jpbarilguerard Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 <a href="http://www.deviantart.com/view/10972521/">In Utero</a> The light source seems perfectly positioned behind the subject, yetperfectly invisible. A well-placed, wall-mounted flash, maybe? But the most confusing aspect is the subject. Assuming this was takenfrom a normal point of view, with the photgrapher facing the subject,the guy would have to jump. Do you think this is humanly possible? I'm amazed. And curious. Don't forget to check the rest of the guy's gallery, he is anincredible photographer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbarilguerard Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 After looking at at more closely, it's obviously more above than behind. Heh. Still, I can't make out exactly what is where. I'm thinking above and on the left and right... but I'm not quite sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_luinenburg Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 It looks like it was most likely put together in Photoshop, with the subject and background shot separately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_mobbs Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Try rotating the image 60 degrees clockwise. Then it appears there is a single light above and to the right of the sitting character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Well, my stab is that the model is sitting and then rotated counter clockwise a few degrees. Look at his feet and bum, they look like they are weight bearing. So, with an easy extract in photoshop, I'd just dump that layer onto this background, which looks like a strobe behind a red backdrop...How'd I do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipling Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 You might be right eric but my guess would be the guy is actually curled up and lying on his side. Main light top right, reflector or fillon the left, background definitely photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dai_hunter Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Here is a different view of doing this - everything may not be as it seems... from the perspective of looking at the finished image your mind's eye does not mesh with the reality. How to do it: Model curled up on a transparent platform (glass or plexi-glass). Platform covered in (probably) a fabric of the apparent colour and lit from BELOW. Fill light from above as would be expected. Camera position above and shot directly downward into the sandwich of model / "background" / and backlight. The viewer's perspective changes from that of the photographer's when the image is viewed in a vertical - up and down orientation - on the computer screen or even on a wall. You can see it from the photographer's perspective if you place a print on the floor and gaze directly down at it... Obviously not how you would normally view a photograph. Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 sorry, but he is definatley weight bearing on his feet and bum. I figure he's curled up on the floor. draw a staright line from his feet to his bum. the glow around his arse even looks photoshopped in afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_stadler Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 My guess on this is that he shot the model in front of the red background, then shot the background and combined them in photoshop. The artifacts around the knee, butt and lower back looks wrong, like a sloppy cut out. It also looks like he added the edge burn at the top after to blend the difference in tone between the plane background shot and the background showing through the hair of the model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silent1 Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 The old fashioned way to *really* do this one correctly would be: Model lying on his side on heavy duty plexiglas, cleaner than clean (final cleaning after the model is in position). Red background sheet under plexiglass, with the light spot cast by an out-of-frame spot, just like a backdrop light in conventional portraiture. Camera directly above model, otherwise conventional lighting with careful attention to avoid reflections in the plastic (camera shooting through hole in black velvet curtain, perhaps, to avoid reflections of equipment other than lights). These days, it was probably done with careful selection and layers in Photoshop, as suggested above... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dai_hunter Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Donald Qualls , oct 29, 2004; 12:06 p.m. said: The old fashioned way to *really* do this one correctly would be:... More or less the way I suggested... but then again I am an old fashioned kind of guy. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn_hooper Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 I guess I'm old fashioned (maybe "old school" is better?????? LOL) as well. I would have done the plexi / lying on his side deal as well..... 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