• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kasper-V

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Isle of Wight

Recent Profile Visitors

211 profile views
  1. The original is in the Art Gallery in my home town of Walsall, UK. It's a very striking pencil drawing, and not at all what you'd expect from van Gogh at that stage of his career. You've done a good job with it, Hokusai.
  2. And on an unrelated topic -- why has that last image reappeared after I deleted it?
  3. I've noticed this on AP 1.5, and now I find it's present on 1.6 too. I'm using mesh warp to form mouth shapes for lip synching an animation. (I'll share it with you all on New Year's Eve ) I have two layers, one for the top lip and one for the bottom. When I click to set a node, the active layer moves very slightly down and right. When the warp is applied the layer moves back to the correct position, so it's not a problem as far as the finished image is concerned, but it does make it difficult to know precisely where I'm warping to. It only seems to be a small number of pixels, and for this application such tiny errors as might arise are negligible; but it would be a problem in other cases. Here's a screen shot with three layers (the hand is on top): This is the active layer (top lip): And the three layers before warping: And this animated gif shows the layer 'jumping' when a node is created: And in case you're wondering, it's one of Raphael's putti ... I'm running Windows 7 on a Toshiba Satellite laptop with 8GB of RAM.
  4. I've finally found time to look at this again, this time with AP 1.6. I created a pattern of black & white squares, then copied them, as above, onto another image with a random concertina pattern. (Ignore any pink bits; that's just evidence that I wasn't taking enough trouble aligning my planes!) You can see straight away that the rows don't line up. Somehow, the transform isn't applied evenly.
  5. Love 'em, Liam! As an ex-Midlander, I'd like to see your treatment of Spaghetti Junction in Birmingham (with the canal, if you like).
  6. Ah -- THAT'S what I was thinking of! I saw that original photo of DT a few days ago, and it rang a bell straight away. Unfortunately my mental belfry is not what it was, and the nearest I could come up with was one of the 'flying heads' in Picasso's Guernica, which didn't quite match. (The quiff points backwards.) You've made such a good job of this that I don't mind you beating me to it!
  7. Two persons, ostonica!
  8. Ah -- do you mean the histogram? Yes, I rely on it a lot. On the other hand, an actual on-screen spirit level would be very handy. If only I could afford a new camera ...
  9. It only does +/- 1 stop, but I suppose that's better than nothing. I have used 2 stops, manually, on occasion, but it's fiddly when shooting hand-held, of course. Thanks for the compliment!
  10. I went to see Bolsover Castle a few weeks ago, a 17th century stately home in Derbyshire, England (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/bolsover-castle/). The day was dull and dreary, and the interior photos I took turned out to be tricky: the glare from the windows was pretty bad, and some of the rooms were quite dark. Ideally, I'd have had a tripod, but they tend to frown on that kind of thing in most old houses -- they don't want us ham-fisted photographers poking holes in their parquet or ripping up their rush matting. So ... a couple of hand-held shots with crossed fingers, then check the image and the histogram ... This is a straight Raw to JPG conversion of one of the shots: there's a bit of detail outside, and all else is in deep shadow. Fortunately, there was still enough info to get a reasonable result. I opened the two images in AP with 'New Panorama', and when the blending was complete, I duplicated the layer and opened the Develop persona. Here I upped the exposure by two stops and clicked 'Develop'. I repeated this with a new layer, then one last time, increasing by just one stop, as it became too washed out after that. I saved each layer as a 16-bit TIFF, closed the file, and brought my TIFFs into 'New HDR Merge'. After a little adjustment, I got a fair result (part-cropped): This is a much better result than I got from developing a single layer. (But maybe next time I'll sneak my tripod in!)
  11. ... as Jimi might have said.
  12. Yes, a bit too much grass. if I'd taken this on my 'proper' camera I'd have cropped it to 3x2 or 16x9, or what ever looked good. as it was on my phone, and much fewer pixels, I didn't bother. The sign's legs are pretty much vertical, so I didn't bother straightening it either, despite the skew-whiff look of the thing. Next nice day we get, I'll go out and do a proper shoot of the lane (much more photogenic) and maybe the sky too.
  13. I went for a stroll yesterday -- without my camera. But I had my phone and took one or two snaps -- before the battery ran out. At the end of a pretty country lane which follows a little stream is this green verge. The dynamic range is not brilliant on phone cameras, but I took a coupe of shots, one exposed for the highlights and one for the darker areas.. When I tried to merge the two as an HDR job the results were disappointing, so Plan B: take the better-exposed shot and play with it. I copied the sky to a separate layer, then applied a little tone mapping to the bottom layer, warming up the white balance and slightly overdoing the saturation. Then I applied a tone mapping to the sky, banging the local contrast up to 100%. Although I couldn't find a blend mode I was happy with, a little fiddling with the transparency of the sky layer gave me a result that worked for me. A little bit of fun rather than a serious photo, and destined for FaceBook. Oh, I almost forgot: there was half a car on the right: you can probably see where I hastily cloned/inpainted it away.
  14. It's a good job the sun wasn't behind you, or you'd have had to invent a way to make a rainbow too! (Now there's a challenge for you...)
  15. Reminds me of some of the Quay Brothers creepy animations (in a good way!)