How did he do this?

[stephen_mcateer]

<p>Can anyone tell me how Jonathan Beer did this? (Exploded photograph of a steam iron) - <br /><a href="http://web.me.com/jonathanbeer/JBP/Images.html#8">http://web.me.com/jonathanbeer/JBP/Images.html#8</a> </p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>3D software.</p>

[craig_big]

It's certainly a computer composite. He could have individually photographed each part, after dissecting the product. On the other hand, you could creat such an image in about the same amount of time by 3D modeling each part. Neither method appeals to me. This diverges greatly from photography and imaging, and becomes more of a magic show.

 

If you were to photograph each part separately, you would import them all and tediously mask-select each part and place them on different layers in a single document. If you had a 3D software program, the process is nearly identical, except that you first have to create each part before importing it.

[stephen_mcateer]

<p>Patrick - it's not 3d modelling - he's a professional product photographer. Craig Big - I think you're right about separate layers.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>and why could he not use 3D modeling?</p>

<p>i know photog that are doing 3D modeling (or incorpoarte it in there images) and are photog.. heres one of them;</p>

<p>http://www.staubstudio.com/#/FR/PORTFOLIO/RECENTS/72/</p>

[wogears]

<p>Sigh. In the ancient days of filum (<em>sic</em>) we would have gotten a set of sub-assemblies from the manufacturer and wired them in place. ('Wire' could mean stiff steel rod.) Then we would have lit and shot it, and then the airbrush guys would have gotten rid of the rods/wires. Small parts, like the screws, might have been stripped in or printed from a separate plate.</p>

<p>Note: When I say 'we', I mean it in a rhetorical sense--I never shot ad images.</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>Looks to me to be drawn in a 3D CAD program...computer-aided design; AutoCAD, Solid Works, or some similar program. </p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>I agree with Patrick & Kerry: It also looks to me to like it was done in a 3d CAD program. I just had a student turn in a stunning assembly drawing (exploded view) of a device he was making. He used Autodesk Inventor. With proper rendering, the look is stunning. This fellow is not even an Mechanical Engineer and learned the software on his own. Unfortunately, I can't show his work here because of possible patenting. <br>

However, there are many examples on the web. Here is a nicely rendered part (albeit, not an exploded view):<br>

http://www.cgw.com/Press-Center/News/2009/Okino-Ships-Certified-Autodesk-Inventor-2010-CAD.aspx</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[johngodwin]

<p>I think it's quite easy to see that it's not a 3D model. It has none of the elements common in 3D renders. Extreme sharpness, pinpoint focus etc...</p>

<p>This is clearly an image composite.</p>

<p>Besides, the dudes a product photographer. The clues in his job description! Why would be have a 3D model as an example of his photography?</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>do i have to repost the link of the guy who also do product as a PHOTOGRAPHER and included CGI in is shot.. when all the shot except a plate with food, or 2 person only are add in a totaly created CGI shot?...</p>

<p>CGI is the new technique that object photographer need to learn to get new demanding clients...</p>

<p>why dont whe just email the guy and ask?</p>

<p>____</p>

<p>ti could be real photo also, im not saying that this is with no doubt a CGI.. but the affirmation that because he is a photographer dont mean much in today world ; )</p>

<p>I also just email him and waiting for answer.</p>

<p> </p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>update/ answer from the one who make the image... Jonathan Beer</p>

<p><strong><em>Patrick...</em></strong><br /><br /><strong><em>It's all real photography. I still have the iron in pieces in a box in the studio!</em></strong><br /><br /><strong><em>Jonathan</em></strong></p>

<p>i ask him another question..hope he will answer me ; ) i will give you the answer when / if i receive it.</p>

<p>See how easy it is to get the real answer when you ask the real guy who made it!</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>and the final answer (just receive it)</p>

<p><strong><em>I built it up as a whole with wire and blu-tak so I could compose and light it, then I started to shoot the pieces individually using the original composition as a guide. Then I put it together in post.</em></strong><br /><br /><strong><em>I'm glad you like it.</em></strong></p>

<p><strong><em>Jonathan</em></strong></p>

[craig_big]

I'm not surprised. Knowing that his expertise is in product photography, it makes sense that he would have photographed the parts. Another person with expertise in 3D modeling might have done this in a CAD program. I believe you could get similar results either way. The photograph doesn't particularly look "realistic". It looks like alot of 3D CAD exploded views that I've seen myself. Even as digital photography, this must have taken some considerable time and care to produce. I would also disagree with John Godwin that the distinction is easy to see. I have seen many 3D rendered objects that are just as realistic. I've also seen photography that's been made to look more plastic, like the models were actually toys instead of people. The end result is a product of the artist's imagination and intent, not just the methods used in the production.

[johngodwin]

<p>Dunno, looked clearly like a photograph to me. About 6 or 7 light sources shot through diffusion screens.</p>

<p> </p>

[stephen_mcateer]

<p>Patrick,</p>

<p>Thanks for emailing Jonathan and clearing this up.</p>

<p>Stephen.</p>