Forums >
General Industry >
2,000 hours on one photoshop image.....
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 Aug 18 06 07:21 pm Link Or you can take the same shot in 30 seconds. Aug 18 06 07:25 pm Link 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... Aug 18 06 07:28 pm Link DarioImpiniPhotography wrote: 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... Aug 18 06 07:32 pm Link DarioImpiniPhotography wrote: 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. Aug 18 06 07:38 pm Link DarioImpiniPhotography wrote: thats true....... Aug 18 06 07:40 pm Link Trompe 'loeil. Bert Monroy is awesome. It reminds me of Ralph Goings' watercolors. Aug 18 06 07:41 pm Link *sigh*.. All that insane obsessive talent.. And all spent duplicating reality.. Reality sucks.. Make something new! Aug 18 06 07:42 pm Link This is so insane "The image size is 40 inches by 120 inches" DarioImpiniPhotography wrote: What format? CareLyn Anita wrote: Man, those are details of the picture. Aug 18 06 07:44 pm Link W.G. Rowland 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??? Aug 18 06 07:46 pm Link Sheez. Sorry, but what a big waste of time. Okay, everyone should have a hobby and I am certainly pretty anal when I get some charcoals and a sheet of parchment, but unless you earn your living creating realistic environments for video games (I can't be the only one excited about how the next generation Grand Theft Auto series will look) then I fail completely to see the point of doing this. This can be done with any camera with reasonably sharp glass... ...in a fraction of the time. He could've spent that time on his other -admittedly impressive- commercial work. Aug 18 06 07:47 pm Link wow. I live in Chicago. I've been to that train stop. The uniform sharpness is not the way a camera renders thing though, and the bright orange of the building in the background reminds me of 3D renderings we did in AutoCad 10 years ago Aug 18 06 07:50 pm Link Jean-Philippe Martin wrote: Oh, don't get me wrong.. This guy's incredible.. Aug 18 06 07:51 pm Link DarioImpiniPhotography 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. Aug 18 06 07:55 pm Link W.G. Rowland 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. Aug 18 06 07:55 pm Link ~Krista~ wrote: Glad I could help.. Aug 18 06 07:58 pm Link I guess this is the next step in photography. We can fake the whole thing!!! Aug 18 06 08:04 pm Link 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.... Aug 18 06 08:07 pm Link Michael Pandolfo wrote: 2000 hours dude. Thats a year's worth of work time. Anybody making that kind of time statement should have a point. Aug 18 06 08:09 pm Link Julie Saad wrote: 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. Aug 18 06 08:10 pm Link 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. Aug 18 06 08:11 pm Link Scott Harrill wrote: Ah see? Now THATS something worth doing. Replicate a $12 bill. Legal, and awesome. But a mundane shot of a train platform? WTF?? Aug 18 06 08:12 pm Link I have actually met and spent some time with Bert at a few seminars and different events over at Adobe and local studio. He actuall specializes in photo realism in photoshop for areas that you cannot get permission to take the photo. Now he does it just to impress other photoshop people, by wowing them he sells the crap out of his books. Plus he has his own spot on TechTV, plus he used to work at Industrial Light and Magic, and he left because he was getting bored...BORED! He worked on many famous movies, like Start Trek Generations, and Spawn, as well as many others. he's a hell of a nice guy and if you ever want to learn how to create realism so your work doesn't have that "photoshopped look" he could teach you how to paint photorealism on your photos. Aug 18 06 08:18 pm Link 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. Aug 18 06 08:19 pm Link DarioImpiniPhotography 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. Aug 18 06 08:21 pm Link gavin oneill wrote: Wow, and I can STILL tell it's fake! Aug 18 06 08:23 pm Link Sorta the Richard Estes thang... back in da photorealist days. http://hirshhorn.si.edu/education/modern/modern3.html Aug 18 06 08:23 pm Link Ummm Hi digital manips like this are called Mattepainting and are nothing new or special check out Dylan Cole's work http://www.dylancolestudio.com/index2.html those are more realistic than this train station. Aug 18 06 08:30 pm Link AdamtheJohnson wrote: was it the 'he creates pictures that look just like photographs' that gave it away? Aug 18 06 08:30 pm Link Mark Heaps wrote: I cant composite a shot like that? Moreover... I cant get around why anyone would want to. Aug 18 06 08:30 pm Link DarioImpiniPhotography wrote: money? alot of it? Aug 18 06 08:33 pm Link David Allen Smith wrote: David.. I agree with you completely.. Aug 18 06 08:34 pm Link I'd like to see the same shot taken with an 11x14 camera and compare the results in detail and sharpness of film and digital ![]() Aug 18 06 08:38 pm Link W.G. Rowland wrote: totally... Aug 18 06 08:42 pm Link gavin oneill 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. Aug 18 06 08:42 pm Link 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. Aug 18 06 08:45 pm Link Christopher Bush wrote: At 2000 hours per shot?? Aug 18 06 08:47 pm Link Michael Pandolfo wrote: 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.... Aug 18 06 08:48 pm Link DarioImpiniPhotography wrote: that's why he should bill hourly. Aug 18 06 08:48 pm Link DarioImpiniPhotography wrote: my hat is off to him simply coz he can be on his computer for 2000 hours without even having an MM account!? :-/ Aug 18 06 08:59 pm Link |