Posted: 2004-10-20 09:35am
Guess I better contribute:


Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
I was going for the 1920s look, thank you.Rob Wilson wrote: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.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.
And is the first one a self-portrait of the camera? It's the only one fully in focus.
Means? (English is not my primary language, heh)Julhelm, that's bomb diggity.
Really, really cool.Julhelm wrote:Means? (English is not my primary language, heh)Julhelm, that's bomb diggity.
It's the truth, I've got a fondness for nightvision.Julhelm wrote:Ah, why thank you.
Firing an HK at night? A pose or something you do a lot of?Julhelm wrote:Guess I better contribute:
Night Shoot
Shouldn't it be sepia toned then? I still say the second one really works.bohemianfey wrote: I was going for the 1920s look, thank you.
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.Rob Wilson wrote:Shouldn't it be sepia toned then? I still say the second one really works.bohemianfey wrote: I was going for the 1920s look, thank you.
I added the night vision filter to it, since it's originally a daylight pic taken back when I was in the navy.Rob Wilson wrote:Firing an HK at night? A pose or something you do a lot of?
They let sailors play with real Rifles.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.
Ah, not a make I'm familiar with. Licenced?Julhelm wrote:The rifle is a Bofors AK-5 btw.
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.Rob Wilson wrote:Shouldn't it be sepia toned then? I still say the second one really works.bohemianfey wrote: I was going for the 1920s look, thank you.
Swedish navy, surveillance op/base securing, actually. Never got to serve on a boat, although I applied for submarine when I enlisted.Rob Wilson wrote:They let sailors play with real Rifles.![]()
![]()
What nations Navy?
It's a modified version of the FN FNC.Ah, not a make I'm familiar with. Licenced?
Best I can manage I'm afraid. I'm not that good with photo's and Images.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.
CoolJulhelm wrote:Swedish navy, surveillance op/base securing, actually. Never got to serve on a boat, although I applied for submarine when I enlisted.Rob Wilson wrote:They let sailors play with real Rifles.![]()
![]()
What nations Navy?
Nice weapon. Thought it was an HK with that hooded Foresight. FNC's are nice weapons, hows the Bofor's?Julhelm wrote:It's a modified version of the FN FNC.Rob Wilson wrote:Ah, not a make I'm familiar with. Licenced?
Rob Wilson wrote:Best I can manage I'm afraid. I'm not that good with photo's and Images.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.
Rob's version
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.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).
If I can figure out how to do that I will.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.
1. open photoshopbohemianfey wrote:If I can figure out how to do that I will.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.
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.salm wrote:1. open photoshopbohemianfey wrote:If I can figure out how to do that I will.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.
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
what´s CS?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.
Version 8.salm wrote:what´s CS?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.
why would you need 8 for it? what cool new features does it have needed for this kind of thing?bohemianfey wrote:Version 8.salm wrote:what´s CS?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.