Photoshop mistakes

I'm reminded of myself when new Photoshop users post shots that are oversaturated or oversharpened.

Just out of curosity, I took a ho-hum shot and over applied (and not by a little) my normal Photoshop work flow. I actually kind'a like what I ended up with:

I like the look. Painterly. I would be interested in your normal work flow, if this is the result of over-appying it.

Rad

Radtech1 wrote in post #5731125
I like the look. Painterly. I would be interested in your normal work flow, if this is the result of over-appying it.

Rad

I only have Photoshop Elements, but I used the "Big Three": Levels, Noise Reduction and Unsharpen Mask.

You have huge halos in that tho, so thats not worth it.

BASmith wrote in post #5734854
You have huge halos in that tho, so thats not worth it.

I think you've missed the point.

Rubberhead wrote in post #5736711
I think you've missed the point.

ROFL. I really like it. It's like its really really soft, but there are so many details still present I can't help but keep looking.

Rubberhead wrote in post #5736711
I think you've missed the point.

I think I've missed it too. So if you don't mind, kindly explain "the point."

Love it...looks like a toy scene of sorts.

The tops of the trees look like they've been liquified

That's actually really cool. It does look almost painted.

FedkaTheConvict wrote in post #5736770
I think I've missed it too. So if you don't mind, kindly explain "the point."

A processing technique that supports the overall "feel" of the scene.

The look of the processing compliments the water, the boats and the sky very well creating an harmonious composition - subject and technique. The processing is placid, the scene is serene. Once presented like this, it is not intended to have the realism of a photograph, rather it borders on the impressionist look of a watercolor.

I am sorry that you (and BASmith) missed the point. There are some who prefer their visual art to be firmly grounded in the real - I suspect that you two are like that. (No judgment with that, just a statement - just like some people prefer chocolate, some prefer spinach, and no one prefers chocolate covered spinach). For me, point is a complete scene. Technique and subject working together.

Rad

Radtech1 wrote in post #5737339
A processing technique that supports the overall "feel" of the scene.

The look of the processing compliments the water, the boats and the sky very well creating an harmonious composition - subject and technique. The processing is placid, the scene is serene. Once presented like this, it is not intended to have the realism of a photograph, rather it borders on the impressionist look of a watercolor.

I am sorry that you (and BASmith) missed the point. There are some who prefer their visual art to be firmly grounded in the real - I suspect that you two are like that. (No judgment with that, just a statement - just like some people prefer chocolate, some prefer spinach, and no one prefers chocolate covered spinach). For me, point is a complete scene. Technique and subject working together.

Rad

Good explanation. I like this concept.

mladams wrote in post #5736863
That's actually really cool. It does look almost painted.

That was my thoughts on it too. Pretty neat!

I like it, too. It works for that photo.

this subject definitely fits the painterly look - cool stuff