Reading mode: Light Dark

WaterColor Attempt Using Pam & PS

Go to last post
E

Ed Gilmore

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
0
Location
Longview, TX, US
I saw this quiet little cove today as I crossed over bridge on a local lake. It looked so peaceful & tucked kinda out of sight....I wanted to to try and produce something resembling a watercolor version.. Opinions?



--
My Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/edg
Ed G.
Longview, Tx.
 
Ed,

that is absolutely beautiful, if you don't would you share some of your details and what is Pam?

Thanks,
Lisa
Ed Gilmore said:
I saw this quiet little cove today as I crossed over bridge on a
local lake. It looked so peaceful & tucked kinda out of sight....I
wanted to to try and produce something resembling a watercolor
version.. Opinions?



--
My Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/edg
Ed G.
Longview, Tx.
Click to expand...
 
Thnaks everyone for your kind responses. My wife & daughter were less than impressed this morning when I showed it to them. They like a little more realism. Soooo, I blended the original with the one previously posted & .....I think I like it a better.

BTW, Pam = (PhotoArtMaster) which is a stand alone program similar to the Buzz program. I think the Pam version allows you more flexability.....which for me equates a lot of times to mean......more ways to screw something up. But then sometimes.....I like the results.

Revised Photo:



--
My Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/edg
Ed G.
Longview, Tx.
 
Hi Ed

I like this version much better than the first. Also your gallery has excellent PAM pictures.

I was looking into buying PAM version 1.5. Could you advise whether PAM works anything like BUZZ (which is used by some members of this forum) and does PAM have simplifiers built-in. Would the results from PAM and BUZZ be different - if so then in what way.
Any and all advice would be greatly appreciated.
TIA
Ashok
Ed Gilmore said:
Thnaks everyone for your kind responses. My wife & daughter were
less than impressed this morning when I showed it to them. They
like a little more realism. Soooo, I blended the original with the
one previously posted & .....I think I like it a better.
BTW, Pam = (PhotoArtMaster) which is a stand alone program similar
to the Buzz program. I think the Pam version allows you more
flexability.....which for me equates a lot of times to
mean......more ways to screw something up. But then
sometimes.....I like the results.

Revised Photo:



--
My Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/edg
Ed G.
Longview, Tx.
Click to expand...
 
. . . that comparing them i's unfair to both versions because the difference in the degree of abstraction is so large.

Thanks for sharing them & divulging the software you used. I'll have to look into PAM.

William
 
Ed Gilmore said:
Thnaks everyone for your kind responses. My wife & daughter were
less than impressed this morning when I showed it to them. They
like a little more realism. Soooo, I blended the original with the
one previously posted & .....I think I like it a better.
BTW, Pam = (PhotoArtMaster) which is a stand alone program similar
to the Buzz program. I think the Pam version allows you more
flexability.....which for me equates a lot of times to
mean......more ways to screw something up. But then
sometimes.....I like the results.

Revised Photo:



--
My Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/edg
Ed G.
Longview, Tx.
Click to expand...
I still have my downloaded demo copy of PAM - need to take a second look after seeing your efforts! Like this version too.

DianeR
http://www.pbase.com/ramseyd
 
Ash143866 said:
I was looking into buying PAM version 1.5. Could you advise whether
PAM works anything like BUZZ (which is used by some members of this
forum) and does PAM have simplifiers built-in. Would the results
from PAM and BUZZ be different - if so then in what way.
Any and all advice would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
I just read a review on PAM

It is manufactured by the same software developer as Buzz, PAM was first.

The reviewer states that Buzz is simply a simplified version of PAM, using the same exact technology. It was created as a cheaper version for those who don't need all the functionality of PAM

feivel
 
Ed, this is truly beautiful.

Buzz and PAM was created by the same people. Buzz is a little easier to use. I just bought PAM, and you're right Ed, it does take a little more time, or should I say a lot more time, but I'm starting to like the results. I wish they could simplify their instructions.

jeanette...

--
'Communication is the cornerstone to understanding.'
Jeanette Butler
http://www.communityzero.com/pug
http://www.pbase.com/maxie6
 
Ed,

I like the scene and the WC conversion, but not overall tonality of the picture. There's a distinct foreground, middle and background zones in the photo, but because they are all the same flat range of color and tones they run together and the illusion of 3D separation is lost. It all blends together as a bit of a puddle muddle.

I tried editing it to add depth by making the foreground and background darker and the middle water reflections lighter and crisper w. pin light mode, but I can't say I'm happy with the way it turned out below. Perhaps if the tonal adjustments were done to the original the results would be better. A mat will also help this one:



Larger version: http://super.nova.org/samples/Fall_editM.jpg



Chuck Gardner
Ed Gilmore said:
I saw this quiet little cove today as I crossed over bridge on a
local lake. It looked so peaceful & tucked kinda out of sight....I
wanted to to try and produce something resembling a watercolor
version.. Opinions?



--
My Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/edg
Ed G.
Longview, Tx.
Click to expand...
 
I erred in my original message by saying the orginal was flat. There is a good range of shadow and highlight, but no distinct separation between the three zones.

Something I didn't mention before, but bothered me, that the end of the dock, only compelling and logical center of interest was smack in the middle of the frame with equal sized areas of background and foreground overpowering it.

I just did this crop of the original which now puts the COI closer to the lower-right "magic" third node. Shortening up the foreground and moving it up via a cut and paste on a separate layer allows a more horizontal panoramic crop and the helps separation between it, the pond in the middle, and the background. Cropping the top eliminates the bright patch of sky that pulls the eye up and out of the frame. More importantly the COI is more prominent and easier to find in the frame.

Chuck



Larger in new window: http://super.nova.org/samples/Fall_cropM.jpg
 
Hi Feivel

Thanks for the info from the review. I am a bit confused now because their website http://www.fo2pix.com/index.php indicates that the "Buzz 2 Pro" plugin is more expensive than the "PAM 1.5 Gold".
Ashok
feivel said:
feivel said:
I was looking into buying PAM version 1.5. Could you advise whether
PAM works anything like BUZZ (which is used by some members of this
forum) and does PAM have simplifiers built-in. Would the results
from PAM and BUZZ be different - if so then in what way.
Any and all advice would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
I just read a review on PAM

It is manufactured by the same software developer as Buzz, PAM was
first.
The reviewer states that Buzz is simply a simplified version of
PAM, using the same exact technology. It was created as a cheaper
version for those who don't need all the functionality of PAM

feivel
Click to expand...
 
Hi Chuck

Your tweaks and the frame+matt have improved this picture considerably. Wonder how Ed's second version would benefit by the same treatment.
Regards
Ashok
Chuck Gardner said:
I like the scene and the WC conversion, but not overall tonality of
the picture. There's a distinct foreground, middle and background
zones in the photo, but because they are all the same flat range of
color and tones they run together and the illusion of 3D separation
is lost. It all blends together as a bit of a puddle muddle.

I tried editing it to add depth by making the foreground and
background darker and the middle water reflections lighter and
crisper w. pin light mode, but I can't say I'm happy with the way
it turned out below. Perhaps if the tonal adjustments were done to
the original the results would be better. A mat will also help
this one:



Larger version: http://super.nova.org/samples/Fall_editM.jpg



Chuck Gardner
Ed Gilmore said:
I saw this quiet little cove today as I crossed over bridge on a
local lake. It looked so peaceful & tucked kinda out of sight....I
wanted to to try and produce something resembling a watercolor
version.. Opinions?



--
My Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/edg
Ed G.
Longview, Tx.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I whole-heartedly agree that your efforts greatly improved this one. However, I'm compelled to put my 2 cents worth in by stating that the magic 1/3 rule isn't always appropriate.

Thanks for doing the work on this one & sharing it.

William
 
I didn't read the entire thread before editing the first version. Here's the second with the same treatment. I like the colors much better.
Ashok said:
Hi Chuck
Your tweaks and the frame+matt have improved this picture
considerably. Wonder how Ed's second version would benefit by the
same treatment.
Regards
Ashok
Click to expand...
 
Hi Chuck

Yes, the second one is better, but your frame+matt treatment of the first one raised it to a close second, which demonstrates the 'power' of a good matt. It would be nice to learn a quick and dirty technique, to select colors and a proportional size for a frame+matt. How about a quick tutorial for this topic, Chuck?
TIA
Ashok
Chuck Gardner said:
Ashok said:
Hi Chuck
Your tweaks and the frame+matt have improved this picture
considerably. Wonder how Ed's second version would benefit by the
same treatment.
Regards
Ashok
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Ashok said:
Hi Feivel
Thanks for the info from the review. I am a bit confused now
because their website http://www.fo2pix.com/index.php indicates
that the "Buzz 2 Pro" plugin is more expensive than the "PAM 1.5
Gold".
Ashok
Click to expand...
I don't use either so i dont know this, but i would surmise that PAM came first, then Buzz to appeal to the less technically oriented crowd. Buzz took off like a wildfire, unexpectedly, and the company started concentrating on improving Buzz, eventually coming out with a fancier bell&whistle more expensive version, that passed PAM in price?

feivel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top