1) The images of himself and of which one is a photographer / image assembler (or how is called that?) Finally measured, even if the purpose of this workshop is primarily the didactic content.
The pictures are all very costly manufactured. It do a lot of fun to participate in the photo sessions and the subsequent processing in Photoshop is immensely instructive. On the other hand, to convince me the images, down to the last with the Shrek, not completely.
When Dracula image with victims Schweighofer describes, for example. before the image mounting a dress that will go Wallender down and then merges into bats or leaves on the edge. When Watching I thought Buoaaa I am looking forward. Ultimately, he has but the dress is covered with a down imho unnecessary bridges / castle construction. This seething transition (the gabs anyway?) Goes perfectly with what really is a pity. In addition, this castle scene draws attention to itself, which in turn distracts from the pretty model and the Dracula himself.
The picture with the octopus in passing that in my opinion most amazing picture idea is at first glance an eye-catcher. For prolonged viewing however the hmmm creeps more and more something is rotten feeling a. Is it the inferred very strange anatomy of octopus, which arises when the cattle figuratively imagine on the basis of emerging from the water arms? (Perhaps that is so off the coast of Fokushima swum) Schweighofer the lighting situation considering very carefully but he wasted little thought of how an attacking from below octopus would look like. (Radiating all Pümpelseiten upwards and especially all arms of equal size is not a much smaller, just so he well over it fits over the woman to the outside. Or you should have provided these smaller arm than the end of a tentacle, whose header section also somewhere in Water rumwindet.) Or bothers me that do not match ending set pieces mast with lying about it tentacle? Or the fire? A timber ship is ripped by a giant octopus in pieces (within minutes I think) - but the ship catches fire? What does not exist. Not as easily flammable things like sailing udgl. but the gem. allgem. Logic accordingly much more difficult combustible Rahmast (!). As for the fire's there come up? An intact sailing depends on said mast namely tuned yet. I'm not sure what made me (gently) But something bothers ists halt.
The Glöcknerbild represented by the (destroyed?) The couple Church disc shows, can not be seen as Hunchback of Notre Dame and Esmeralda, you would not plan pushed by the Title with the mallet. A blonde Esmeralda? Finally, go to Photoshop so why give her any new hair color? A hunchback with a Silikontitte face? Why not provide you the hump in the foreground (unique identifier) Why not an original photo of the Notre Dame and a BEF there. Parapet? Why this comic gargoyle? Is that a tribute to Peter Brown Schmid, along the lines of: Oh, but who has done great, get with the colorful gargoyles, the video I have to be the same also? Why use Schweighofer a chem. To draw the window formula symbol? Why are so irregular (so destroyed?) Windows still intact glass panes? Why are the glass panes so pastel colored colors that you can not recognize as a glass at first sight?
When Phantom of the Opera bothers me that the two indeed have to look with a chandelier the way, but from behind the sun pops (sunset) by a huge window clean. What a pity about the great Vordergundbild and to the great church shot. The both go under namely in the milky, low-contrast light spot. Actually, you would hard by the evening sun contrasts (shadow) expected unless the church is filled with fog. Is it that? Ever less (light) is sometimes more. How great this would have as a low-key recording worked only by the candlesticks in the face and illuminates the front of the Models? But good tastes are just different.
2.) My second point of criticism: The language implementation.
Schweighofer has a pleasant and informal way to dumbbells by the subject. (Having Rhinelander sch and Berlin dialect, I think detected) Still bothers me the bumpy nature, constantly apologizing for his dialect (we say) and constantly aping other dialects or at which to try. Authentic one comes across imho when standing to his southern German acoustics, and which consistently permeates. Sooo incomprehensible speaks Schweighofer yes to God not. It must not be that elephant in a china shop default, as in the video of P. Brown Schmid, who celebrates his Viennese places gegelrecht, so that one has the impression that it would not his intention to hold a workshop, but the viewers be Wienerisch to present. You could keep a little with Paracelsus, who has already meant that amount make the poison.
By this point you could also on linguistic details, like the fact to look, therefore the jumps in places with the frequency of a broken record.
Postscript to criticism:
All in all, the points from the top, of course, whining at a high level and to save the honor should be said that some things Schweighofer has probably shown only for didactic reasons, not necessarily for a perfect end product. Finally, this is a Photoshop workshop no opening for perfect photo montages, and this is, as already mentioned, succeeded perfectly. Schweighofer or Galileo-D. play with this product safely in the league this subject and it is difficult, as mentioned above, not to fall into adulation. The best praise for a product is so you could say it might: Depending of subtle criticism is, the better the product. And above all, more important than all star ratings is maybe the info that I by this Part, the other Videotut. will pick up from Schweighofer. In this sense, four star finally I want to be the first to deliver the (until now) a person other than a 5-star review. ;-)
![NBA 2K15 - [Playstation 4] (Video Game)](https://img.tgreer.com/thumb/85x85/e/60/e6077136258847d4.jpg)
