"Lonely Nights"

Wow, this is the best photos I've seen at this website. Great work !!!

An excellent image. I would be interested in the techiques applied. I would level the horizon line.

I used to see this pier every day from my ferry, I never thought it could look so good! Still trapped in the film world, I'm wondering how much manipulation is involved and what do you think the film equivalent would have looked like?

 

Really gorgeous, Thanks.

Simply stunning!!

Someone mentioned Gotham City. That's right. It's a Gotham City in it's magnificent beauty.

I disagree with the person who prefered not to have lamps on the picture. I think that they are important since they lead your eye into the city.

In short: an excellent picture.

Does this mean you are an 'Associate of the Royal Photographic Society' ? If so you will have proved your ability as a talented photographer and we will have to take the image at face value, I don't think they fully approve of computer generated imagery, or do they?

Wonderful photo

+/+

Hey Marc, this is a great photo. I think it is not computer generated.

 

The rubber dark color of the wood is due to the fact that the image was taken after the rain and the wood is still wet. This is confirmed by some water on the bench and that the cross section of the top rod of the bench is lighter (the water was removed by capillary absorption of the wood).

 

The shadows on the rods of the bench when extrapolated (with a ruler) all point perfectly to the light source.

 

 

Love this smooth night scene...Great shooting here!!!

nice mood.

Karl, I read your comment, but these proofs you say are not a reason for the reality of this picture. There are many talented software programmers who include these CAPILLARY EFFECTS and WETNESS and also the sources of the light and the orientation of raylights. Very simple 3D softwares include many of these features.

 

However this is a great work, undoubtly!

Fantastic colors.

 

Simone

Regardless of how you did this, it is a superb image with multiple compositional and tonal qualities. And the discussion you evoked (provoked) is fascinating and fun...

If we have a genuine, in-camera digital photo, with minimal, standard "darkroom" type post-processing, that people refuse to believe is a straight photo because it's too perfect, then we have to question our biases toward film. I find this picture intriguing only for it's technical merit, which is substantial. Sort of like a camera test shot to see what a long exposure looks like with this sensor. Not much soul, IMO.

I'm baffled by all this debate about 3D software and computers.

 

As far as I can see, this is straight out of the Canon 10D, maybe with a little Photoshop blurring of the sky and some fiddling with colors.

 

It looks as if Marc adjusted his white balance for the lamps on the pier -- and picked up some nearby tunsten lighting which caused the red glow on the fence supports. The reflections on the pier and benches are caused by water. The rest IS the way the East River looks on a foggy night.

 

True, the Canon D60 and, apparently the 10D, use a noise cancelling alogrithm for time exposures that IS superb -- and because there's no reciprocity failure to speak of, Canon's proprietary CMOS chips provides time exposure images which are difficult to match with film or other digicams.

 

So, Marc, what's your take on all this?

 

-J.

One day, I heard two older women looking at some plant and express that its flowers are so perfect that they looks like plastic.

 

Is nature is at its best when is looks like an imitation of itself?

 

A photographer knows that he has achieved some milestone when people look at her/his real image and think that it is so perfect that it cannot be real. If I was Marc, I would be smiling by now.

 

As to the test shot above...Marc keep on testing!

Truly amazing shot Marc. The only variation I can see worth a try would be to have a tiny bit more space at the bottom so as to include the bench entirely, but I'm not sure since it offers a nice lead into the image as is.

Wonderful work.

Simply Damn Good.

Very good work. Wonderful photo.

I believe you that it is a genuine digital camera picture. I am astounded what good electronics in a camera can do. But it would really interest me to see what it looked like just without PS work done... Might help me to see what can / should be done with my pictures ;o)

Wow. Digital art or photography, either way, this is an amazing image. I agree with Kezia that the lamp closest to the viewer is a little distracting, but the photo is still very, very nice. It is so sharp and smooth that it looks computer generated, but if you did model and render this yourself it is some of the best work that I have seen - you should feel proud that you can produce something that photographers mistake for real. If it is a photograph, then your technical abilities are so good that you can produce a flawless image and fool us into thinking it's artificial. Either way, I am very impressed. Being a digital artist and an amateur digital photographer, I am inclined to cast my vote for this being a photo from the 10D with little or no post processing other than white balance and sharpening. Another researcher in our computer graphics group recently purchased a 10D, and it produces the smoothest photos I have ever seen.

The composition is very well done. Breathtakingly beautiful.

A very nice picture no matter if it was cgi or not.

 

GOOD WORK!