florian_stadler Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Photos posted at: http://photos.yahoo.com/florianstadler03 What kind of opticals would you guess that Luchford used for the YSL campaign with Christy Turlington? Looks like some kind of Dome with a clear center? Is there an ancient photographic technique that his is derived from? Comments and ideas on achieving something like this (beautiful center with fisheye like out of focus at the edges) would be highly appreciated Regards Florian Stadler<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demetri_p. Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Wouldn't be a fisheye; the DOF seems too shallow. Maybe one of those cheesy fisheye converters in front of a normal lens at wide aperture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 it's a lens that's image circle is smaller than the film. Like using a medium format lens on a 4x5 or 8x10 camera, or a 35mm lens on a 6x9cm.... t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_woodard Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Looks to me as if background is exclusive of Christy (no Breasts) Turlington, with a heapin helpin of Photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Looks like the background is a separate image. But the magenta bleeds onto the skin well. Maybe photo�d against a mural? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_carlton Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 I think Eric�s right... seems like a projection of an image on a round surface... the rest is PS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_carlton Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 I mean the "vignetting" has been done in PS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igord Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Why the hell did you remove Glen's comment?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Glen's comment was on a <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0088W2">different thread.</a> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igord Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Yeah, I am too old to be here... Memory fails... ;-)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 a couple of beer after diner Igor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denis p Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 hmm im not really sure this topic/thread is right 'what technique could this be?' What you dudes are trying to get it from? Glen was using his vision and has just shot it and choosed this pic just being him. It could be just anything, it could be even an unexpectly good shot, or just an accidental shot which appeared to be breath-taking once seen on the contact sheet. And even if you would know what technique has been used there, you will attempt to remake it all over? I dont want to sound offensive, but my point of view about the techniques used in fashion photography is very secondary, i just don't care about which technique it is. Personally, i just shoot being me and any light equipment and 'technique' i use are just an extension and a part of me while im shooting. This just makes your stuff different, unique and proper to YOUR own style as any fashion phtogorapher out there. So, just dont think of 'how was made someone's else stuff' and just shoot yours by your own, starting from scratch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 The point is to understand what Glen did, even if by accident, in order to expand one's visual vocabulary. When the occasion requires it, one can then use this trick, or embellish upon it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navarro Posted December 14, 2008 Share Posted December 14, 2008 <p>It's not fisheye...yes, the DOF field is very shallow. But more obviously, do you see fish-eye distortion?? No, none at all...<br /> <br /> He shot through a round hole in something.<br /> <br /> The hole is quite near the lens, and because of the very shallow depth of field, the very edges of the hole act as an "aperture" and focus the light tighter at the edges of the hole.<br /> <br /> It's the same principle by which an aperture mask in the shape of say, a star, will make out-of-focus highlights be star-shaped...but in that case, the mask is so close to the lens, you don't see it in the picture.<br /> <br /> In Glen's shot, the mask is not close enough to the lens to keep from being seen in the picture, and that's why the "aperture mask" effect is only seen at the edges of the hole.<br> <br /> To match his exact effect, you'd need to do some experimenting...but I'd expect it would be difficult to take advantage of the optical phenomenon using smaller than medium format.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_luchford2 Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 <p>Florian<br> It was a fluke. I was shooting this with film lights, on a set made of trees and roses and it looked a bit dead. My assistant put a snoot from the front of a tungsten light next to me and i picked it up and held it in front of the camera. It gave me the affect you see, there is no post work done on this except a few lines from the face were removed. I still cant work out why the background started to distort but the model stayed normal. An anomoly you might say.<br> Glen Luchford. Dec 09.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now