LPS 12: He didn't want to jump twice

LiquidAir

but I thought it was a good idea to get two takes.

Richard

clap Brilliant! All in all, I prefer the first, but it would be good if you could do something about the highlights in the hands. And I am damn curious about how you did this.

Cheers,

kp-pix

Wow!

schmoo

:jawdrop

I'm with Richard on this one. Please share, if you're willing!

eoren1

Very nicely done! I think I prefer the first (having just gone back and forth several times). Agree about working on the highlights in the hand just a bit.
E

Tentacion

Nice composite work, 3 or 4 photos in one (Sky, church, coin, man).


Number 1 is cool...but seems to much like a cut and paste (no offense) feel, .....someone that would be falling from that depth of a building would have some motion blur and his clothes would not be that sharp.


I like 2 better, it has more of a realistic feel as if he was really falling.

I also like the feel of how his hands and feet are positioned in 2.

Have you ever seen when someone is falling, what gravity does to the facial features "Motion blur" (In both shots hair is stable, etc.)

If I had to choose it would have to be 2, creative, more realism in it.

Trasmc

Fantastic! I prefer the first - both hands reaching gives me more of a feeling that he is willing to do anything to get the money. The second one, with one arm behind doesn't quite convey this as much. Also, with one arm behind him it appears that he is in more control (maybe I'm thinking too much "superhero flight" here).

Either way - great job!

Scott

HoofClix

Fantastic shots...

If one is trying to make that last ditch effort to reach for something, you put the one arm out and trail the 2nd one to get that extra inch.. allows the shoulders to twist.... So the 2nd one's more realistic to me.

Could use some sort of motion effect in the hair, such as the wind blowing the hair......

Title doesn't make sense to me either..

BistiArt

Chasin' the Almighty Dollar
Ken,

If one is a Christian, your image content shows one of the big conundrums. Let the church stand for virtue; then, pursuit of the almighty dollar is a sin.
I like the way you package the contrast.

I think the double hands in image one definitely add to the strength of the almost insane effort of to 'capture' that dollar...
However, I think the light on the hands detracts from the gold of the dollar. I also feel the gold shadow of the dollar's speed could be more strongly emphasized because the picture appears somewhat static.

What are you going to call it?

It's always a pleasure to watch your creative mind at work!

LiquidAir

Thanks all for your comments.

First, a quick making of...

Tentacion is right, it is a three image composite. The picture of my (very helpful and supporting) friend Doc was taken from a ladder looking down. I put a silver umbrella on a boom overhead and I had him jump and try to grab the flash as I took pictures. I also put a 30x40 softbox below to provide some sky light. The overhead flash was gelled CTO and the softbox was gelled 1/2 CTB.

Here is the original shot of Doc showing most of the elements. Normally it is foggy here in the morning and I planned to shoot this on my back patio which is a much cleaner environment. Of course the moring I had this shoot scheduled it was bright an sunny at 8 AM which sent me scrambling for shade. The background clutter probably added half a hour to my Photoshop work.



The shot of the coin was also flipped upside down. I hung a sheet of paper behind it which I colored with markers to get a red-yellow gradient (which sadly doens't show up very well).

The church is Grace Cathedral in San Francisco and I took the shots just as the fog was clearing in the morning. At that point, the other shots were all in the can, so I had to find a way to get a shot of the Cathedral in a way where the perspective works. I went there with a rough sketch of the major perspective lines and tried to position the camera to make it match.

As for all your other comments, I am reworking both shots now and hopefully will have something new to post soon. Thanks again everyone!

LiquidAir

As for titles, my working title is "All that Glitters." Conceptually I was thinking of the glittery reward of hell, but also the coin is actually foil wrapped chocolate... The other title I had in mind was "Reward" with the thought of dressing it up like one of those inspirational posters. I am open to other suggestions if anyone has one.

LiquidAir

Here is a reworked verion of one of the shots. I am still working on the other.

indiegirl

LiquidAir wrote:

Here is a reworked verion of one of the shots. I am still working on the other.

FanFREAKINGtastic!

SloYerRoll

FIrst off. Spectacular shot Ken. I'm amazed by your creativity and ability to make things happen w/ (relatively) not that much lighting.

At first I thought the image was too hot at the hands. That's growing on me though. It gives me a feeling that the real reason he's jumping is below the shot.

Take this w/ a grain of salt since I'm no where close to your skill set man..
I would have liked to have seen the soft box directed to the feet as well as the back to provide more 'sky' light from 'above'. Mabey you could have set up the soft box higher and pointing 90 degrees to the back of Doc? This would have given more of that omnidierctional feel that daylight gives. You kind of loose his legs and it confuses my eyes as to why they aren' exposed correctly if his back is.

Motion blur is a bit much. I mean the dude is flying off a building going for the gold (pun intended). I can tell he's moving already. Mabey a slower shutter speed w/ a rear strobe sync would have helped w/ a more natural look and you wouldn't have to do this work in post?

I don't know since I've never created a shot this freakin cool though...

-Jon

Strikeslip

Wow, this is an impressive piece of Photoshop work! It is a real standout, and I think it's great. Also a perfect fit for the challenge.

In my opinion, however, it is not a photograph, sorry to say, and please don't take offense. But that's just me. Maybe the Last Photographer Standing competition is meant to be more along the lines of a DevaintArt thing.

Good luck!

Strikeslip

SloYerRoll wrote:

....Motion blur is a bit much...

I agree about the motion blur. I prefer the previous 'freeze-action' look.

Trasmc

Thanks for the behind the scenes info! I think part of photography these days includes the post-processing involved.

Many moons ago if someone did something in a darkroom to dodge or burn part of an image, it was also post processing, and part of the artistic process of "making" as opposed to simply "taking" a photograph. I love the shot, and think it's perfect for this theme and this contest.

BTW - I also like the original with less motion blur - but it's still a great shot!

Scott

MrsCue

AMAZING works of ART!!!

Richard

SloYerRoll wrote:

Motion blur is a bit much. I mean the dude is flying off a building ...
-Jon

I agree with Jon on this one. I think the non-blurred image has more punch. Maybe just blur the coin? In any event, whatever you decide to do, this shot has winner written all over it. Great work.

Regards,

LiquidAir

SloYerRoll wrote:

FIrst off. Spectacular shot Ken. I'm amazed by your creativity and ability to make things happen w/ (relatively) not that much lighting.

Thanks!

SloYerRoll wrote:

At first I thought the image was too hot at the hands. That's growing on me though. It gives me a feeling that the real reason he's jumping is below the shot.

That is indeed what I was after. I wanted to give the shot a feeling of a warm glow from below...

SloYerRoll wrote:

Take this w/ a grain of salt since I'm no where close to your skill set man..
I would have liked to have seen the soft box directed to the feet as well as the back to provide more 'sky' light from 'above'. Mabey you could have set up the soft box higher and pointing 90 degrees to the back of Doc? This would have given more of that omnidierctional feel that daylight gives. You kind of loose his legs and it confuses my eyes as to why they aren' exposed correctly if his back is.

Well, I am gear limited. The 30x40 is my only softbox and I was running full power pops on my 580EX to get the f/11 I needed for DoF. If I had had a more powerful strobe, I would have pulled the softbox back a bit to get more even illumination. The real problem was I need to overexpose by almost 2 stops to bring out detail in the black clothing.

SloYerRoll wrote:

Motion blur is a bit much. I mean the dude is flying off a building going for the gold (pun intended). I can tell he's moving already. Mabey a slower shutter speed w/ a rear strobe sync would have helped w/ a more natural look and you wouldn't have to do this work in post?

Creating a realistic mask for blur is beyond my Photoshop abilities. I needed everything to be sharp for a good quality composite.

Tentacion

The motion blur enhances the "Movement" that he is falling down...

I love the blur and how strategically it is placed, it is not over exagerrated, the photo still has focus but it gave this shot much more realism, and not just the feel of a cut and paste with some blending...

but hey opinions are like @&()#@(&$ and we all have one...lol lol

LA...Nice Work...and good luck with whichever you decide..



I just noticed this...but I don't think that "Slo Yer Roll" should be commenting on these threads as he is a JUDGE..actually MOST of the judges as I understand it, stay away from the PHOTO's until it is TIME to JUDGE.....

LPS12, The judges list:
SloYerRoll: http://jbritt.smugmug.com/
swintonphoto: http://jswinton.smugmug.com/
b-grinner: http://cyberphotogs.smugmug.com/

HoofClix

I think we've gotten past this issue long ago. Haven't you noticed that pretty much all of the winning entries from recent LPS's as well as the most recent SF have been multiple image projects. I've certainly accepted it, and in fact have "joined them."

Strikeslip wrote:

In my opinion, however, it is not a photograph, sorry to say, and please don't take offense. But that's just me. Maybe the Last Photographer Standing competition is meant to be more along the lines of a DevaintArt thing.

Good luck!

SloYerRoll

LiquidAir wrote:

The real problem was I need to overexpose by almost 2 stops to bring out detail in the black clothing.

Didn't even think about that. Good mental note for me to remember. Clothes make a difference!

LiquidAir

Here's a version with the other corrections I made, but the motion blur layer turned off and the coin blur layer toned down quite a bit:



I am not at all sure whether it is better with or without the blur, but I think the sharp look is closer to my overall style of photography so I think it makes sense to stick with it here.

HoofClix

From one who does a lot of in-camera motion blur, what is off about this image is that one either get's one or the other when truly using slow shutter speeds:
1. When one pans to get the main subject frozen, the background is blurred. Even in this case there is a part of the subject that will be a bit blurred, like flapping feet, hands, or hair. OR
2. When one freezes the background at a slow speed, then the subject ought to be totally blurred.

So my brain keeps asking "which is it."

So to make this more believable, you need to blur the church and sky up to the point that we still know it's a church, and then a few body parts....

Strikeslip

HoofClix wrote:

I think we've gotten past this issue long ago. Haven't you noticed that pretty much all of the winning entries from recent LPS's as well as the most recent SF have been multiple image projects. I've certainly accepted it, and in fact have "joined them."

I have noticed a bit, but I guess I'm not so active here to have known there was an issue. Sorry if I've re-rocked on old boat, I didn't mean to. I can also do composites for wow-factor. I've got nothing against it.
Cheers.

saurora

Wow, I just saw this in the entry thread! If this one doesn't 'take the cake', I'll be surprised! Amazing entry, Ken. Your ingenuity never ceases to amaze me! Just love it!

Tentacion

Strikeslip wrote:

I have noticed a bit, but I guess I'm not so active here to have known there was an issue. Sorry if I've re-rocked on old boat, I didn't mean to. I can also do composites for wow-factor. I've got nothing against it.
Cheers.

You haven't re-rocked anything Strikeslip....I totally understand where your coming from, I often myself have questioned..."When Does Photography Stop Being Photography".....I came to this conclusion after mental battles...it was the only way to keep myself "sane" (if you want to call me sane...lol)

Back when everything was done in camera, and then post processing was done in the Darkroom...Ansel was one who would take quite a few exposures and then Post Process them together in the Darkroom to come up with a Fabulous Photo. Well now we are in a day and age that digital is the weapon and our darkroom is photoshop...I think to some extent it is a lot cheaper....and so as time changes, we as photographers have to change....I just don't like it..when SO much is done to a photo..that it no longer looks like a photo and more like abstract art or a painting, or aliens, etc...(but that is me) and that is what Deviantart is for...

Greensquared

I doubt that a single ad in any magazine is a "pure" photo, and in fact, the ones that are the most memorable are likely to be composites. I don't think the majority of viewers even take the time to ask whether they feel it is a photograph or not. They just know that it is a cool image that portrays a message in a clever way.

In my experience, in commercial photography it is the graphic designer and/or art director who comes up with the concept and asks the photographer to shoot something fairly specific that will meet their needs. The composite work is not typically performed by the photographer.

Film photography and a darkroom may not have had near the latitiude as Photoshop, but I have certainly been known to seemlessly burn detail into a photograph that never even existed.

Here, in LPS, we are given a theme...a message. We are asked to use our own full creativity to create an image that will portray that message. How we do it varies immensely. I don't necessarily see the best photographers getting through (techinically speaking), but their images obviously affected several judges. Some of these are "pure" photographs, some are not. You can argue about what makes the "best" photographer until you're blue in the face, but I know one thing: I've learned more in the past 5 months from being a part of this forum than in the many years that I've been photographing. I am immensely inspired like never before and that is why I love playing!

LiquidAir

Strikeslip wrote:

Wow, this is an impressive piece of Photoshop work! It is a real standout, and I think it's great. Also a perfect fit for the challenge.

In my opinion, however, it is not a photograph, sorry to say, and please don't take offense. But that's just me. Maybe the Last Photographer Standing competition is meant to be more along the lines of a DevaintArt thing.

Good luck!

Thanks.

I don't really have any personal stake in what you call the final image. Composite? Digital Image? It doesn't really matter.

That said, from a pure craft point of view what I find interesting and fun is trying to capture the elements in camera that will create a believeable composite. The exercise is trying to keep a vision for the composition, perspective and light of the whole image in mind while shooting each piece. By shooting to a consistant vision for what the final image should look like, I ended up with half a dozen or so acceptable images for each component to choose from and not much Photoshop work to do beyond white balancing and some rather nasty masking.

For me Photoshop is really just a necessary means to an end. I enjoy lighting and photography and I will happily spend hours shooting just for fun, but I have to be dragged kicking and screaming into Photoshop by an image I find compelling enough to make the time worthwhile. Lightroom has been a godsend for me in that way; letting me take care of most of the post I do with a minimum of fuss and bother.

LiquidAir

HoofClix wrote:

From one who does a lot of in-camera motion blur, what is off about this image is that one either get's one or the other when truly using slow shutter speeds:
1. When one pans to get the main subject frozen, the background is blurred. Even in this case there is a part of the subject that will be a bit blurred, like flapping feet, hands, or hair. OR
2. When one freezes the background at a slow speed, then the subject ought to be totally blurred.

So my brain keeps asking "which is it."

So to make this more believable, you need to blur the church and sky up to the point that we still know it's a church, and then a few body parts....

The exteme wide angle view of this shot makes faking motion blur particularly difficult. While the coin is about 16" from the lens and travelling across the field of view, his feet are about 8' from the lens and for all intents and purposes travelling directly toward the camera. Trying to shoot this (imagined) scene by panning the camera leaves you with the choice of either following his face or following his hands; neither really gives an acceptable result because both are important parts of the composition.

I was using a slow enough shutter speed when shooting Doc jumping that when I missed the top of the arc, I did capture some blur in the ambient light. Most of the blur, as you would expect, was in his hands and there was just enough blur in his face to be annoying without really communicating motion. When attempting to fake the look of motion blur in Photoshop, I didn't feel that making it look realistic was an option because, honestly, real world blur just doesn't look very good on this shot because the elements which get the most blur happen to be the center of interest.

In the end, if I had actually been shooting a picture of someone jumping off a building I think using a fast enough shutter speed to stop the motion would give the best image.