly are rejecting the method involved - yet you have not referred to the actual results. Obviously you know the origins of the shots and the 'push button' creation which is behind your response. But it is strange not to comment on the content or actual appearance of a photograph when commenting isn't it? I've never known comments here to only refer to the technique of production in isolation from the actual image in front of us.

I wonder, if I had packaged and delivered these to people, printed on beautiful canvas and expensively framed, would people react to them in the same way as here?

I can understand that the photos of me having fun at the farm did not suit the 'Plastic Wrap' approach ... So what is it about the content of these photos here that does not suit the style as they are presented?



So the whole point of the medium is to produce something that looks like a photograph? Could it not also be to produce something that looks like what is being photographed?

Well, I was answering what I saw as just criticism in the previous 'effects' thread that some of the shots content did not suit the particular effects applied. I was not concerned of course because those images were processed for a video purpose of fun and shock value.

Here I have specifically chosen a selection of images that matched a new criteria - ie: they are of scenes that I felt are of a type that is commonly reproduced by oil painters - of all abilities! I am exploring whether translating these more 'suitable' subjects into the computer generated representation of the other artistic form satisfies that particular complaint.

Then we should call it a 'program' I suspect you're right, having read through the some of the extensive writings of the developer and been on their forum a little bit, it does all sound quite trans-atlantic. At least the instructions and help is all in English!

This is a follow-up to my recent 'Photo Effects' and the responses to some of that.

gwing wrote : 'Cough, splutter. There is great art, then there is art, then there is painting by numbers, then there is join the dots.

I don't have an opinion on where David Hockney would go on that scale. But I do have an opinion where push button computer effects lie'.


davidstorm wrote : 'I can see the merits of using filters like this to morph images in a video, but not so much for individual photos. Unless there is a brief to produce images like this, or a creative reason that makes it valid, there's no compelling reason to do it.

Where this differs from images manipulated by the likes of Autumnlight for example is that these are done just for the sake of it without any serious attempt to match a particular filter or processing technique to the a desired look for the final image. Maria's (Autumnlight) images are the opposite of this, the processing always complements the original image and makes it into something special that it may not have been originally. That is what I call artistry, these are not'


Fair points? I've been thinking about it, and the doubting seems to come down to 2 key aspects ... 1) if the effect does not complement the type of subject or photo genre, and 2) the process involved ('push button computer effect') is not as valid, presumably as compared to the traditional hand created art-form it is derived from - this is despite the result, it is the actual method of production that is being doubted.

Well what if the button push effect was more suited to the style of the photo, and what if the result of it was closer, or indistinguishable, from a similar hand created artwork? Would that make it better, more acceptable and valid?

So I have found a selection of my shots that meet these criteria - and I have restricted it the oil-painting style that is common for countryside scenes and decorative objects. Some of you may have fond memories of some of the images and the discussions about them . I can't imagine any of these in the Tate Britain, but think I can see them on the walls of the posh cafes and boutiques that surround the locations - I've certainly seen worse real oil-paintings for sale ....

What do you think ... is this a good new life for these images, and do they stand up against the 'real thing'? Give your views in comments, and also answer the poll question at the top - lets see what view prevails!


































































Thanks for participating, and don't forget to answer the poll question at the top !

PS ... and yes, these are all my own photos shot on the K7.

Thanks Jonathon, I appreciate that info.

I think to need to correct some of that - the field charts for street photography certainly did not contain any data for sandwich options en-route (I mean, come on, that would be a riduculous thing to carry in a MAP holder)

Thanks for checking out the photo effects and enjoying it all, ISO & Ronnie also.

Very good - that backlighting was clearly a technical challenge, so the fill-flash was absolutely the way to go - it has revealed the colours beautfully. I also like the slight movement at the wingtips which adds some drama.

Could you tell us a bit more about the flash? Was it the pop-up or a gun, and was it at the program P-TTL setting or had you set the exposure manually?

The amount of sharpening required would presumably also be related to the use or not of the aa filter simulator ... was this on or off for your shot Unlocker?

Thanks for checking them out The programme is Sagelight 4.0, a development of a longstanding older editor that was called Lightbox.

Heres a link to developers site ...link

I have used it for a while now, mainly for RAW conversion, as its is pretty extraordinary in many ways. Like most of these type of editors it has its own style and quirks to how you work on photos ... the main aspect of this one I think is the way it uses 'hidden layers', to non-destructively work on shots, using a different 'layer' for each adjustment.

the effects were just for fun and experimenting for a video project, but I like them so wanted to share