| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/09/2007 05:34:36 PM · #1 |
During Keys GTG we have visited gallery of Alan Maltz. While his photos were amazing one of them caused us to suspect that is was not real and some extensive photoshop work was done.
So here is the photo "Guiding Light"
//www.alanmaltz.com/gallery/Airport/detail.aspx?page=9
Do you think it is possible to get that light on birds while sun seem to be behind the clouds?
What do you think?
Nick |
|
|
|
10/09/2007 05:42:29 PM · #2 |
Of course it's not "real". That has to be a composite image. The birds and plants are lit from the right front, the sun is directly behind them.
R.
Message edited by author 2007-10-09 17:43:25.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2007 05:43:04 PM · #3 |
Hey Nick-
The direction of light is not consistent anywhere! BIG time Photoshop.
Dwight
|
|
|
|
10/09/2007 05:43:06 PM · #4 |
I would say the sunrise is cut in myself, otherwise he had some HUGE POWERFUL strobes to blow that much light to the birds and tree.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2007 05:48:16 PM · #5 |
I think it is tacky looking and the flying birds seem to have been photoshopped in.....on top of the lighting issues.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2007 05:50:25 PM · #6 |
The images Maltz selects for exhibition are printed on fine art canvas, having advanced from traditional photographic techniques to using cutting-edge digital technology. First, an original 35mm slide is scanned, creating a raw digital file. Maltz then uses his artistic and technical expertise to direct a painstaking and time-consuming proofing process, at times taking weeks before he is satisfied with the results. The final proof, which mirrors the original 35mm slide, then becomes the master from which the limited edition series (only 150 per size) is created. This final image is then printed in-house utilizing a state-of-the-art printing process. Maltz then approves, hand-signs and numbers each archival print. The combination of carefully chosen 100% cotton archival canvas (or watercolor paper) and seven archival pigmented inks, results in a fine art limited edition print that will last for generations under recommended conditions.
For added protection, a special coating is applied to the canvas to guard against the harmful effects of light, water and abrasion. After a twenty-four hour curing process, the archival print enters the final stage of production and is transferred to our framing department. It is then fitted with an elegant custom frame designed to complement and enhance the completed work of art.
Along with the rest of the verbage in his 'technique' pages, he certainly seems to be trying to claim these are original captures - he just 'follows the light'
Message edited by author 2007-10-09 17:51:42.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2007 05:52:34 PM · #7 |
I think that it's BS myself. The huge canvas in his studio looked even worse. He's using it for his next book COVER. I just sent him an email asking if it was a composite. I'll post his response...if I get one.
E
ETA: COVER
Message edited by author 2007-10-09 17:53:26.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2007 05:55:24 PM · #8 |
Ok... Who broke it?
"Server Error in '/' Application.
Runtime Error"
I can get to //www.alanmaltz.com/gallery/Airport/, but the gallery won't display. |
|
|
|
10/09/2007 05:59:38 PM · #9 |
Works fine for me.
My vote is likely fake.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2007 06:00:10 PM · #10 |
a little OT but maybe not ;) heres a little Fake or Photo quiz for ya...
The OP's photo, definaltly heavy use of photoshop in it...
-dave
|
|
|
|
10/09/2007 06:00:39 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I think that it's BS myself. The huge canvas in his studio looked even worse. He's using it for his next book COVER. I just sent him an email asking if it was a composite. I'll post his response...if I get one.
E
ETA: COVER |
Send him link to this thread. Maybe he wants to answer to everybody. |
|
|
|
10/09/2007 06:02:00 PM · #12 |
There's some huge condos along the bay edge in Estero Bay - perhaps he's getting ridiculous bounced light from a window :)
|
|
|
|
10/09/2007 06:29:40 PM · #13 |
|
|
|
10/09/2007 06:34:22 PM · #14 |
Ya, I'm all for saying those are composite. Even for HDRI, the dynamic range between the birds, water, and especially the sunset is too much for a camera to take in. You don't have a chance at getting detail like that on the birds when shooting into a sunset.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2007 06:35:17 PM · #15 |
Not only do the shots look really tacky, but the photoshopping is incredibly bad as well. Still, to the casual non-photographic/photoshop expert they are probably amazing shots.
tacky cheap shots if you ask me. I could pull a hundred photographers off this site who could do far better. |
|
|
|
10/09/2007 06:40:25 PM · #16 |
well out expierence of having to do this, to make a photo like that, it is made out of multipul pictures, the sunrise was taken with a picture of a lake, thats the background, copied and fliped the sunset part and created a reflection. next he made two layers of the same tree if you look really close you can see both trees have the same grooves in it, shrunk one down to size and stuck it in the far distance, and the next he placed infront of the other so it appeared to be close. as what i can tell, these birds were probably in the water, but off to the left or right of the sunrise, so they were still picking up the colors of the sun. and he placesd them as the top layer. quite a simple process once you get it down pat, but it takes time cause you gotta match all the color and contrast to form a good photo.
as you can tell theres no sunrise reflection in the far body of water but in front there is, its all the simple process of merging layers
and drachoo, it is possible, but it takes a lot of time because you got to bring out each individual object in the scene to its fullest contrast without distorting it
looks like he uses this techneque* in alot of his photos
Message edited by author 2007-10-09 18:43:31. |
|
|
|
10/09/2007 06:42:58 PM · #17 |
Well the things that bother me the most in that one are:
1) forth bird from the left, the reflections of the foilage and water plants seem to bend around it.
2) the 3 birds in the middle, two are lit up quite well but the one in the front is almost black
3) the 2 birds taking off on the right, their reflections look too clear compared to the rest of reflections in the scene
4) the edge of the huge bush on the left should be sharper....
|
|
|
|
10/09/2007 06:45:05 PM · #18 |
| Clearly a PS job but this doesn't bother me, I think it is a really nice looking piece of imagery. |
|
|
|
10/09/2007 06:46:09 PM · #19 |
dknourek......love the little quiz...lol...i got 9 out of 10 correct.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2007 06:48:54 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ya, I'm all for saying those are composite. Even for HDRI, the dynamic range between the birds, water, and especially the sunset is too much for a camera to take in. You don't have a chance at getting detail like that on the birds when shooting into a sunset. |
It's slide film.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2007 06:50:41 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ya, I'm all for saying those are composite. Even for HDRI, the dynamic range between the birds, water, and especially the sunset is too much for a camera to take in. You don't have a chance at getting detail like that on the birds when shooting into a sunset. |
It's slide film. |
Does that make that big a difference? How many more stops of dynamic range does slide film have compared to HDRI?
EDIT: Here's an interesting link which seems to indicate digital has MORE dynamic range than slide film...link
Message edited by author 2007-10-09 18:53:51.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2007 06:51:09 PM · #22 |
It's probably not Photoshoped at all... it's probably had Painter used on it. Painter IX or X are much better suited to doing stuff like this than Photoshop is. I've seen some amazing things done with Painter to a image.
Mike
|
|
|
|
10/09/2007 06:52:52 PM · #23 |
Museum Wrap Images
Small 12" x 18" $1150
Medium 20" x 30" $2150
Large 29" x 44" $2950
Extreme 40" x 60" $4750
Mural up to 10' x 15' Call for Quote
AH-HAHAHAHAHAHA! |
|
|
|
10/09/2007 06:53:39 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ya, I'm all for saying those are composite. Even for HDRI, the dynamic range between the birds, water, and especially the sunset is too much for a camera to take in. You don't have a chance at getting detail like that on the birds when shooting into a sunset. |
It's slide film. |
Does that make that big a difference? How many more stops of dynamic range does slide film have compared to HDRI? |
A ton less. That's my point.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2007 06:54:52 PM · #25 |
Ah, maybe we're on the same page then. So you are saying it's even less likely the image could be pulled off because it's on slide film?
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 12:18:23 PM EDT.
