How was this trick done? - DPChallenge Forums

02/11/2012 10:19:47 PM · #1

I just followed a link by

apercep from this forum thread.
One photo really piqued my curiosity:

How was this done?

There are a number of upside-down elements (such as cars, person, wall, signs, bush, trash can/bin etc).

I am trying to work out if:

A) the upside down road was for the most part a coherent scene. It was taken out, flipped, reversed, whatever, then plonked back in the photo. The edges were cleaned up to blend in etc. It is possible, since the (very limited) shadows seemed to be from a diffused sun directly above, so the direction of light/shadow wouldn't mess us around very much.

or

B) the intersection (at least the road surface) is exactly the way it really was, and only the upside down elements were placed on top of it.

or

C) this was done via some totally different way that I'm not bright enough to figure out by myself.

Any thoughts?

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/11/2012 10:28:50 PM · #2

It's two images, one flipped 180 degrees, aligned and blended together.

MelonMusketeer

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 50mm f/1.4

02/11/2012 11:26:28 PM · #3

1, It's always overcast in England, so no shadows.
2, This just proves that they drive on the wrong side of the road there.
It's a real everyday scene. : )

I see that the front wheel of one of the cars got sort of lost on the blend line.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/11/2012 11:33:33 PM · #4

Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:

But those cars ARE driving in the right-hand lanes... So it isn't England or any of those blighty places...

R.

02/12/2012 03:44:53 PM · #5

Bump.

Still hoping for some more ideas and details.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

02/12/2012 04:10:34 PM · #6

it looks he took an image of an intersection cut it quarters and then flipped and mirrored the pieces and put it back together.

02/12/2012 04:15:44 PM · #7

This is a trick that Escher used a lot in his paintings. Surely this is not a matter of flipping. The road is ok, he didn't touch it. He turned the cars and the road sign upside down IMHO. Very easy to say that, much less to do it I guess :)

The guy is extremely good, I took a look at his website, great stuff!

02/12/2012 04:17:34 PM · #8

Originally posted by mike_311:

it looks he took an image of an intersection cut it quarters and then flipped and mirrored the pieces and put it back together.

So you think it was done as a scene (just cut into quarters), rather than split into road and the stuff on it, right?

If that's the case, I can't wrap my head around the upside down wall (top right quarter).

02/12/2012 04:27:36 PM · #9

It's two parts of the same wall, one image upside down, they've just been aligned and blended so it looks like the wall makes a right angle.

02/12/2012 04:42:24 PM · #10

Originally posted by HawkinsT:

It's two parts of the same wall, one image upside down, they've just been aligned and blended so it looks like the wall makes a right angle.

Take a closer look - it is quite different :)

02/12/2012 04:45:32 PM · #11

Originally posted by HawkinsT:

It's two parts of the same wall, one image upside down, they've just been aligned and blended so it looks like the wall makes a right angle.

Ugh..... this is making my head hurt LOL
If you took the whole thing and flipped it, then the road would be above and the park below.
So he extracted the wall, flipped it and put it back in?

So it isn't a coherent flip..... each upside down element was flipped and re-installed separately. However, the road/intersection is still the original orientation. Is that right?

02/12/2012 05:01:46 PM · #12

Originally posted by Alexkc:

Originally posted by HawkinsT:
It's two parts of the same wall, one image upside down, they've just been aligned and blended so it looks like the wall makes a right angle.

Take a closer look - it is quite different :)

Nope, I can't see the problem here. In photoshop put the two images on different layers, flip one 180 degrees and align it with the other image (btw the two images were most likely taken from opposite sides of the road in order for the scene to line up as it does). Now on the top layer (with 100% opacity) erase roughly the top right and bottom left corners. Now blend the joins between the 4 corners to make the image appear seamless.

02/12/2012 05:02:13 PM · #13

If take a look at the road you can see that it is not flipped :)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/12/2012 05:09:21 PM · #14

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by HawkinsT:
It's two parts of the same wall, one image upside down, they've just been aligned and blended so it looks like the wall makes a right angle.

Ugh..... this is making my head hurt LOL
If you took the whole thing and flipped it, then the road would be above and the park below.
So he extracted the wall, flipped it and put it back in?

So it isn't a coherent flip..... each upside down element was flipped and re-installed separately. However, the road/intersection is still the original orientation. Is that right?

Maybe this will help, I did a rough outline of where the two images are blended.

Giles

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/12/2012 05:12:11 PM · #15

the metal trellis tower above the c or screen appears just over to the left as well

02/12/2012 05:16:50 PM · #16

Toby, you might be onto something!

I just took the whole entire photo and turned 180 degrees.
Now I can see the two quarters (bottom left and top right) that were shot from the opposite corner, i.e. from inside of the park.

It would be hard to even find a workable intersection, let alone figure out the rest.

My head may still explode any minute now LOL

02/12/2012 05:20:06 PM · #17

Happy to help. At the risk of exploding your head now: It's not an intersection =). It's a road with a wall running along one side and a river along the other... the photographer took one shot, then crossed the road and took another shot from the other side - thus the scenery can still be made to line up but you get the cross road when one of the images is flipped.

02/12/2012 05:20:48 PM · #18

Originally posted by HawkinsT:

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by HawkinsT:
It's two parts of the same wall, one image upside down, they've just been aligned and blended so it looks like the wall makes a right angle.

Ugh..... this is making my head hurt LOL
If you took the whole thing and flipped it, then the road would be above and the park below.
So he extracted the wall, flipped it and put it back in?

So it isn't a coherent flip..... each upside down element was flipped and re-installed separately. However, the road/intersection is still the original orientation. Is that right?

Maybe this will help, I did a rough outline of where the two images are blended.

Ok, now I know what you mean, I didn't understand - you're such a smart guy! :)

02/12/2012 05:29:56 PM · #19

Originally posted by Alexkc:

Ok, now I know what you mean, I didn't understand - you're such a smart guy! :)

I guess having owned a rubik's cube has finally paid off ;).

02/12/2012 05:30:07 PM · #20

Despite the dizzy spells, I'm trying very hard to digest that last piece of information you provided.
I can almost visualize one side with the wall and the other side with the river.
Now I'm having problems with the traffic signals.

If it is a straight road, then why are there traffic lights AFTER the pedestrian crossing?

Why is there only ONE pedestrian crossing? Shouldn't there be two because he saw it from both sides of the road? Or perhaps he just chose to disappear one to make it more believable.

Were there ANY traffic signals or did he put them there in Photoshop? Were there really stop lines on the road?

Boy, I wish I could see the original photo!