Help with achieving this effect

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Actions & Plugins support
Workflow Guidelines

FM Forums \| Post-processing & Printing \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 end

Eyeball
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · Help with achieving this effect

The shadows on the ground vs. the "shadow" of the rear view mirror don't seem to me to be compelling evidence that the image was faked. I question whether the "shadow" of the mirror is really a shadow. I think it is the reflection of the mirror in the reflective surface of the car body.

Mar 06, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Zaitz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · Help with achieving this effect

Off camera lighting exposures merged together with a natural lighting exposure(s).

Mar 06, 2013 at 12:24 PM

RustyBug
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · Help with achieving this effect

As to missing the point at the flare .. the source for the flare is coming from the top left corner behind the buidling ... yet we see highlight reflections off the car that suggest light source to both left & right simultaneously?

That being said, I think the hard shadow on the ground (flare image) has initially fooled me into thinking it was coming from the right. Rather, I now think it is coming from the top, over the rear fender. In that regard, it would be congruous with the light source orientation. That combined with the mis-identification of the side mirror as shadow vs. reflection could lead to the degree of disbelief that is infused. The finishing is still a critical part and there are some other areas that while are not "natural" in tonal value @ shadow falloff ... I don't think they were "faked" ... just heavily "finished".

Here is a link to an "original image" that shows some of the lighting / shadow relationship. Granted this shot at a different time of day and different orientation, but we can still see how the shape/curves of the car respond to reflecting light (AI=AR). And, yes, it appears that the point at the side view mirror is a reflection has merit as we can easily see the ground shadow falling left, not right.

The poster, calls the image "boring". Again, I've got no problems with the PP used, nor do I consider the image "fake" ... just the denial of its use tarnishes things in a way that never have need be amongst those who know otherwise.
http://mobile.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=63&t=1250959&mid=0&i=40&nmt=Stunning+P1+photos+from+Bahrain&mid=0

From the thread:
"To all the critics - when was the last time a major news publication published your shots and demanded their subscribers stop everything to see them?

High praise just to be chosen for a job like this, and then most of the people who have seen the results have been fairly enthusiastic, except for this crowd. What is is about the people here always seeming so overly critical, especially of one of their own? I don't get it - like a bunch of Simon Cowell clones or something. A lot of time, effort, thought and skill went into creating these photos and a then string of keyboard jockeys want to knock it down straight away. Show some respect - if you have nothing nice to say keep it to yourself at least.

Some of you want a normal picture of the P1 in Bahrain, here you go:"

Again props to the final product and the photographer for combining the vision & capture with the artistic finishing. That's his thing

, and that's why he was chosen for the job, no doubt, but it is not as natural sooc.

2013 © RustyBug

Edited on Mar 06, 2013 at 05:39 PM · View previous versions

Mar 06, 2013 at 02:04 PM

Eyeball
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · Help with achieving this effect

I'm still having problems seeing obvious incongruities, Kent. Could you be more specific as to which photo and exactly which parts of the image or car you are noticing?

I think it's important to not think of this image as having been shot with just one point light source, the sun. The sun would appear to be there but there is also the giant "soft box" of the sky. It also appears to me that there was a building behind or to the side of the photographer in some of these that was providing some additional reflected light. A comment from the photographer in the thread you linked also implies to me that some OCF or additional reflectors were used (and if I read his comment correctly, it sounds like he may have edited out some of that fill in the shadows).

I just think you can't underestimate the impact the mirror surface of the car has. Many of the bright areas in the car body look to me to be just a reflection of the sky. Even the supposed unedited shot you linked shows those reflections.

And just to clarify my "position". I'm not saying he didn't do any "enhancements". I'm just a little surprised by some of the comments here that seem to indicate that there are glaring, obvious errors here that jump out of the image and make the image look patently fake.

Mar 06, 2013 at 02:58 PM

James_N
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · Help with achieving this effect

What's really ironic to me is that photographers so vigorously guard their IP rights and are quick to threaten lawsuits for unauthorized use of their images. Yet here in this thread we see another photographer's images posted (and I'm sure they weren't authorized) and even defaced with comments written on them.

Mar 06, 2013 at 03:05 PM

RustyBug
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · Help with achieving this effect

Dennis,

I think the "glaring obvious" ... as noted above are two cases of mis-indentification combined.

1) the hard shadow coming over the edge of the rear fender, which was originally perceived as coming from the right rather than over the top.

2) the side view mirror being a reflection, not a shadow.

As I mention above ... I got fooled by these the first one and it spawned suspicion into the second one. If they were as originally perceived ... it is glaringly incongruous, but again I got fooled/misread #1 the most. With those two "incongruities" properly explained ... the other issues/areas seemingly fall more into a more normal realm of "enhancements".

+1 @ giant softbox, no worries there
+1 @ study of original reveals AI=AR
+1 @ "enhancements" (which I refer to as "artistic finishing")

I gave credence to the possibility of OCF/reflectors ... but I didn't see convincing evidence of it, so I'm of the opinion that the opened up areas, etc. are simply "enhancement" / "finishing" PP in conjunction with the "giant softbox" at that hour of the day ... i.e. part of the process to his style.

Mar 06, 2013 at 03:17 PM

RustyBug
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #7 · Help with achieving this effect

James_N wrote:
What's really ironic to me is that photographers so vigorously guard their IP rights and are quick to threaten lawsuits for unauthorized use of their images. Yet here in this thread we see another photographer's images posted (and I'm sure they weren't authorized)

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment,

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

I think this thread would certainly qualify as "criticism" or "comment" ... I don't see anyone here trying to derive commercial gain from a copyrighted image. I bumped it up to Fred to see if he thinks my use was out of line with being good FM'ers in the proper (and legal) spirit of our impassioned craft/professions and the discussions we hold on his site.

It can be tough to discuss an image without seeing it sometimes. I've no desire to cause Fred any grief nor violate that which we hold dear to our rights ... nor do I desire to trample on someone else's.

Edited on Mar 06, 2013 at 03:44 PM · View previous versions

Mar 06, 2013 at 03:29 PM

James_N
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · Help with achieving this effect

I hope you aren't claiming that writing annotations directly on another photographer's work, as has occurred in this thread, is "fair use."

Mar 06, 2013 at 03:44 PM

RustyBug
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · Help with achieving this effect

No claim per se.
Just an honest question as to where the "line" might be ... or at least where Fred wants the line to be on his site.

Fred's site, Fred's rules (in proper context with the law of course).

Mar 06, 2013 at 03:55 PM

Eyeball
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · Help with achieving this effect

James_N wrote:
I hope you aren't claiming that writing annotations directly on another photographer's work, as has occurred in this thread, is "fair use."

I would think that making annotations on another's work for purpose of discussion would exactly fit the classic understanding of what constitutes "fair use". There is no commercial use involved, the annotator is not claiming that the image is his, the photographer is clearly identified in the thread, and the annotated example is (was) being used precisely for comment and critique.

But I'm no lawyer and "fair use" is a rather vague concept that is continually revised and interpreted through court cases so who knows.

Mar 06, 2013 at 04:54 PM

cjrpostma
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · Help with achieving this effect

For the flare, in Photoshop, I would paint some light (white brush, perhaps) and adjust the fill on the layer as opposed to opacity. Give it a try.

Mar 06, 2013 at 05:05 PM

Eyeball
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · Help with achieving this effect

By the way, the "unedited" photo being linked and posted appears to me to NOT be taken by GF Williams. In fact, in the linked threads, GF writes in several places that he cannot show the original shots.

I also see no evidence that indicates that shot was taken at the same time of day as GF's shots nor even the same days for that matter. Maybe the clouds were composited in but again, I'm not seeing compelling evidence that makes me believe that was definitely the case.

Regarding the night shots, I don't know how we can be sure of the time of night nor the extent that nearby city lights were contributing to light pollution of the sky. Besides, GF stated that he made adjustments - just not to the extent he was being accused of.

Mar 06, 2013 at 05:08 PM

cjrpostma
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · Help with achieving this effect

The rest of the retouching is very similar to "The Dave Hill Look" as I often see it referred to as.

Easiest way to emulate is with Lucisart or Lucispro, apply to layer, then mask and paint in as needed. Could also use Topaz Adjust. Paint in high contrast. Helps to have photo lit with contrasty light. Helps to blend sharpness with smoothing offered in Lucis.

Mar 06, 2013 at 05:09 PM

Zaitz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #14 · Help with achieving this effect

James_N wrote:
I hope you aren't claiming that writing annotations directly on another photographer's work, as has occurred in this thread, is "fair use."
You have to be kidding? This discussion clearly fits within the four factors determining fair use.

Mar 06, 2013 at 05:11 PM

RustyBug
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #15 · Help with achieving this effect

"Ruh Roh"

It was brought to my attention that the mouseover shows copyright to me ... that's not good, 'cuz it certainly isn't mine. Apparently it was an inadvertent part of the upload process.

Mar 06, 2013 at 05:43 PM

cjrpostma
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · Help with achieving this effect

Ok, modifying my previous answer on how to achieve that flare look

1 Create new blank layer
2 Select soft brush, white, and with 100% opacity and fill
3 Paint small circle on new layer
4 Free transform layer and warp/position it perfectly in sky or over sun
5 Change layer blend mode to Linear dodge
6 Adjust fill of layer to taste

There is more you could do but that should give a solid starting point.

Mar 07, 2013 at 02:46 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Post-processing & Printing \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end