show your photoshop chops

nathanm · « **Reply #40 on:** 20 Jun 2007, 07:55 pm »

That's correct, the left photo is the one of the original shots by the guy who built the truss bridge model. (it's about 6 feet long in real life) The sky and mountains are from stock photos which I dry brushed over. Actually the mountain was a watercolor painting that the first designer did. I don't fault him for not getting it right, they burden the poor guy with so many petty little changes that it's easy to lose interest and get frustrated. Good art is not a bureaucratic process! But I got lucky this time and the powers that be approved it. Unfortunately I lost the battle with the back cover which is essentially the regular photo all over again! One of the dumbest things I ever saw. Why show a before and after shot!? Hmph. Oh well, at least I got what I wanted on the front!

drphoto · « **Reply #41 on:** 20 Jun 2007, 08:20 pm »

Ok, this image was shot for the company that makes the lift. It was done in their warehouse....not in a studio. It was lit by one 12x butterfly moved around the vehicle. I would make an exposure say for the hood, then the grill, etc and then all the elements were combined in pshop The only real illustration work was done on the door area, where the lift column cast a rather ugly shadow. Most all still objects I shoot are now done in this fashion. This was the first time I'd done it on this large of a scale.

Lensman · « **Reply #42 on:** 21 Jun 2007, 11:49 am »

DrPhoto -

Man, that's a super clean job! Ten or fifteen years ago, the idea of shooting something like this on location would have been unthinkable. It's interesting to ponder how digital has made the formerly impossible, possible. Before digital, an image like that would only have been accomplished by a select few, large commercial studios. It would probably have been shot on 8X10 (or at least 4x5) and would naturally have required the entire vehicle to be flawlessly lit for a single exposure. The parallels with the music business are obvious as well. Until digital empowered small music publishers and even individual performers/bands, the large record labels were the only ones with the capital investment to take on high-end, multi-track recording. Now we have non-linear editing and low-cost gear that expands the possibilities way beyond what used to be.

To those who can exploit its advantages, digital is truly empowering.

Lensman

nathanm · « **Reply #43 on:** 21 Jun 2007, 04:13 pm »

What's a "12x butterfly" by the way? Sounds like something that would take revenge on a hapless entymologist.

jqp · « **Reply #44 on:** 21 Jun 2007, 04:33 pm »

Quote from: Lensman on 20 Jun 2007, 02:01 pm

Quote from: Lensman on 20 Jun 2007, 12:45 pm
Did this thread just suddenly die? I thought it was a fun thread.

Lensman, did you notice it too? Why did it die so young?
Starved to death!

I would contribute and will when I can, but I haven't used photoshop for a few years. Keep up the posting, don't panic if there are only a few of us who actually use photoshop to do real work. Maybe I will dig up a few of my amateur attempts from the past.

I think it is very interesting and useful to compare reality with "created reality". Lots of insight for the real world, including audio! And I sometimes have seen on the web references to and examples of photoshoped models and actresses, so thats fun too, and probably important for real women to understand.

nathanm, cool description ofthe project, hope you got some cred for working at night! Lensaman and drphoto, anf the rest, thanks for the examples also. You guys keep them coming! I love this stuff!

Daygloworange · « **Reply #45 on:** 21 Jun 2007, 04:38 pm »

Quote from: nathanm on 21 Jun 2007, 04:13 pm

What's a "12x butterfly" by the way? Sounds like something that would take revenge on a hapless entymologist.

That's rich! Man, stop! You're killing me over here...

Cheers

drphoto · « **Reply #46 on:** 21 Jun 2007, 06:00 pm »

Good one Nathan.

I should stop using jargon. A butterfly is a metal frame with fabric stretched over to make a large light source. A "12x" is 12 ft square.

A lot of terms for lighting equipment comes from the film industry, and they have all sorts of crazy names for things. An extension cord is called a 'stinger' for instance.

nathanm · « **Reply #47 on:** 21 Jun 2007, 07:31 pm »

I never thought of the concept of combining multiple flash source locations, but it makes perfect sense, especially with digital. Combining multiple film scans together would be extra work just twiddling with the alignment alone. The image looks smooth and doesn't suggest it was cobbled together from multiple shots. I guess the only thing that bothers me is the shadow, but I don't blame you because fake cast shadows are a tricky business. I remember having to mask out people shot against white seamless and then adding in fake drop shadows underneath their feet for sales flyers. Looked so goofy! Heh!

Have you tried putting this composition into a separate garage shot to make it look like a real location shoot? That'd be cool.

drphoto · « **Reply #48 on:** 21 Jun 2007, 08:20 pm »

Yeah....I didn't spend a lot of time on the shadow, as it wasn't called for by the client.

The shooting it in 'pieces' concept is incredibly efficient, mainly because you don't have to rig the same amount of stuff you need to get it in one shot. Plus it's much easier to get just one small part of the car or other object just the way you want. We did 6 shots like this in 2 days. In the old days, we'd been able to do one at best, and would have had to use a box van full of gear.

Lensman · « **Reply #49 on:** 21 Jun 2007, 09:45 pm »

Two swans, with some "rarindarized" lighting added.

Here's the raw file with no corrections. Heavy overcast, dull lighting.

Lensman

jqp · « **Reply #50 on:** 17 Jul 2007, 04:28 am »

Something I found - the dark side of photoshopping

TONEPUB · « **Reply #51 on:** 17 Jul 2007, 05:17 am »

Quote from: nathanm on 21 Jun 2007, 07:31 pm

I never thought of the concept of combining multiple flash source locations, but it makes perfect sense, especially with digital. Combining multiple film scans together would be extra work just twiddling with the alignment alone. The image looks smooth and doesn't suggest it was cobbled together from multiple shots. I guess the only thing that bothers me is the shadow, but I don't blame you because fake cast shadows are a tricky business. I remember having to mask out people shot against white seamless and then adding in fake drop shadows underneath their feet for sales flyers. Looked so goofy! Heh!

Have you tried putting this composition into a separate garage shot to make it look like a real location shoot? That'd be cool.

Multiple flash exposures and multiple sets/camera setups was the only way we could do it back in the oldschool days....

Sometimes you would combine stuff in the darkroom (!!) too....

Much easier with good digital capture, layers and Photoshop!

viggen · « **Reply #52 on:** 18 Jul 2007, 01:18 am »

Something I did for work. Be kind. I have about 10 months PS experience.

Before:

After:

Jonathan · « **Reply #53 on:** 18 Jul 2007, 01:42 am »

Late to this thread, but I was certain you guys would want to meet my cat (this is the photo I sent when my eight-year old niece complained that the cat's eyes were closed in a previous photo).

SET Man · « **Reply #54 on:** 18 Jul 2007, 02:59 am »

Quote from: Jonathan on 18 Jul 2007, 01:42 am

Late to this thread, but I was certain you guys would want to meet my cat (this is the photo I sent when my eight-year old niece complained that the cat's eyes were closed in a previous photo).

Hey!

Found the larger version in the Gallery...

That cat got a purrdy eyes and smile

So, what did your niece say now? Does she still complain?

Anyway, about animal and flash. Most if not all digital cam today seem to use pre-flash pop than the real pop follow. Some are faster than other between pops but even with the fastest one I still see animal start to close their eyes a bit. Sadly my is a bit on the slow side

Take care,
Buddy

Jonathan · « **Reply #55 on:** 18 Jul 2007, 11:05 am »

Quote

Hey!

Found the larger version in the Gallery...

Thanks! I guess I imported the thumbnail by mistake, but I was too tired to fix it. My niece laughed hysterically when she saw the photo, so my mission was complete.

Have a good one.

Jon

nathanm · « **Reply #56 on:** 20 Jul 2007, 10:33 pm »

Okay, these aren't MY Photoshop chops, but they are damn good Photoshop chops nevertheless. A tad fakey looking on some, but for the most part they are very well executed and photorealistic IMO.

They're making me jump through hoops for some copyright bullshit, so just do this and hit the first URL.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=diana+krall+fat&btnG=Google+Search

Looks like that new Warp feature on the Transform tool is getting a mighty workout!

nathanm · « **Reply #57 on:** 8 Aug 2007, 07:09 am »

Tonight's Photoshoppery:

For a more close up view of the gross-out:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1201/1048327028_86cd42fd1b_o.jpg

Okay, must go to bed now...having too much fun!