| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/17/2006 10:31:00 AM · #1 |
This imag was 15,000 layers, 1.7 gigs, image is 40X120 inches. and more check it out
//www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/9293/15_000_Layer_Photoshop_File
|
|
|
|
04/17/2006 10:34:33 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
04/17/2006 10:36:32 AM · #3 |
thats intense; i don't have anywhere near that kind of patience
Message edited by author 2006-04-17 10:36:44. |
|
|
|
04/17/2006 10:37:49 AM · #4 |
Not only that, but it is all painted by hand. No photos here, all done with photoshop techniques and brushes!
|
|
|
|
04/17/2006 10:48:31 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by kiwiness:
Not only that, but it is all painted by hand. No photos here, all done with photoshop techniques and brushes! |
that is seriously insane
|
|
|
|
04/17/2006 11:09:34 AM · #6 |
I think it would be easier to fly to chicago with a wide angle lens and just take the shot in camera?
Hopefully he is getting paid to spend all the time |
|
|
|
04/17/2006 11:16:48 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
I think it would be easier to fly to chicago with a wide angle lens and just take the shot in camera?
|
Well, I don't think that is the point ;)
Thanks for posting this link. I have seen his work in the NAPP magazine. Cool stuff!
Liza |
|
|
|
04/17/2006 11:35:48 AM · #8 |
Here's the previous discussion on this image
Some people paint, others take photos. Who's to say who is 'right'? |
|
|
|
04/17/2006 12:01:25 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by kiwiness:
Not only that, but it is all painted by hand. No photos here, all done with photoshop techniques and brushes! |
No it's not, exactly -- the description says many elements were created using Illustrator, which involves using Bezier curves to draw shapes, to which a variety of "fills" and "strokes" may be applied. All those perfectly straight lines, smooth arcs, and even gradients were probably not rendered by dragging a Photoshop brush. |
|
|
|
04/17/2006 12:26:50 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kiwiness:
Not only that, but it is all painted by hand. No photos here, all done with photoshop techniques and brushes! |
No it's not, exactly -- the description says many elements were created using Illustrator, which involves using Bezier curves to draw shapes, to which a variety of "fills" and "strokes" may be applied. All those perfectly straight lines, smooth arcs, and even gradients were probably not rendered by dragging a Photoshop brush. |
Pretty much most of those curve drawing tools are also in photoshop these days anyway. What he did show as being done in Illustrator was the 'graphic' elements like signs on bins and the like.
Perfectly straight lines, smooth arcs and even gradients are trivial in photoshop as well (press shift when using a brush for example, for straight lines) Or click one end, shift click the other end with a brush for perfectly straight angled lines too. |
|
|
|
04/17/2006 12:42:56 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kiwiness:
Not only that, but it is all painted by hand. No photos here, all done with photoshop techniques and brushes! |
No it's not, exactly -- the description says many elements were created using Illustrator, which involves using Bezier curves to draw shapes, to which a variety of "fills" and "strokes" may be applied. All those perfectly straight lines, smooth arcs, and even gradients were probably not rendered by dragging a Photoshop brush. |
Pretty much most of those curve drawing tools are also in photoshop these days anyway. What he did show as being done in Illustrator was the 'graphic' elements like signs on bins and the like.
Perfectly straight lines, smooth arcs and even gradients are trivial in photoshop as well (press shift when using a brush for example, for straight lines) Or click one end, shift click the other end with a brush for perfectly straight angled lines too. |
What he said, exactly: Adobe Illustrator was used for generating the majority of the basic shapes as well as all the buildings in the Chicago skyline. The rest was created in Photoshop.
I take this to mean that he created the drawing in illustrator (makes perfect sense, since if he's using illustrator at all it's a better drawing tool than PS) then did the detail work, the fills and textures and such, in Photoshop. That's what Photoshop shines at, just like Illusratir shines at the actual drawing.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2006 12:45:32 PM · #12 |
| Well, actually, I wondered in the other thread why he used Illustrator instead of Photoshop's paths ... I guess my only point was that not everything is "hand-painted" in the sense of using a brush freehand ... |
|
|
|
04/17/2006 03:23:35 PM · #13 |
Man, and I am pretty excited to be able to sharpen my pictures a bit in PS.
This may be just a TAD out of my league as far as use of PS! |
|
|
|
04/17/2006 03:32:51 PM · #14 |
Wait a minute... NO photographs were used in this picture? Seriously?
I originally thought that the foreground was super nice, yet the background looks too fake as if it needs to be blurred a bit. If absolutely no photographs were used in this picture, then I have to seriously reconsider my opinion. |
|
|
|
04/17/2006 03:37:39 PM · #15 |
This seems like a monumental waste of time to me. I mean, sure its talented, its brilliant blah blah blah, but the images themselves are of boring things. Why don't they try to recreate the Mona Lisa, or the World Trade Center, or something interesting?
|
|
|
|
04/17/2006 03:41:55 PM · #16 |
| Wow, it looks cool to me. Awesome, if only I could see it printed at full size. |
|
|
|
04/17/2006 03:50:19 PM · #17 |
An awesome piece of work. But I have to say it's a little lifeless to me. I would of loved to see a bird or two, One or some people standing to bring the painting to life.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2006 04:02:02 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kiwiness:
Not only that, but it is all painted by hand. No photos here, all done with photoshop techniques and brushes! |
No it's not, exactly -- the description says many elements were created using Illustrator, which involves using Bezier curves to draw shapes, to which a variety of "fills" and "strokes" may be applied. All those perfectly straight lines, smooth arcs, and even gradients were probably not rendered by dragging a Photoshop brush. |
It is true he also uses Adobe Illustrator to complement his Photoshop work. I bought his book "Photoshop Studio" about 3 years ago where he does mention this on pages 9 and 10. The guy us amazing in his work, and I would also recommend this book to anyone who uses Photoshop, not only for the kind of work he does, but also to learn more about the deeper possibilities of working with Photoshop.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2006 02:51:04 AM · #19 |
| I bet the poor guy is as white as a sheet, spending that much time infront of a large flatscreen...I'd rather be outside with my camera. |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 05:38:34 PM · #20 |
| What I wanna know is, what hardware was he using. This is not even possible on a normal PC most people use here. |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 07:02:51 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by ignite:
What I wanna know is, what hardware was he using. This is not even possible on a normal PC most people use here. |
It's only basically 108 megapixels...there are digital cameras that are 22 mp or 39 mp for some hasselblad...I'm sure today's computers can handle the file no problem at all.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2006 08:18:11 PM · #22 |
He has entirely too much spare time.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2006 09:29:30 AM · #23 |
Wow, thats crazy. Can you get paid for stuff like that? I sure hope so. 2000 hours is allot of time to donate.
Travis
|
|
|
|
07/16/2006 09:43:59 AM · #24 |
There is a guy here (sorry, I forgot who) who made a massiiiiiiivvvveeee photoshop document that is 3 feet by 4 feet at 300 DPI by stitching quite a number of shots together in pano style... 3 rows of them... I don't recall the number of pixels, but I believe that it was easily in the range of 100+ megapixels...
I don't think he had anything special for a computer...
4 GB of RAM and a Dual Processor Mac would probably have little trouble with that... 100 megapixels isn't really that much.
EDIT: It seems that the forums regarding panos have revealed a number of guys interested in multi-row pano work... Some guys stick with 10-20 images in 2-3 rows, but Amason has 50 images in 3 rows...
Biggest I saw so far was Olihar who has a 3 row 90 image stitch that is 4-5 meters wide at 300DPI.
I still think that a current dual core should be able to deal with these images OK... Of course, a bit of a wait is pretty much going to be par for the course...
Message edited by author 2006-07-16 10:02:31. |
|
|
|
07/16/2006 09:55:34 AM · #25 |
I was at a seminar that he did a year ago. At that time he was talking about an image he did or was doing and the computing power it required. He said he used the mose powerful mac you could buy and when he rendered the full image, you could go to the store and buy coffee for the time it took. He worked on the image in pieces for that reason. He also talked about what he was paid for it - addressing another persons comment. I don't remember exactly, but what little memory I have left tells me is was in the six-figures.
During the seminar he showed us how to create images like he did here
click
Pretty amazing stuff!
BTW, among other things, he is a consultant to Pixar Studios. I'm guessing he does alright financially.
Message edited by author 2006-07-16 10:09:07. |
|
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: 04/17/2024 09:55:45 PM EDT.
