Lady at the Waterfall

lenscap1 wrote in post #18099833
Photoshop effects are outdated looking my friend. Also what made you decide to place her behind a log that crops her feet/legs awkwardly in every shot?

Dude there is 0 Photoshop involved here.
All captured in camera.

I find the logs are a distraction in the images but some nice shots and ideas.

Van Gogh wrote in post #18100266
Dude there is 0 Photoshop involved here.
All captured in camera.

So you didn't blend images/layers in Photoshop, the water was just floating infront of the model?! Lol

Sorry man, i know how you did it and it's kinda outdated imo

lenscap1 wrote in post #18100324
So you didn't blend images/layers in Photoshop, the water was just floating infront of the model?! Lol

Sorry man, i know how you did it and it's kinda outdated imo

Look at the perspective, the water is in front of the log at her feet, she is behind it. I couldn't say whether he composited the image, but it's 100% possible to do all of that in-camera.

Also, you are not offering constructive criticism, merely flinging insults which is not in the spirit of the forum.

lenscap1 wrote in post #18100324
So you didn't blend images/layers in Photoshop, the water was just floating infront of the model?! Lol

Sorry man, i know how you did it and it's kinda outdated imo

No, no blending of images in Photoshop.
Just throw water in front of her and I get that look by back-lighting the water.
It is a technique I use quite often, with water and flour.
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=YKnesqcXV0Y

As far as Photoshop, even if it was Photoshoped (which it was not) I see no issue with that, I am very big into Photoshop
P.S. I have the RAW files that I can send you to prove it... But I won't bother

lenscap1 wrote in post #18099833
Photoshop effects are outdated looking my friend. Also what made you decide to place her behind a log that crops her feet/legs awkwardly in every shot?

Van Gogh wrote in post #18100382
No, no blending of images in Photoshop.
Just throw water in front of her and I get that look by back-lighting the water.
It is a technique I use quite often, with water and flour.
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=YKnesqcXV0Y

As far as Photoshop, even if it was Photoshoped (which it was not) I see no issue with that, I am very big into Photoshop
P.S. I have the RAW files that I can send you to prove it... But I won't bother

Not that it really matters but I'd love to see the RAW files showing that this was all captured in a single frame with no photoshop! I can literally see the layer blend.

Either way doesn't matter. Just saying it's an outdated look imo. That is my CC, take it or leave it.

lenscap1 wrote in post #18100467
Not that it really matters but I'd love to see the RAW files showing that this was all captured in a single frame with no photoshop! I can literally see the layer blend.

Either way doesn't matter. Just saying it's an outdated look imo. That is my CC, take it or leave it.

Here is the link to the RAW file proving that is was all captured in Camera in a single frame.
You can even see the 2 back-light flashes behind her as I said about the technique. Enjoy!
https://1drv.ms …V7sobbcgm9Wvil9​lcmqUpI8se

As far the outdated look or not, well, that's a subjective matter and just your opinion.

Van Gogh wrote in post #18058932
compositing and combining 2 pictures in Photoshop. Best of both worlds, I get smoky waterfall yet a sharp subject.

Not trying to bust your chops but... Just saw this otherwise I wouldn't have even called it out.

lenscap1 wrote in post #18100496


Not trying to bust your chops but... Just saw this otherwise I wouldn't have even called it out.

As if there is something wrong with compositing 2 images???
I wouldn't really call compositing 2 images in Photoshop "Photoshoping" in the traditional sense that most people see it. With that same token you could say even adjusting the brightness slightly is photoshoping.

lenscap1 wrote in post #18100324
So you didn't blend images/layers in Photoshop, the water was just floating infront of the model?! Lol

Sorry man, i know how you did it and it's kinda outdated imo

Besides, I believed that you were not talking talking about the water around the model rather than waterfall when saying it was photoshoped as per your comment above?
And as shown in RAW file, that is not the case. Only the 1st 2 images are composites and they are the ones with no water around her, all the other images with water around her you claimed are photoshoped are straight our of camera. (as shown in RAW file I sent you).

As mentioned, a very nice set.

Van Gogh wrote in post #18058932
- I get the cool water effect on her by placing 2 background lights (for back-lighting) and firing at her while throwing water with a cup or something in front of her, it is that simple. Just throw some water in front of her and because it is back-light, it looks really nice!

I was going to ask how you had water going two directions. Thanks for explaining that.

creative idea! Never seem effects like this before.

Fantastic effect , thanks for explaining how you got it..Never seen that method before... Beautifully done.

Some interesting shots, I like them.

Some I like, other's I don't like the chunk of wood in front of her thigh.

But one thing I enjoy is how you showed your effort to try different angles and looks.

Very good setup and yes lovely shots as well.