I'm feeling pretty good how this turned out, so I thought I'd share this here.
This is a fictional lake by Mt. Bachelor in Washington State. I have included the original base image for reference. The sky, trees and lake edge came from other photographs. The color and lighting on the mountain was all created with layer adjustments. The reflection in the lake was fabricated. You can't see it on this post, but there is some blurring and distortion to mimic a near perfect reflection in water. Aside from getting the color to look decent on the mountain, the rendered fog was actually a hard part to figure out.
I just wondered if I could create something photorealistic from multiple images and major adjustments. Let me know what you think and if I pulled it off.
BTW, this was a great excercise to get familiar with CS3. I used, or at least tried, a good number of the features in the making of this image.
Nicely done. It does look pretty realistic at first glance, though it did look just a bit odd to me. I think I know why. The reflections of the trees in the middle appear to be sloping upwards from left to right whereas the reflection of the mountain behind it is perfectly level. But I don't think many people would notice and I certainly couldn't do half this well.
Scary. There is a whole amazing series of posts a couple days ago on dpreview in which someone accused M. Adamus of doctoring one of his reflection shots, with Adamis jumping in to defend himself! It really makes you wonder where it's all gonna end up...
Steve, great job! I think what some folks might not appreciate is that this takes a lot of effort and I feel is far more creative then simply taking a photo. This type of work actually moves into being artistic (i.e. creating something that never existed, except in the imagination); but unless you are a documentarian I don't have any problem with this kind of imagery.
Stan, do you have a link to the discussion regarding Marc's image? The website doesn't allow you to search messages unless you are a member and I don't feel like joining another thing right now - even if it was free.
Josh - good point. The purpose of posting this to the PNWNP forum would be to be funny. I don't want to pick at a scab, particularly with someone as dedicated to his craft as Marc is.
Grant, I deliberately adjusted the locations of the reflected trees as trees that are closer would have a different reflection point. To make this completely believable, I would have to do this in 3 or 4 levels rather than just 2, but it was taking some time as it was.
This was fun to do, but for the reasons Stan noted above, I won't be doing too many of these as I think it would begin to bring some of my photography into question. That's something I definitely don't want to happen. Truth be told, I wish I could paint like Stephen Lyman, who was hyper-realistic, but I don't have the time, inclination or ability to paint like him. This is my digital version of 'painting'.
I have strong feelings about this subject since ive been a painter 10X longer than a photographer. I believe there is a distinction between photography (presented as such, as opposed to 'digital art') and other mediums since all photographs are documentary, whether you like it or not. I know the camera "doesn't see what the eye sees" but that's really irrelevant. I'd better quit now
Stan, thanks for sending me the links. I'm glad I don't bother with that forum. This is the only forum I've participated in and the difference in how people treat each other is both impressive and disturbing (good for the NPN, bad for them). I'm not even Marc, but I was offended by it all. The people here, at least as I perceive them, are really great. Clearly the people who accused Marc of manipulation don't have an understanding of the photographic process, and more importantly, don't appear to have a good connection with nature. I'm referencing their analysis of the reflection, which was way off basis for those who claimed Marc's photograph was faked. I know this in particular because I had to think about how reflections would work when I composed the image above.
While I enjoyed seeing how far I could work with Photoshop (I barely even knew how to make small adjustments in PS Elements just a year ago), I was most pleased with the exercise I had with this image because it requires an understanding of nature, lighting and how things looks naturally. I feel that I pulled that off pretty well, particularly for the first (and likely last) time of doing it. I know others have a much better understanding of nature, know her nuisances better than me, and are much better with PS than I am, but I was happy with what this step represented to me. I know no one is accusing me of anything with this image, I'm just expressing my thoughts on the creation of this image.
Stan, I think we are actually on the same page with regard to the status of digital art and other art mediums. My dad is a landscape painter in his spare time, and sells his work fairly well. I don't make any claim that what I did was a painting - it was a simple creative exercise of what was in my mind and a way of expression that was available to me. I don't have any paints, brushes, canvases, easels, and more importantly, talent to create the image above. What painters do is fantastic art and its something I'll probably never do. My dad creates true art, the image above is a simplistic version of 'photo art' that is modified from real images. I totally agree that those are different, and that photo art is also different than landscape photography.
Thanks for the thoughts and comments. Good food for thought!
Discussion
14 repliesThis is a fictional lake by Mt. Bachelor in Washington State. I have included the original base image for reference. The sky, trees and lake edge came from other photographs. The color and lighting on the mountain was all created with layer adjustments. The reflection in the lake was fabricated. You can't see it on this post, but there is some blurring and distortion to mimic a near perfect reflection in water. Aside from getting the color to look decent on the mountain, the rendered fog was actually a hard part to figure out.
I just wondered if I could create something photorealistic from multiple images and major adjustments. Let me know what you think and if I pulled it off.
BTW, this was a great excercise to get familiar with CS3. I used, or at least tried, a good number of the features in the making of this image.
I'd say you did a pretty damn good job, especially considering what you started with. But where's the full moon??
And the unicorn? And Elvis? The Jesus-shaped cloud in the sky?
Keep up the good work,
Craig
Josh - good point. The purpose of posting this to the PNWNP forum would be to be funny. I don't want to pick at a scab, particularly with someone as dedicated to his craft as Marc is.
Grant, I deliberately adjusted the locations of the reflected trees as trees that are closer would have a different reflection point. To make this completely believable, I would have to do this in 3 or 4 levels rather than just 2, but it was taking some time as it was.
This was fun to do, but for the reasons Stan noted above, I won't be doing too many of these as I think it would begin to bring some of my photography into question. That's something I definitely don't want to happen. Truth be told, I wish I could paint like Stephen Lyman, who was hyper-realistic, but I don't have the time, inclination or ability to paint like him. This is my digital version of 'painting'.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23824011
I have strong feelings about this subject since ive been a painter 10X longer than a photographer. I believe there is a distinction between photography (presented as such, as opposed to 'digital art') and other mediums since all photographs are documentary, whether you like it or not. I know the camera "doesn't see what the eye sees" but that's really irrelevant. I'd better quit now
While I enjoyed seeing how far I could work with Photoshop (I barely even knew how to make small adjustments in PS Elements just a year ago), I was most pleased with the exercise I had with this image because it requires an understanding of nature, lighting and how things looks naturally. I feel that I pulled that off pretty well, particularly for the first (and likely last) time of doing it. I know others have a much better understanding of nature, know her nuisances better than me, and are much better with PS than I am, but I was happy with what this step represented to me. I know no one is accusing me of anything with this image, I'm just expressing my thoughts on the creation of this image.
Stan, I think we are actually on the same page with regard to the status of digital art and other art mediums. My dad is a landscape painter in his spare time, and sells his work fairly well. I don't make any claim that what I did was a painting - it was a simple creative exercise of what was in my mind and a way of expression that was available to me. I don't have any paints, brushes, canvases, easels, and more importantly, talent to create the image above. What painters do is fantastic art and its something I'll probably never do. My dad creates true art, the image above is a simplistic version of 'photo art' that is modified from real images. I totally agree that those are different, and that photo art is also different than landscape photography.
Thanks for the thoughts and comments. Good food for thought!