rp_photo wrote:
Example please.

http://tutorialpulse.com/43/breathtakin … ng-effect/

Usually seen in B&W style images, where the shadows are usually one color and the highlights another (for example the shadows could fade into a blue, and the highlights could be a slight pink, as opposed to a pink or blue monochrome image).

rp_photo wrote:
Example please.

Its all over his port in MM

W.G. Rowland wrote:
Just curious.  It seems almost impossible to look at 3 pictures and not see at least one where someone has added some sort of two tone shading between the highlights and shadows.

Is this the new "it" thing?  And why didn't I get a memo?

Never tried split toning myself, but why worry about it, just about any "effect" is going to be overdone from desaturation, to color isolation, to solarization, to HDR, etc etc etc. Not much use worrying about, and your protest wouldn't do anything for people who enjoy the effect.

Randy Tay wrote:
Its all over his port in MM

Not quite the same as a typical photoshop split toning in my opinion though from the look of his port (only 2 or 3 is what I'd immediately perceive as 'split toned', the rest seem to be either monochromatic or toned black and whites).

biwa wrote:
You can blame Color EFex pro.

?

I thought it was built into Adobe's Camera Raw Plugin?

-ASYLUM- wrote:
I like the effect they have... but I found myself over using it...

But then again... is no toning overdone?

Is black and white overdone?

Are pictures overdone?

lol

so true.

People worry too much about being cliche. It's like they are afraid to take risks.  If you like it then who gives a fuck.

Strive for an audience of one (yourself) is what I recommend.

If split-toning is your thing then do it.  Some will like, some won't. Whoopty doo!

W.G. Rowland wrote:
Who said it was bad?  I want caution tape to make a comeback!

*nips him*

Karl Blessing wrote:
Not quite the same as a typical photoshop split toning in my opinion though from the look of his port (only 2 or 3 is what I'd immediately perceive as 'split toned', the rest seem to be either monochromatic or toned black and whites).

If you're referring to my work, since I was doing it before PS was invented, I am not surprised that it does not look "typical photoshop," whatever that means.  As for the comment re: "monochromatic or toned black and whites," I don't understand since split toning IS toning applied to b&w (i.e., monochromatic) prints.  Do you understand that these are NOT digital prints?  Sorry, just not clear from your comments.

rp_photo wrote:
Example please.

If you're referring to my work, look at my current avatar.

Frank McAdam wrote:

If you're referring to my work, since I was doing it before PS was invented, I am not surprised that it does not look "typical photoshop," whatever that means.  As for the comment re: "monochromatic or toned black and whites," I don't understand since split toning IS toning applied to b&w (i.e., monochromatic) prints.  Do you understand that these are NOT digital prints?  Sorry, just not clear from your comments.

He's referring to WG.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
Just curious.  It seems almost impossible to look at 3 pictures and not see at least one where someone has added some sort of two tone shading between the highlights and shadows.

Is this the new "it" thing?  And why didn't I get a memo?

I do not know, I thought the new "it" thing was turning your entire port into that putrid, off green, pseudo cross processed look. When some photographers see that they can't seem to keep from making everything they touch from looking like sickly green vomit.

The Divine Emily Fine wrote:
He's referring to WG.

Cool.  It didn't make much sense applied to my own work.  Just wasn't clear to me whom Karl was referring to.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
Just curious.  It seems almost impossible to look at 3 pictures and not see at least one where someone has added some sort of two tone shading between the highlights and shadows.

Is this the new "it" thing?  And why didn't I get a memo?

Weren't you supposed to "send" that memo to the rest of us?

Skydancer wrote:

Weren't you supposed to "send" that memo to the rest of us?

WGR has gotten big and important since his move to Texas.  From what he tells me, he has minions and lickspittles to send his memos for him.

Skydancer wrote:
Weren't you supposed to "send" that memo to the rest of us?

Dave Bulger wrote:
WGR has gotten big and important since his move to Texas.  From what he tells me, he has minions and lickspittles to send his memos for him.

I'm seriously looking at jobs in the Austin area... where can I apply for a lickspittle position?

Frank McAdam wrote:
Cool.  It didn't make much sense applied to my own work.  Just wasn't clear to me whom Karl was referring to.

No It made sense (I just wasn't too clear), I was just saying your work wasn't the kind of split toning I think he was talking bout. I think WG was talking bout the type of folks who over use the shit out of it. (But as others mentioned isn't everything over done), and I thought I made it clear that I knew you did so in the darkroom process.

*Shrug*