| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/05/2010 07:27:59 PM · #1 |
combine for amazing imagery here though it appears to me that while a tilt shift may have been used, some additional photoshop work was necessary to blur very selectively.
Message edited by author 2010-10-05 19:30:03. |
|
|
|
10/05/2010 07:34:29 PM · #2 |
| Wow!..and thanks, now I'm even more obsessed with those rediculously expensive lenses!! |
|
|
|
10/05/2010 07:34:35 PM · #3 |
| Probably just the tilt/shift. You can tilt the focus plane *way* off vertical with such a lens. Someday, I vow to pick one up, since I don't already have enough lenses :-P |
|
|
|
10/05/2010 07:40:51 PM · #4 |
| I disagree Fritz, I think it's either purely photoshop or both, but unlikely to be just a tilt-shift. Take photo #7. If we remember that the canvas is on a single plane, how does the camera know that the background is supposed to be blurred while the guy and his hat are not? |
|
|
|
10/05/2010 07:57:20 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I disagree Fritz, I think it's either purely photoshop or both, but unlikely to be just a tilt-shift. Take photo #7. If we remember that the canvas is on a single plane, how does the camera know that the background is supposed to be blurred while the guy and his hat are not? |
I agree. It sure looks like there's selective editing on some. If so why even bother with the tilt-shift lens at all since the entire effect can be done in photoshop.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2010 08:05:23 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I disagree Fritz, I think it's either purely photoshop or both, but unlikely to be just a tilt-shift. Take photo #7. If we remember that the canvas is on a single plane, how does the camera know that the background is supposed to be blurred while the guy and his hat are not? |
I agree. It sure looks like there's selective editing on some. If so why even bother with the tilt-shift lens at all since the entire effect can be done in photoshop. |
Yep, upon looking more closely, definitely not purely tilt/shift, which calls into question whether tilt/shift was used at all. Numbers 7, 12, 15 & 16 show it most clearly. |
|
|
|
10/05/2010 08:13:30 PM · #7 |
Yep--It seems at least plausible to me that "use of tilt-shift effect" somehow became "use of tilt shift lens" along the way.
I suppose it is possible that she used a tilt-shift lens initially, then noticed it didn't completely provide the effect she wanted, and added on more selective blur in photoshop then.
Either way, cool imagery. |
|
|
|
10/05/2010 11:02:41 PM · #8 |
Nobody seems to have mentioned yet that making Van Gogh paintings more "3-D" is pure idiocy.
I'm sure someone will get around to it.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2010 11:08:08 PM · #9 |
I'll do it:
********
Can anybody explain *why* producing 3-D versions of Van Gogh masterpieces is a desirable goal, and what, if anything, this has to do with "photography" as we know & cherish it?
Seriously, I went to the site and my instant reaction was a barf reflex. It's that disgusting...
R. |
|
|
|
10/05/2010 11:11:36 PM · #10 |
Hideous idiocy. Missing the point of Van Gogh. And of tilt shift.
Message edited by author 2010-10-05 23:12:01. |
|
|
|
10/05/2010 11:13:09 PM · #11 |
making van gogh 3-D is like...
...making Pollock less drippy
...making Dali logical
...making Monet focused ... oops, I may have hit a nerve on that one... |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 12:31:18 AM · #12 |
Yep, I agree it's a pretty stupid exercise.
(And I'm so looking forward to seeing the current Van Gogh exhibition in Tokyo...) |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 12:50:50 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Seriously, I went to the site and my instant reaction was a barf reflex. It's that disgusting... |
I'm amazed you still have that reflex after all these years. My first thought was with a little oversharpening those would score 7+ at DPC.
Message edited by author 2010-10-06 00:50:59.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2010 05:21:09 AM · #14 |
If you're going to deface classic art do it properly i say.
(for those who don't recognise the image it is from the exhibition 'The Rape Of Creativity' by Jake & Dinos Chapman in which they bought up a set of 19th Century Goya prints to improve) |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 06:13:15 AM · #15 |
| I have to say I found it to be a fairly stupid exercise as well. Taking shots of established classics and photoshopping them (or even shooting them with a specialty lens) and then passing it off as personal creativity, and having the balls to then share it beyond your Facebook friends: idiocy. |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 09:21:46 AM · #16 |
Not impressed.... I love Van Gogh... and these images are pure poo.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2010 11:51:46 AM · #17 |
Stupid exercise? Idiocy. Fairly stupid. Hideous idiocy.
Quite the art critics we have here.
I thought it was amusing but couldn't view them all, enough said.
Yanko, they would all be DNMC here at DPC. :) |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 12:02:08 PM · #18 |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 12:17:02 PM · #19 |
| Well, I'll be the sole heretic here and say I really like them because I learned something! I agree that it is not art to take someone else's work and and tinker with it, but I'm still learning to think "photographically" and see how images can be manipulated to create such differing results. |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 01:02:26 PM · #20 |
I thought #2 was great and an interesting look at how the perspective painted by the artist might look in a real 3-D environment.
If Van Gogh could have painted in 3-D, I bet he would have... |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 01:27:14 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Not impressed.... I love Van Gogh... and these images are pure poo. |
]
Fotomann - meet bandwagon.
To be honest guys, this was an idea by a student - someone probably a lot younger than a lot of us but with some good ideas - they had a good idea and run with it.. Nothing like stifling creativity eh? Personally I think they look rather good and its definitely an interesting approach - expect to see a lot of people ripping this idea off in future.
FWIW - I think number 12 is great!!
Message edited by author 2010-10-06 13:29:03. |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 01:37:17 PM · #22 |
Seriously - so here's something fun, an experiment. And yet, many holier-than-thou people seem very justified to sit in judgment. How about the Van Gogh refrigerator magnet, or the Van Gogh mouse pad, the Botticelli lipstick case, not to mention what all has been done with da Vinci. So please, save it for something worth getting in a huff about.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2010 01:38:55 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by keenon:
Seriously - so here's something fun, an experiment. And yet, many holier-than-thou people seem very justified to sit in judgment. How about the Van Gogh refrigerator magnet, or the Van Gogh mouse pad, the Botticelli lipstick case, not to mention what all has been done with da Vinci. So please, save it for something worth getting in a huff about. |
Agree, there are probably a few here getting all `hoity toity` who know nothing of Van Gogh other than "The Starry Night", "Sunflowers" and his work in the Sistine Chapel..
;)
Message edited by author 2010-10-06 13:39:24. |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 01:47:29 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Simms:
... and his work in the Sistine Chapel...
;) |
That would be done under his full name, Michael-An Van Gogh, right? ;-) |
|
|
|
10/06/2010 01:54:22 PM · #25 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/22/2025 07:33:29 PM EDT.
