Self-Portriats (my friends, this is a challenge)

Julhelm · Post by **Julhelm** » 2004-10-20 09:35am

Guess I better contribute:

bohemianfey · Post by **bohemianfey** » 2004-10-20 09:58am

Rob Wilson wrote:
bohemianfey wrote:Fey's boudoir

revealing and curvy

They're similar, but at the same time they're rather distinct and I can't choose between the two.
I agree with spoofe, the second works better. I haven't a clue about photography or compositional terms but it does appear more pleasing to the eye.

And is the first one a self-portrait of the camera? It's the only one fully in focus.

I was going for the 1920s look, thank you.

Julhelm, that's bomb diggity.

Julhelm · Post by **Julhelm** » 2004-10-20 10:00am

Julhelm, that's bomb diggity.

Means? (English is not my primary language, heh)

bohemianfey · Post by **bohemianfey** » 2004-10-20 10:02am

Julhelm wrote:
Julhelm, that's bomb diggity.
Means? (English is not my primary language, heh)

Really, really cool.

Julhelm · Post by **Julhelm** » 2004-10-20 10:02am

Ah, why thank you.

bohemianfey · Post by **bohemianfey** » 2004-10-20 10:05am

Julhelm wrote:Ah, why thank you.

It's the truth, I've got a fondness for nightvision.

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2004-10-20 10:50am

Julhelm wrote:Guess I better contribute:
Night Shoot

Firing an HK at night? A pose or something you do a lot of?

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2004-10-20 10:52am

bohemianfey wrote: I was going for the 1920s look, thank you.

Shouldn't it be sepia toned then? I still say the second one really works.

bohemianfey · Post by **bohemianfey** » 2004-10-20 10:59am

Rob Wilson wrote:
bohemianfey wrote: I was going for the 1920s look, thank you.
Shouldn't it be sepia toned then? I still say the second one really works.

I added a sepia filter to it and it ended up looking slightly sickly. Anyone else is welcome to try and do it better than I can.

Julhelm · Post by **Julhelm** » 2004-10-20 11:03am

Rob Wilson wrote:Firing an HK at night? A pose or something you do a lot of?

I added the night vision filter to it, since it's originally a daylight pic taken back when I was in the navy.

The rifle is a Bofors AK-5 btw.

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2004-10-20 11:25am

Julhelm wrote: I added the night vision filter to it, since it's originally a daylight pic taken back when I was in the navy.

They let sailors play with real Rifles.

What nations Navy?

Julhelm wrote:The rifle is a Bofors AK-5 btw.

Ah, not a make I'm familiar with. Licenced?

bohemianfey · Post by **bohemianfey** » 2004-10-20 11:30am

bohemianfey wrote:
Rob Wilson wrote:
bohemianfey wrote: I was going for the 1920s look, thank you.
Shouldn't it be sepia toned then? I still say the second one really works.
I added a sepia filter to it and it ended up looking slightly sickly. Anyone else is welcome to try and do it better than I can.

This is the best I could get without it just looking like shite.

Julhelm · Post by **Julhelm** » 2004-10-20 11:34am

Rob Wilson wrote:They let sailors play with real Rifles.

What nations Navy?

Swedish navy, surveillance op/base securing, actually. Never got to serve on a boat, although I applied for submarine when I enlisted.

Ah, not a make I'm familiar with. Licenced?

It's a modified version of the FN FNC.

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2004-10-20 11:39am

bohemianfey wrote:
I added a sepia filter to it and it ended up looking slightly sickly. Anyone else is welcome to try and do it better than I can.

Best I can manage I'm afraid. I'm not that good with photo's and Images.

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2004-10-20 11:42am

Julhelm wrote:
Rob Wilson wrote:They let sailors play with real Rifles.

What nations Navy?
Swedish navy, surveillance op/base securing, actually. Never got to serve on a boat, although I applied for submarine when I enlisted.

Cool

Julhelm wrote:
Rob Wilson wrote:Ah, not a make I'm familiar with. Licenced?
It's a modified version of the FN FNC.

Nice weapon. Thought it was an HK with that hooded Foresight. FNC's are nice weapons, hows the Bofor's?

bohemianfey · Post by **bohemianfey** » 2004-10-20 12:07pm

Rob Wilson wrote:
bohemianfey wrote:
I added a sepia filter to it and it ended up looking slightly sickly. Anyone else is welcome to try and do it better than I can.
Best I can manage I'm afraid. I'm not that good with photo's and Images.

Rob's version

I always thought that the old photo sepia had more green/yellow to it, so here's what I got using yours as the base image. I'm not too familiar with the program I'm using at the moment, so I didn't want to spend the time recreating the boarder you had in there (which I really liked, btw).

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2004-10-20 12:10pm

bohemianfey wrote: I always thought that the old photo sepia had more green/yellow to it, so here's what I got using yours as the base image. I'm not too familiar with the program I'm using at the moment, so I didn't want to spend the time recreating the boarder you had in there (which I really liked, btw).

I toned down the sepia as it looked sickly. Other than that I just used Gimp's OLD photo Script-fu function. Afterwards I played around with gamam and alpha until the colour balance was more healthy.

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2004-10-20 12:19pm

Here's a close-up version with less space around you and with a border, I also upped the defocus to make it look older.

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2004-10-20 12:25pm

If you're really going for that old look, you could always try putting in some of the small white scratches (hair on the lens or whatever they are, film defects), that you see in the old black and white films and in cliches ever since.

bohemianfey · Post by **bohemianfey** » 2004-10-20 12:27pm

The_Lumberjack wrote:If you're really going for that old look, you could always try putting in some of the small white scratches (hair on the lens or whatever they are, film defects), that you see in the old black and white films and in cliches ever since.

If I can figure out how to do that I will.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-20 01:00pm

bohemianfey wrote:
The_Lumberjack wrote:If you're really going for that old look, you could always try putting in some of the small white scratches (hair on the lens or whatever they are, film defects), that you see in the old black and white films and in cliches ever since.
If I can figure out how to do that I will.

1. open photoshop
2. load image
3. create new layer
4. fill new layer completely black
5. add noise so that it looks like a tv that doesn´t recieve anything (small black and white dots)
6. delete black dots
7. apply ripple a couple of times
8. play around with settings

bohemianfey · Post by **bohemianfey** » 2004-10-20 01:03pm

salm wrote:
bohemianfey wrote:
The_Lumberjack wrote:If you're really going for that old look, you could always try putting in some of the small white scratches (hair on the lens or whatever they are, film defects), that you see in the old black and white films and in cliches ever since.
If I can figure out how to do that I will.
1. open photoshop
2. load image
3. create new layer
4. fill new layer completely black
5. add noise so that it looks like a tv that doesn´t recieve anything (small black and white dots)
6. delete black dots
7. apply ripple a couple of times
8. play around with settings

I know that bit, but this comp only had 7.0 (as compared to my other comp that has CS) but that just imploded and now I've got a a knockoff program to use. Thanks, though. You're welcome to try it.

Otherwise I just go with this.

[Edit]Stuff[/Edit]

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-20 01:09pm

bohemianfey wrote: I know that bit, but this comp only had 7.0 (as compared to my other comp that has CS) but that just imploded and now I've got a a knockoff program to use. Thanks, though. You're welcome to try it.

what´s CS?

bohemianfey · Post by **bohemianfey** » 2004-10-20 01:10pm

salm wrote:
bohemianfey wrote: I know that bit, but this comp only had 7.0 (as compared to my other comp that has CS) but that just imploded and now I've got a a knockoff program to use. Thanks, though. You're welcome to try it.
what´s CS?

Version 8.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-20 01:13pm

bohemianfey wrote:
salm wrote:
bohemianfey wrote: I know that bit, but this comp only had 7.0 (as compared to my other comp that has CS) but that just imploded and now I've got a a knockoff program to use. Thanks, though. You're welcome to try it.
what´s CS?
Version 8.

why would you need 8 for it? what cool new features does it have needed for this kind of thing?

i work with 6 at home and 7 at work.