...this examples of highly advanced digital photography mainly show *2* things:

a) the sony p5 digicam is though one of the smallest out there maybe not really the best one you can get, and
b) i never loose much time twiddling with the settings of my cam nor take much care about what exactly will be seen 'on film'.

so, if u then get results like these, what else will u do with them like**THAT(...**)

this is for doruksal and anyone else who cares of course :)
(: PEACE :)

well, well, well, then it would be so good that i don't want to take my hands on it in PS, just kidding...

but seriously spoken, maybe someone else shares his thoughts too... IMO if the subject and the principal, overall 'outlook' of the photo is interesting then the worse quality almost demands some sort of photoshopping confrontation. and, at least, the worse quality of the photo at the very beginning is MUCH of the (lets call it so) 'artisitc' quality it might get/have (hopefully) at the end.

think i wouldn't have achieved this result (which i'm very happy with) if the shot was in the quality u would wish for it to persist as a 'good' photograph alone.

This makes your image "clinic" in 2d Gallery even more interesting and effective for me..! It would have been very nice to see steps of how you produced that resulting image from the photo here... Regards... :)

doruk, ur wish my command. revealing the secret. bah, don't take me serious :)

:::all the major steps, sadly IMO this don't really show too much... anyhow: the only step where i edited just a single part of the img was from 7-8 where i raised the bolt a bit in contrast. of course its hard to see how the textures changed over the time... 9-13 the typo came in. in 11 & 12 two crops of the same sky (also my photo, just for completeness) were overlayed to change the overall color. only basic filters used... motion blur, gaussian blur, selective blur, sharpen more, free tachyon negative fx from sandwater (flaming pear now) and color adjusting of course. all in layer/ layer/ layerwise subtracting/ adding/ multiplying/ whatever-u-may-think of. hm. sounds not to over complicated. .)

alpha, got the point, ur of course right. at the worst i had to add a little noise if the quality was too good at first :)) but one pain ITA comes up quickly: i had to buy a new digi to get better results (in terms of noise at least). the sony p5 optic is crap ('cuse me) but i love it though. would call it digi-lomo (hm, in respect thereof one other drawback, common to most digicams: it last to long from pressing the ON button till the first shot...)... anyhow: it will get better i think. shot more fast'n'quick'n'dirty photos in the last 3 months than the 10 years before, improvement is natural when just doing something constantly and with interest/bit enthusiasm... :)

So, this is really interesting..! Thanx for giving the opportunity man... :) The process throughout is infact quite complicated for me (at least yet), and what I really wonder is whether it is "first seeing the possible end result and then moving towards it", or "first having the raw material and starting to 'play' with it, produce variations, and plan the possible end result throughout the process"... Well, perhaps my mind doesn't work like 'graphic-designing' as I would have never thought of manipulating the original image in such a complicated course... At best, I would have thought of refining all the elevator shots as far as possible, and than placing them together to form a collage like Rohyphnol and PunkClown did recently (Rohyphnol, for two office machines; Punkclown, for an old stowe). So, thanx, and thanx again..! :)

All I can say is way cool! Way Cool! :-)>