DarioImpiniPhotography wrote:
Or you can take the same shot in 30 seconds.

I would have to agree.  That 'Damen' shot at the link you provided looks just about like any other European train terminal with people photoshopped out...

And about '2000 hours on an image'... lol... I thought for a minute you were gonna post a 'Jeffery Scott' link...

DarioImpiniPhotography wrote:
Or you can take the same shot in 30 seconds.

I agree. Unless there's something about the trains there that I'm unaware of that just looks like a really clean photo with good natural light use.

DarioImpiniPhotography wrote:
Or you can take the same shot in 30 seconds.

thats true.......

but whether or not he could do that wasnt the point.....more just that he has the attention span to do all this while knowing he couldve just taken the picture in 30 seconds....

DarioImpiniPhotography wrote:
Or you can take the same shot in 30 seconds.

What format?
Unless you stitch a bunch of digital pictures together and use a long lens.

CareLyn Anita wrote:
wow, that is crazy , but it does look real , I am nitpicky though and I would say in the 2nd pic the
"54/Cermak" looks almost too sharp, same with the recycling logo....
If I randomly stumbled on this image briefly( in an ad, etc.) it is something that would not have been noticed...

Man, those are details of the picture.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
*sigh*.. All that insane obsessive talent.. And all spent duplicating reality..

Reality sucks..

Make something new!

That's a good starting point. If he can create Dali's type of photograph, that'd be great... but where is the difference between that and rendering then???

Jean-Philippe Martin wrote:

That's a good starting point. If he can create Dali's type of photograph, that'd be great... but where is the difference between that and rendering then???

Oh, don't get me wrong.. This guy's incredible.. 

I think it's the difference between the two camps..  The pinnacle for a photographer is to capture something in a way no one would ever expect to see reality..  The pinnacle for a painter/sketch artist/animator/etc. is to produce photorealism from whole cloth..

I've read books on this stuff and it's fascinating... But... At the same time..  Depressing..  I find reality utterly mundane.. So..  I'm biased.

DarioImpiniPhotography wrote:
Or you can take the same shot in 30 seconds.

I think that's the point. It's not "a shot." It's a digital painting where even the most minute detail, shadow, grain of dirt is created...not just replicated or reproduced.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
I've read books on this stuff and it's fascinating... But... At the same time..  Depressing..  I find reality utterly mundane.. So..  I'm biased.

Well, I find the 50mm 1.8 great in the sense that if I took that picture with the aperture wide open you would see like one point in sharp focus and the rest in blur. And not photoshop gaussian blur. Real in camera blur. Okay, now I am making myself hot.

~Krista~ wrote:

Well, I find the 50mm 1.8 great in the sense that if I took that picture with the aperture wide open you would see like one point in sharp focus and the rest in blur. And not photoshop gaussian blur. Real in camera blur. Okay, now I am making myself hot.

Glad I could help..

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

I think that's the point. It's not "a shot." It's a digital painting where even the most minute detail, shadow, grain of dirt is created...not just replicated or reproduced.

2000 hours dude.  Thats a year's worth of work time.  Anybody making that kind of time statement should have a point. 

OK, so he accomplished this.  And his point is...?

Julie Saad wrote:
Holy cow.
Those pictures are insane!
The only thing that bothers me is that, it is art that requires an explanation before most people will go, "oh....wow."
You know what I mean?
I personally prefer to be impressed by something because it just plain looks cool.
Nonetheless, hats off to this guy. I had to create a few extra inches of a weirdly-positioned cropped out arm for another photographer in Photoshop today and wound up having to pose next to a print of the original and look at my own arm in a mirror to get the curve of it just right. It was mostly a cut and paste and rotate and blend kind of thing but I was still bugging out because I had to construct it myself (gasp).
I can only imagine....

Yeah, and there's a point to that.  I've done similar -- the perfect shot with a bad crop.  Thats why I tend to save all the shots, even the crappy ones.  I use them as a parts junkyard just in case.

Scott Harrill wrote:
From an illustrators point of view this is a great illustration. From a photographers point of view this is fake reality. I guess it depends which side of the fence you are on. If this was a drawing of a $100 bill it would be very impressive, and very illegal.

Ah see?  Now THATS something worth doing.  Replicate a $12 bill.  Legal, and awesome.  But a mundane shot of a train platform?  WTF??

DarioImpiniPhotography wrote:

Ah see?  Now THATS something worth doing.  Replicate a $12 bill.  Legal, and awesome.  But a mundane shot of a train platform?  WTF??

mundane shot of a train platform, now that's an eye for the creative. the detail involved in that shot is so much more complex than a portrait or generic landscape.

gavin oneill wrote:
check out this guy.....he creates pictures that look just like photographs, from scratch, which is a commonly done thing, but he is creating files of massive proportions, using thousands of layers and manipulations. the stats in the top picture are particularly impressive....

http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/text/ … _damen.htm

Wow, and I can STILL tell it's fake!

AdamtheJohnson wrote:

Wow, and I can STILL tell it's fake!

was it the 'he creates pictures that look just like photographs' that gave it away?

Mark Heaps wrote:

mundane shot of a train platform, now that's an eye for the creative. the detail involved in that shot is so much more complex than a portrait or generic landscape.

I cant composite a shot like that?  Moreover... I cant get around why anyone would want to.

DarioImpiniPhotography wrote:

I cant composite a shot like that?  Moreover... I cant get around why anyone would want to.

money?   alot of it?

David Allen Smith wrote:
Completely amazing...


some people seem to be missing the point of this entirely, looking at it from the viewpoint of a photographer.

this isn't photography

it isn't meant to replace photography

it's digital painting

it's art.

comments about making the same image in 30 seconds with reasonably sharp glass, besides being wholly incorrect, miss the point by a wide margin.

W.G.

I see where you are coming from, and I have gone back and forth on that for years...  right know I'm in my "reality is art" phase, maybe I'll fall back into "art of imagination" again at some point.

reality is only mundane if you think everytime you look at something it is the same

then you aren't "seeing" things anymore at all... you are only seeing your mental image of them projected out into the world, walking around in a fog of your own creation. We all do it. Its a natural process, but very detrimental to art which strives always to see things as they are. Without first seeing things "the way they are" we can not interpret them into art.


See everything with new eyes... this combination of particles will never again be repeated in the universe.




IMO digital painting on this scale could only be accomplished by someone on the wrong side of madness...  the same can be said of all great art.

David.. I agree with you completely..

And I'm sure the art and illustration community is going insane over this.. It's certainly worthy of the praise..

I got into photography to get away from not seeing the world with fresh eyes.. And it's been really theraputic to my sanity.. 

2000 hours..  This guy's pulling from a deeper well than I will ever know..

W.G. Rowland wrote:
2000 hours..  This guy's pulling from a deeper well than I will ever know..

totally...


I feel good if I spend 10 or 12 hours on a pen & ink sketch

gavin oneill wrote:

money?   alot of it?

Thats a great reason.  Is that shot worth $50k+?  I think marketing is a far more worthwhile enterprise if you're after money.  I could do that shot, post it on here and barely raise a peep.  If he manages to score $50k or more on that, its because he's a master marketer, not an artist.  In which case, my hats off to him.

Christopher Bush wrote:
i disagree that these look anything like photos.  they are realistic, but clearly artificial at first glance.

but this guy could make a killing in the video game industry, if he's not already.  he's quite talented.

At 2000 hours per shot??

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

I think that's the point. It's not "a shot." It's a digital painting where even the most minute detail, shadow, grain of dirt is created...not just replicated or reproduced.

For that matter, though, I could take a photograph, and modify/filter it a little to make it convicingly, "non-real, but almost" and tell people I painted it pixell, by pixel, I sort of did this with a photo of a backlit rainbow umbrella, not the same sort of detail as this image, but the same idea....

RYan Entwistle - Photographer
re: photography

DarioImpiniPhotography wrote:

At 2000 hours per shot??

that's why he should bill hourly.

DarioImpiniPhotography wrote:

Thats a great reason.  Is that shot worth $50k+?  I think marketing is a far more worthwhile enterprise if you're after money.  I could do that shot, post it on here and barely raise a peep.  If he manages to score $50k or more on that, its because he's a master marketer, not an artist.  In which case, my hats off to him.

my hat is off to him simply coz he can be on his computer for 2000 hours without even having an MM account!? :-/