http://500px.com/photo/3335162
assuming that’s a real forest, is / can the lighting effects in this picture be photoshopped?
I’d say it’s probably an example of light painting. Certainly it would be straightforward to do it that way.
You mean, might there actually be no light source there at all? It’s possible, I suppose, but it would take a heck of a lot of work. It’d be easier to just have a real lantern hanging at that location, photograph it, and then draw in that big glowy square thing over the real lantern. Or maybe to have a real big glowy square thing there, but I’m not sure what that would be.
A square of diffusion material hung in front of the tree with a strong light source (such as a common cine/photo light) behind it.
yeah i’m not familiar with photoshop and i was assuming that a lightsource macro might achieve the lighting effects on the background(?) but not the foreground? or is there no such thing?
just wondering.
I’m sure an experienced Photoshop artist could create a similar effect, but it doesn’t look like this is anything other than an actual photograph to me.
In theory it could be a lightpad They can be made any size and easily rigged to a tree with some strong fishing line. There is a trig at the bottom of the light that could be a cord.
I believe it is real, because if it were photoshopped, why would the vertical lines above and below the square have been added?
Photoshopped or not, this guy is one hell of photographer. The portfolio off to the side is full of brilliant shots (IMNSHO).
With a real light source there, the side of a solid object facing the source would be lit, while the far side of the object would remain shadowed. And in between, you’d transition from light to shadow according to the exact angles of every surface. The thing is, though, it’s really tough for a computer to be able to tell, from a photograph, where one object ends and the next one begins, or what angle a surface is at. You’d have to have a human going through and indicating that, for every single leaf of the underbrush, and he’d have to do a really good job of it, or it would look subtly “wrong” to the viewer. Is it possible? Sure, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some artist, somewhere, who specializes in that. But like I said, it’d be a lot easier to just have a real light source.
While it is theoretically possible that the image could have been photoshopped, I’m having some trouble understanding why it would be considered anything other than what it depicts: a soft-light-box set up in a forest.
In addition to that, given the ease of setting up and making such a photograph, it is hard to understand why anyone would bother to take all the time to photoshop such an image unless it was part of some sort of Photoshop challenge for the too-much-time-on-their-hands.
I agree, click on his name and you can see his whole set. Really nice work.
I Love Me, Vol. I - i don’t know, i was just wondering if a computer could do the effect. like Chronos said, i guess it’s not possible short of digital painting.
If anything, there was some retouching involved in Photoshop, but yeh, looks like most of the effect was achieved through photography to me. Especially considering the rest of his work. Really nice stuff.
Yeah, some very good stuff in there. The OP photograph didn’t do anything for me (and, I agree, it’s just a photograph of a lightbox in a forest), but his portraiture and some of his other more abstract work is quite solid.
I’m interested in how this one was done:
http://500px.com/photo/3238019
Assuming no Photoshop, is the girl jumping with her legs tucked under her dress? Seems like it would be hard to get in that position quickly. Also her hair would fly a little. The guy is clearly not supporting any weight. Theories?
Why assume no Photoshop? Not an expert, but wouldn’t it be trivially easy to use a tripod to take two back-to-back images (so sunlight is the same), one with the girl and one without. All that would need to be layered in is the small section of sidewalk–and its already diffuse light/shadow borders make that a bit easier.
If no Photoshop, don’t Irish dancers (Riverdance?) excel in steady upper body jumping? If the shot is on her way up, the hair wouldn’t be displaced. Can’t say how the rear of the skirt is unruffled sans Photoshop.
She could have no legs and the dude’s light grip is indicative of him being just about to drop her.
I assumed no Photoshop because, looking at the photographer’s other work, he seems to be creating pure photographic images with no trickery. Maybe he’s just very skilled at hiding the computer-generated manipulation.
Yeah… I kinda assume no Photoshop also. It just doesn’t seem to be this guy’s bag to do this shot in such a pedestrian way. I think he might have used an apparatus somewhat similar to what a magician uses to make a person float in the air.
Maybe a strong metal pole running up vertically behind the dude’s leg and then bending horizontally at about the guy’s belt level to form a perch that the woman is kneeling on. To me, this method would accentuate the cleverness of the photo because the light and shadows on the pavement suggest that such an apparatus would leave a shadow. But if you look at the way the shadows fall, such a device wouldn’t–if the photographer was careful and set things up just right.
Very clever.
It could also be old-fashioned darkroom editing, not necessarily a computer edit. Or the “girl” could be a lightweight cardboard cutout, like in the infamous Cottingly fairy hoax.