File :-(, x, )
Photoshop CS3 Anonymous
photoshop cs3 is nice.
About 40 seconds of work on the pic (which you can easily see when zooming in) and the couple was happy, they needed something they can use on a thank-you-for-coming letter. I dont know why, but cs3 feels much nicer, and on my new dual-screen setup its just a very nice workspace.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKONCamera ModelE5700Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsFocal Length (35mm Equiv)83 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:08:26 12:42:34RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time10/601 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length21.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height533
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
I'm happy with my CS2
>> Anonymous
CS3 is definitely a nice step up but I just can't be arsed dealing with all the BS associated.
>> Anonymous
The menus are too bright in CS3 -AND YOU CANT CHANGE IT!

every version gets more bloated, slower and more problems. Its like Vista.
>> Anonymous
>>71871
waaaaa waaaaaaaa griefer whining, cs3 extended is sex and you are mad because you cannot afford it.
>> Anonymous
>>71879
>>because you cannot afford it

LOL INTERNET
>> Anonymous
I actually didnt touch the "extended" options, and I have a chapter about it somewhere around the office that I will read one day. So in retrospective, I wouldnt pay money for the "extended" (well if it was actually my money and not the company's).
But the new fresh look of CS3 is exactly what makes it nice to use. Tiny changes in placement and appearance, and all of a sudden it all makes more sense.
And Vista rocks by the way.
>> Anonymous
>>71880

Yeah, saying "You can't afford it!" about software is pretty stupid.
>> Anonymous
I have 7.0 don't complain
>> Anonymous
ITT people who actually pay for software
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>71859

Right...
I hope you didn't get paid for such a shitty work.
And I hope they did hire some professional photographer to photograph their wedding. Or atleast I hope you didn't do it, for the sake of the quality.
>> Anonymous
blend the border from the blur, man, gradient or something, whatever you like, but that hard line makes it look so fake...
>> Anonymous
oh, sure, it's a bride and groom celebrating the most romantic day in their lives, but look at these roses! Wow!
>> Anonymous
javascript:void(document.post.name.value='#fortune')
>> Anonymous
>>71904
Same, does the basics and not HDR which isn't very disappointing to me.
>> Anonymous
It's someones wedding photo, surely you could spend more than 40 seconds on it. lower the hardness of your blur brush so it doesnt get that crappy outline would make a huge difference and would have taken all of 3 seconds more to do.
>> Anonymous
>>72000
I lul'd.
>> Anonymous
>>71859
The red roses are distracting, the insanely blurred background is eye straining, the blur outline is unneccesary, and his suit is a pixelated mess. If you tried to sell me that I'd refuse to pay you.
>> Anonymous
>>72051

In other words, an example how not to use layer masks? :D
>> Anonymous
PROTIP: Never fake bokeh.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
8 seconds of time spent on this one
I am using an Adobe internal build of CS4
I have 6 monitors btw

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKONCamera ModelE5700Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 (10.0x20061208 [20061208.beta.1251 2006/12/08:02:00:00 cutoff; m branch]) MacintoshFocal Length (35mm Equiv)83 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:08:28 00:02:49RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time10/601 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length21.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height533
>> Anonymous
>>72103
See now THAT I'd pay you for. Best. Wedding. Picture. Ever.
>> Anonymous
>>72098
I don't know, you can fake bokeh... and in this picture actually it could be done. It's just that he did such a shitty job on it that I felt like I had to bitch.
>> Anonymous
you guys are all just jelous, which makes me even happier.
I was serious about using 40 seconds on the picture - thats the whole point of the story. maybe if I had 60 seconds I could do a better job. I used the lasoetool to quickly outline them (and didnt select the area under their chins for example) - same about the roses. Then hit blur. Put it intentionally very high because there is a frikking head in the left corner. border of selection is actually very wide - but the selection is the worst ever (didnt even zoom in to take it).
I wanna see any of you do a better job in 40 seconds damn it. I was just playing around showing them different cliche options. Not my fault they actually wanted this one. Gotta love people-in-love :-D
>> Anonymous
>>72135

Did they need it right then? As, in a rush? Were you totally snowed under with other work?

Or were you just too fucking lazy to put a bit more effort in and say "Give me a moment to make a better version".

Generally if you're showing them options you show them rough versions, and when they choose one, you spend a bit of time on it and give a cleaner, more professional finish to it.
>> annoyingmouse
>>72165
"fucking lazy" hits the spot.
cusomer wants it as it is, he gets it as it is. Unless of course I get the impression that it might have an effect on future sales, then I might consider insisting on mailing a finished product when someone is happy with a draft.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>72135
If you're not driven from within to give your best, then that's an artistic problem, not you being a badass in 40 seconds or less. An artist strives to do his personal best with all that he or she does not because the client will like it, or because it might make him more money, but because that's the only way he can walk away from a project fulfilled.

I'm not saying you're not an artist, but I am saying you're one lazy motherfucker with a poor work ethic. It's a bad habit. You should break yourself of it if you ever want to be considered a professional.
>> Anonymous
aham
well the way I see it, in most places photograpthers who consider themselves to be artists usually can't make enough money selling their art. Consequently they take jobs that they find boring, like taking studio photos of ugly kids that can't sit still, or going to wedding after wedding of people you don't know or taking pictures of appartments for sale or whatever. on the little spare time they have they try to be creative and actualise their talent. the rest is just inorder to pay for this little free time.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>72219
Yes, you do things to pay the bills, unless you manage to find success in galleries and so on. Why should you compromise the quality of any of your work? If I make it, I want it to reflect my talent and vision, even if it's banal and boring. I'm still going to do my best. It's just indicative of your nature, whether you're going to give everything your best shot or not.
>> Anonymous
>>72242
>give everything your best shot or not.
I see what you did thar.
>> Anonymous
>If I make it, I want it to reflect my talent and vision, even if it's banal and boring. I'm still going to do my best. It's just indicative of your nature, whether you're going to give everything your best shot or not.

Exactly. I got into serious photography from taking photographs of my friends because of this impulse in me.

And besides, shooting side work well will give you practice, and, who knows, maybe a few winning shots.
>> Anonymous
>>72103
Its missing some text from mspaint like "I'm charging mah laser". give me 20 secs.

>>72135
Take your time sir, there are 24 hours in a day so surely you can add a couple of minutes to editing. And yes i can do a better job in 40 seconds without using photoshop to blur. Its called an aperture. I don't know much about your camera but if you can't manually set the shutter speed or F-stop and have a wedding to shoot, I would have became an hero.