Mercury, Gemini, Apollo

MarsMartianMan · Post by **MarsMartianMan** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:21 pm

Imagerotate.com works wonders with my Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo signatures.

{TP}Spartan · Post by **{TP}Spartan** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:39 am

This is better kinda grainy and the left side needs something

Edit:The ones with the 'nauts

Tural · Post by **Tural** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:42 am

They're all pretty dull and really are nothing more than a cropped image.

DarkShallFall · Post by **DarkShallFall** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:25 am

Tural wrote:They're all pretty dull and really are nothing more than a cropped image.

Indeed

MarsMartianMan · Post by **MarsMartianMan** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:23 pm

Tural wrote:They're all pretty dull and really are nothing more than a cropped image.

It would be incredibly low resolution, and be filled with tons of noise if it was just cropping...

Tural · Post by **Tural** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:24 pm

Weird, because that's about what I'm seeing, save the fact that you blurred some areas.

MarsMartianMan · Post by **MarsMartianMan** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:36 pm

Maybe thats because most of the photos are from the 1960's.

Tural · Post by **Tural** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:38 pm

MarsMartianMan wrote:Maybe thats because most of the photos are from the 1960's.

Relevance? You said they weren't just cropped, which I assume you're doing because you're taking every statement I make as absolutely literal. Blurring an image in some areas does not constitute any significance over just cropping an image, and is not even worth noting as part of your process. You say they would be incredibly low resolution and filled with noise if it was just cropped, but that's what they are... so... you're arguing with yourself?..

http://tural.gfxevolution.com/Downloads/Meh/
1) Cropped, blurred, low quality.
2) Cropped, taken from a high resolution image.
3) Cropped, low quality.
4) Cropped, has weird spots that are darker than others, as well as being low quality.
5) Cropped, blurred, noisy and low quality.
6) Cropped, blurred edges.
7) Cropped, blurred.
8) Cropped, blurred too dramatically.
9) Cropped, blurred.
10) I think you made this, it certainly looks too inaccurate to be a real photograph. Very noisy and the blur is way off.
11) Cropped, blurred minor areas.

I see a pattern here. All I really notice from these images, collectively, is that you aren't really sure how DoF should look.

MarsMartianMan · Post by **MarsMartianMan** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:08 pm

Tural wrote:10) I think you made this, it certainly looks too inaccurate to be a real photograph. Very noisy and the blur is way off.

Really.

Tural wrote:You say they would be incredibly low resolution and filled with noise if it was just cropped, but that's what they are... so... you're arguing with yourself?..

Why the fuck would I argue with myself, thats just plain fucking moronic. I said if they were JUST cropped, but they are more than JUST cropped. Only 4 have minor noise, none are completely filled with it.

Tural wrote:I see a pattern here. All I really notice from these images, collectively, is that you aren't really sure how DoF should look.

Yeah, I don't know how DoF should look in 40 year old pictures.

Tural · Post by **Tural** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:16 pm

MarsMartianMan wrote:Really.

k.

MarsMartianMan wrote:Why the *** would I argue with myself, thats just plain *** moronic. I said if they were JUST cropped, but they are more than JUST cropped. Only 4 have minor noise, none are completely filled with it.

They are barely more than just cropped, as I explained before you even posted. I don't know why you're arguing with yourself, so don't ask me. I'm pointing out that cropping and blurring parts of a picture does not constitute any real graphical skill, and on top of that, the blurring that was done is inaccurate, as I mentioned. You should mask off the areas you're going to blur, not just go crazy with the blur tool.

MarsMartianMan wrote:Yeah, I don't know how DoF should look in 40 year old pictures.

Apparently you do not. Time period really is irrelevant, as the DoF isn't something that really changes over time. In fact, based on that statement, I'm going to infer that you do not have the slightest clue what DoF even is or how it should look at all. I do, however, thank you for giving me that amusing statement.

MarsMartianMan · Post by **MarsMartianMan** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:46 pm

Tural wrote: I'm going to infer that you do not have the slightest clue what DoF even is or how it should look at all. I do, however, thank you for giving me that amusing statement.

Hey, shut up. I'm not a pro at photoshop Just like everyone else, and if I didn't know what DoF was you'd see crappy drawings made out of crayons & markers on construction paper instead of poorly photoshopped photos of my heros.

Tural · Post by **Tural** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:52 pm

MarsMartianMan wrote:if I didn't know what DoF was you'd see crappy drawings made out of crayons & markers on construction paper instead of poorly photoshopped photos of my heros.

That really didn't make any sense. Really, it's not worth being defensive over, and the more you go on claiming you know what it is, the more you prove that you do not.