including the detail on them (not just a silohuette)...
Oh and can we also assume that what we're looking at are full sensor files? Not small unusable except for web-use crops from a point and shoot sensor?
I've seen these before and coudln't figure it out either... so I guess I'll have to wait 'till after John Marc shows us his light-painting to find out.
print a transparency of a cityscape... place in between subject and camera. Wherever the subject is overexposed, the lighter and luminescent the transparency will be... Can you shoot that hypothesis down?
blueirisarts wrote:
print a transparency of a cityscape... place in between subject and camera. Wherever the subject is overexposed, the lighter and luminescent the transparency will be... Can you shoot that hypothesis down?
the transparency would have to be lit independently of the subject, and DOF will still be a huge problem. DOF gives it all away as impossible in a single exposure. look at the one just above with the guy wearing glasses. his nose is sharp, but the far edge of his glasses is already going out of focus. and yet the buildings a half mile away are sharp.
brett maxwell wrote:
the transparency would have to be lit independently of the subject, and DOF will still be a huge problem.
It would actually not need to be lit at all from the front... that would cause glare off of the transparency. Plus, the DOF is doable if you got the size of your transparency large enough to put it close enough to your subject to crank down the aperture!.. Got a big printer?
DOF gives it all away as impossible in a single exposure. look at the one just above with the guy wearing glasses. his nose is sharp, but the far edge of his glasses is already going out of focus. and yet the buildings a half mile away are sharp.
The DOF doesn't mean crap... It means that all of the elements used are within the focal plane.
Transparency is close to subjects face... the transparency was a shot taken with infinite focus so of course it would be in focus.
Another thought would be to use a piece of glass with 1 way mirror film and carefully set up the shot... though the kid pic makes me skeptical of this method.
I suppose someone could ask him directly if nobody here knows how to do it .. his contact info is on his website. Most (well almost most) photographers are happy to help one another.
It can't be too big of a secret, he's shot quite a few portraits like it so somebody somewhere must know .. my bet is two exposures with blended layers.
I'm going to go with 2 shots combined in photoshop with a particular blending mode set to have the couple appear.
First shoot person/couple with some interesting lighting in studio or in bright sunlight. Second is picture from so high up observatory type place. This is not done in-camera and i'm sorry but it comes off as rather gimmicky.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. There's actually two ways that I can think of. Neither of them are a double exposure or 5D3-type trick. We'll do one at the Genesis reunion.
Hum... ok I think I figured out a way to do it in camera...
but it would involve things like:
1. very very very careful positioning
2. probably cropping some of the frame, though I'm not sure that would ALWAYS be necessary
3. owning a tilt-shift lens
I suppose a 45 TSE shot at F11 or thereabouts with the right amount of tilt (and maybe shift to get yourself out of the shot... though I'm not sure that's really an issue) ... could get this baby done in one shot.
One lucky lucky lucky, skillful shot... at least based on my experience with T/S (then again there's live view now)...
and I think it's more likely to work for the cityscape photos than for the Davina+Daniel shot due to the shooting on a rooftop tilted plane of focus running into the city below... but maybe not, maybe it works even in the volcano shot.
Whether this is an answer or not, there's a lesson inside... it can't hurt to try out some of our lenses at apertures narrower than 2.8 sometime
lisy78 wrote:
Hum... ok I think I figured out a way to do it in camera...
but it would involve things like:
1. very very very careful positioning
2. probably cropping some of the frame, though I'm not sure that would ALWAYS be necessary
3. owning a tilt-shift lens
I suppose a 45 TSE shot at F11 or thereabouts with the right amount of tilt (and maybe shift to get yourself out of the shot... though I'm not sure that's really an issue) ... could get this baby done in one shot.
One lucky lucky lucky, skillful shot... at least based on my experience with T/S (then again there's live view now)...
and I think it's more likely to work for the cityscape photos than for the Davina+Daniel shot due to the shooting on a rooftop tilted plane of focus running into the city below... but maybe not, maybe it works even in the volcano shot.
Whether this is an answer or not, there's a lesson inside... it can't hurt to try out some of our lenses at apertures narrower than 2.8 sometime ...Show more →
I'm changing my tune a bit... I just played around a bit more with my 2 methods. Both would work and could be done in single exposures, but they would both require a ton of equipment and more time than most people would have. So now I'm in the multiple exposure camp for the examples shown
