About the Image(s)
In Greek Mythology. Medusa was a beautiful young woman with long flowing hair that every man would love. However, Medusa has narcissistic personality. She was proud to see her own reflection images. This had made the goddess Athena jealous. One day, Athena found Medusa had an illicit love affair with god Poseidon. Athena was so mad and turned Medusa's beautiful hair into writhing snakes and cursed her. Medusa eyes would turn anyone she starred to stone. Even if Medusa looked into her own reflection. Meanwhile, King Polydectes considered Perseus (strong man) could one day overpowering him. So he cunningly ordered Perseus to bring back Medusa’s head. In a hope Medusa eyes would turn Perseus to stone. But. Perseus was smart. He used his shinny shield to protect him and successfully beheaded Medusa.
My local concept photo director offered me if I would be interested in Medusa photo concept. They provided me two images as in Original 1. The purpose is to combine them and create Original 2. To me, it looks weird and not natural. Instead, I decided to create my own ‘fiction image’ how Perseus tortured Medusa. Make her blind before he literally beheaded her. Medusa spirit swore to revenge anyone who had made her life miserable in the next life. I call this 'fiction image' as Medusa’s vengeance.
I just realized that creating blood and wound in PS was not that simple. Adobe Generative AI does not accept key words like ‘blood and wound’. Even when I tried with different words. As a result, I have to do it manually and learned from many tutorials in the internet. Looked at Medusa’s face. Her eyes. Blood dan slime came out from here nose. Scar face. Blood splash on the stone and sword. I did them all manually. By using ‘Blood Brush’. By overlaying many blood.png layers. As a final touch. I did general adjustment using Level. Partial contrast adjustment. Dodging and burning and vignette to get the horror mood! I know there is always room for improvement. I would much appreciate your comments and suggestions.
Gunter Haibach
You're a master of these images. You are so creative and talented, I envy you.
A bit disconcerting that you mention Generative Ai - I don't know if you use it, but I have strong bias against using Generative Ai in our PSA submissions. "Photographic Society" means that pixels come from a camera, not software. Sorry for being "preachy". Posted: 03/04/2025 21:57:17
Frans Gunterus
Hi Gunter. Thanks for your good words. Thanks for your reminders about PSA policy about AI. I just learned to understand. It's not just about AI. PSA do not allow the usage outside clipart, replacement skies, or stock images. All images must originate as photographs made by the entrant. Other than for editorial purposes. My question to Jan Handman and others. Does this rule apply specifically for PSA exhibitions (salon) or is it also applied to this DDG? How about using photoshop brush to create blood, tears, fogs, clouds etc? Posted: 03/10/2025 20:36:46
Jan Handman
You are correct Frans that use of AI is not allowed for salon competitions, but there is no specific rule against it for DD images. And since our group is focused on creative works, I think it's okay in a limited way. I use it sometimes to create a generated continuation of a background or something like that. Or perhaps if a part of an object in a photo got cut off when it was taken and you want to have AI add it in (sometimes it works well and sometimes not so much). As for the use of PS brushes, that is okay too. Sometimes that's one way for creative images to become altered reality. In my butterfly image, I used a black paintbrush at reduced opacity to create the dark areas. And your use of brushes to create blood also altered reality. Posted: 03/11/2025 10:31:34
Frans Gunterus
Hi Jan. Thanks for your honest and pleasant answers. You know English is my second language. I am learning how you express yourself in giving feedback. To me. It's cool and pleasant. I really appreciate it! Posted: 03/12/2025 23:04:01
Gunter Haibach
I like your new version.
Re: Ai - I find it to be a very fluid, and often very confusing subject.
Here is how I approach it - wright or wrong.
Most of the canvass must have been produced with a digital camera. I use tools such as noise reduction and sharpening that include an aspect of Ai. I replace skies quite a bit, but use my own skies. I do not use clipart or stock images at all. I use brushes rarely. I do paint in material, but only if it is a small portion of the canvass. I d not use someone else's art (art that was created to be viewed as art, and has no other value - like a building. I do not use Generative software that creates pixels - ie 'extend the fence'.
At the end of the day, when I look at one of my pictures, I want to be able to say it's 99% my creation.
Be well, Gunter Posted: 03/11/2025 16:16:51
Frans Gunterus
Analysis is not designed to find something wrong. It is designed to see something right, and then see things that may be improved upon. Analysis is not designed to correct what is wrong, but to suggest what may be done to improve in the future. Many times it is not what is said that is painful, but the way it is said. 99% or 98.5% is just a number. To me. What it's important is how we appreciate somebody else creation and efforts! Just my two cents! Posted: 03/12/2025 22:58:15
Gunter Haibach
Sorry, Frans, but I have no idea how your response relates to what I've written re: your image. Can you clarify? Posted: 03/13/2025 23:19:55
Frans Gunterus
Hi Gunter. I attended PSA course called 'Image Analysis'. Jon Fishback APSA was my senior mentor. English is my second language. I learned those words from him. He said. Most importantly, our comments are meant to help the image makers to improve. Expression like ... it's not my cup of tea ... It's just an expression of our feeling. It will not help the makers to improve. Photography is so much a personel preference. Posted: 03/16/2025 06:08:54
Frans Gunterus
I just want to add a comment from Barbara Eddy this month. My friend from DDG 90. She said: When I look at other people's images, I always wonder what I would do if I were the one taking it. The spirit is to help other to grow so we would also grow. She is a a nature and travel coach to many photographers. Posted: 03/16/2025 22:02:13
Gunter Haibach
Interesting stuff - As you say, the impact an image makes on a viewer is very much related to our personal taste. There is no right or wrong - only how much impact does this image have on me. The maker should know and understand that any one persons taste is just that - one persons view/opinion.
When I look at an image - in the first 30 seconds I have determined whether the image has no impact on me, some impact on me, or is very impactful. Then I try to analyze the 'whys' - what I find impactful and what would I do to make it more impactful if it were my image. And I would hope that the maker would use (or ignore) anything that is suggested that does not meet her/his idea of the pictures intent.
I also took this course a few years ago, and I was surprised how much time was spent on 'wordsmithing' - vs improving the critiquing process. Posted: 03/17/2025 22:45:03
Jan Handman
Wow, what a lot of work you did to complete this image, Frans. It's so impactful. I can't quite decide whether I like the background Medusa included in the final composition; she seems to distract the viewer's eye away from the two main subjects. But on the other hand, she does add to the story. It looks like you used a reduced opacity on her, so perhaps if you reduced the opacity a bit more? At any rate, this is a very well accomplished composite and a strong story. Posted: 03/08/2025 16:52:33
Frans Gunterus
Hi Jan. I really appreciate your review and constructive suggestion. That's one of the reason we all need friends to look into our 'craftsmanship'. I reduced the Medusa soul opacity from 68 to 28%. I also removed part of her leg to make it the soul like flying in the air. Any comments?
Posted: 03/10/2025 20:12:51
Jan Handman
I like what you did Frans; she now supports the story without distracting from it. The blue area now seems to stand out a little too much though, so I would keep the blue but maybe reduce the brightness of that area too? Posted: 03/11/2025 10:16:45
Mike Cowdrey
A good story, well told pictorially. I can't quite understand from your description whether everything in the final image was from your own capture. If that was the case it is very well done! Posted: 03/10/2025 05:34:13
Frans Gunterus
Hi Mike. Thanks for your good words. To answer your question. Not everything is from my own capture. I used photoshop brush and out side layers. Please refer to my note to Gunter and Jan Handyman above? Posted: 03/10/2025 20:44:04
Peter Katz
Frans, this image is impressive. I can appreciate how difficult it is to freehand the bloody effect you went for in the final composition. Sometimes less is more - to me the bloody markings on Medusa's arms look like extensive artful tattoos (was that intentional?) instead of blood spatter. Posted: 03/11/2025 13:27:07
Frans Gunterus
Hi Peter. Thanks for your good comments and suggestions. You are not alone. Some friends suggested me to make the bloody marking using red pantone color for blood. Thanks for your feedback. Posted: 03/12/2025 23:06:44
Candy Childrey
You have presented a strong story line. I think reducing the opacity at the top is a big improvement. A thin stroke to separate the image from the background would be helpful. Good work as always. Posted: 03/25/2025 21:28:20
