Hi p, I tried something new and merged some of my photographs

File: upload2.jpg (725KB, 757x1050px) Image search: [Google]

725KB, 757x1050px

2/3

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:02 23:10:28
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	757
Image Height	1050

File: upload3.jpg (805KB, 757x1050px) Image search: [Google]

805KB, 757x1050px

3/3

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:02 23:15:40
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	757
Image Height	1050

looks neat. first 2 are the strongest.

cool for a one off short serie, i think 10 of those would wear off fast.

Neat. Would work well as large prints. The third one seems weaker than 1 and 2.

>>2958066
Damn these look pretty good man. Makes it look like an alien environment. If you dont mind id like to try that myself. Could you run me through the process? It reminds me of this one dude who would dunk 35mm film in shit like ammonia and bleach

Yeah, those are pretty fucking neato and pleasing to look at.

>>2958073
Agree with this guy.

The blending is done tastefully, not heavy-handed but the 1st two work and the 3rd doesn't. There's a certain harmony and cohesiveness in the 1st two.

>>2958415

im glad we agree on this, blowjobdrew.

whats good with 1 and 2 goes for both images, because they are similar: small far away subject, open sky and a somewhat uniform foreground. 3rd has those strong lines that prevent blending, foreground is too noticeable and detailed. texture is weak too.

since the good ones are bassically the same image/strategy, you need to come up with different ways to blend that stuff, OP. try going more abstract.

>>2958066
nice man.

how you manage it ? did you know what the results would be before you did it ?

as the secound one looks too good to be a blind luck thing.

though i agree with

>>2958073

the novelty would wear off a bit too quick for a full photo set.

keep it up though dude !

File: upload4.jpg (274KB, 1999x1198px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1999x1198px

Thanks for your feedback, i really appreciate it.

>>2958472
I had the idea to use my old photgrams as layer masks, so i searched for suitable pictures with a small subject and some free space to give the texture of the photogram some room. Of couse there was some luck that it worked so well and i didn't exactly know how the result would look.
For the third i tried to use a groundlayer with less negative space. Now i see that was not the best idea and that the texture of the mask don't quite match the photo (i like the colours though).

Unfortunately i did some heavy cropping so there's no resolution for bigger prints. But I printed them 13x18cm and they look nice with a passepartout. The original photograms are even smaller

>>2958388
Here you can see the pictures i used for the first one.
For the photo/chemogram i used a papertowel and light and some drops of the stop bath before developing. Then scanned it and put it in photoshop as a mask.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	15500
Image Height	19200
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:04 13:56:22
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1999
Image Height	1198

>>2958067
>>2958066
>>2958068

These are legitimately interesting. Can you talk me through the process?

>>2962218
>Can you talk me through the process?

can you read?