Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: AndreNapier on April 16, 2010, 07:42:43 pm
-
I think it might be interesting and fun topic as well as learning process. So often we look at an image and try to figure out how was it made.
In recent issue of V Magazine ( 64 ) Spring 2010 at the beginning pages is a full page add for Guess showing nude model laying on an old sofa. It looks very simple for as long as you do not pick up a camera and try to find a lens that could have captured that. I have all lenses in a studio from super wide for FF to full range of MF and can not find the one capable of this perspective.
Any ideas? After so many years behind camera it is quite puzzling.
http://andrenapier.com (http://andrenapier.com)
-
I like topics like these they are a good way to learn and discuss. Do you have a link to the image?
-
http://www.vmagazine.com/page.php?pn=V64%20SPRING%202010 (http://www.vmagazine.com/page.php?pn=V64%20SPRING%202010)
Do you mean image on page 18-19?
Yeah, looks interesting. The perspective is distorted in an unusual way. Maybe it's just photoshop.
Alex
-
Hmmm... at first, I though "nothing special"... but the more I look at it, the more it puzzles me.
I'm wondering if it may be "de-fished". My other thought is a perspective corrected ultrawide, like the 17mm ts-e.
Cool, though.
-
Looks to be around 10 ft away from the couch, maybe less. Either a pano camera or a composite. Thats my guess, no pun intended.
-
Looks like they took that Hitchcock move (where you dolly in while zooming out) and distilled it into a single frame. Creepy/Sexy/Cool
-
I think it's just a wide lens but thanks for the link to V magazine, I wasn't aware of it and the photography was excellant! Jim
-
http://www.vmagazine.com/page.php?pn=V64%20SPRING%202010 (http://www.vmagazine.com/page.php?pn=V64%20SPRING%202010)
Do you mean image on page 18-19?
I was curious, so I did a little bit of measuring....
The models foot measures just shy of the distance between her shoulder and elbow...she must be a size 16 shoe
From the tip of her fingers to her wrist is about 1.3 times the width of her thigh. She does not look anorexic, so i assume she also needs custom made gloves
The length of her forearm, from fingertips to elbow appears to equal the distance from the top of her shoulders to about the middle of her ass...that's her forearm only!
If anyone thinks all this was done with a lens only, I have some fine property for sale, that happens to span the Hudson River.
-
Girl got some big-ass feet.
-
I wonder if its a 37RZ with some correction to remove the barrel.
-
its shot slightly from the right side, so her foot looks a little longer than it really is. Shes a tall girl with big feet, nonetheless. And yes, she is anorexic
Edit, Also, the photo is on a seem that extends the photo an extra 1-1.5 inches
-
its shot slightly from the right side, so her foot looks a little longer than it really is. Shes a tall girl with big feet, nonetheless. And yes, she is anorexic
If it was shot slightly from the right, the right arm of the couch would be straight to the camera. However it's open even more than the left side. Something's fishy.
-
If it was shot slightly from the right, the right arm of the couch would be straight to the camera. However it's open even more than the left side. Something's fishy.
Sorry, I meant slightly right of center. It is a very wide lens. I was just observing that it isnt exactly straight on. I think this shot is much simpler than we are assuming. I really think its just the binding of the magazine that is throwing us off
-
Well,
the story goes like this. Couple days ago I had a young celebrity client coming to my studio for a shoot with VM in her hand pointing to the image. That was what she wants and nothing else. First impression not a big deal wide angle, we will manage. When she was getting H/M I was swapping lenses and felt my hands sweating while trying to test shoot with my assistant.
Soon I realize that even 37mm on Rz is not going to cut it on digital back. The body of a model is about double of the size that I was getting. Next step I removed the mask and started playing with with full frame polaroids. Not that easy.
The moment the body comes to similar size the distortion on face is very visible and not pleasing. Over all it did not look nothing like the image.
By the end of a day our model realized that this shoot position was not really for her since her legs were of normal size and thus for not really cut for extremely wide angle and we settled for more standard poses. She walked out happy I was left with realization that whenever I think that I already know everything I better think twice before I open my mouth.
Andre
-
Well,
the story goes like this.
This is reading WAY too much into the original question, but these two short articles came to mind when you asked that original question.
http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/2010/04/christ...to_paul_graham/ (http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/2010/04/christopher_rauschenberg_responds_to_paul_graham/)
http://stocklandmartelblog.com/2010/04/12/...-photoshop-cs5/ (http://stocklandmartelblog.com/2010/04/12/beware-of-content-aware-fill-stella-kramer-on-photoshop-cs5/)
Point is: I looked at that sofa picture, and the first thing I thought (assumed) was: "How many images are buried here?" As in, was the sofa shot separately? Was the woman even lying on a sofa? Was that wall even there? Point being, there is so much strip-together in Fashion now that I almost begin the viewing of a new image by assuming that it's fake, and that the scene i'm viewing never actually happened. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I am saying it's true. And I think it devalues the impact that photography can have when a viewer begins the process of viewing a photograph by assuming that they're being lied to.
And you know that feeling when you view a painting, and it doesnt seem as "real" as a photograph? I think with so much Photoshop/stripping out there, that photography is now perceived in a similar fashion as painting. As in, it's one step removed from reality.
In addition, the retoucher for that Guess ad is now laughing his butt off, to see people analyzing his image so much.
-
Maybe just a small sofa, a 1,5 person sofa or a wierd custom made thing and a wide angle lens on camera.
-
to my eyes, it looks like two vertical shots stitched together, hence the choppy rear leg, and hands looking long and alien-like. probably a 24mm or wider, close up to give the looming effect.
but what do I know ?
-Dan
-
Maybe just a small sofa, a 1,5 person sofa or a wierd custom made thing and a wide angle lens on camera.
I think you are right
-
It's always amusing how laypeople make medical diagnoses based on a single photograph; I know plenty of girls and women who are naturally skinny but eat healthy diets and exercise.
But back on topic. Joe's measurements get to the bottom of it. Fashion shoots and especially ads have very little to do with real-world measurements or average proportions. There's this (http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2009/10/ralph-lauren-hits-keep-on-coming.html) recent more blatant example, then there's this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U) clip showing how an exceptionally pretty lady is taken to whole another level in post.
There was an online article a couple of months back where one post-processor for the biggest high-end clients talked about his trade, which was very insightful. This gentleman had very little interest in retaining any semblance of realism in his subjects. Unfortunately I wasn't able to locate the article with quick googling.
I wouldn't be surprised if the shot is a composite since it seems to be a fad after Annie Leibovitz's Lavazza ads. But most of the otherworldly nature of the shot comes from turning her body into one with Martian proportions.
-
It's always amusing how laypeople make medical diagnoses based on a single photograph; I know plenty of girls and women who are naturally skinny but eat healthy diets and exercise.
Going by the proportions of this model, she is extremely underweight. Assuming a model is anorexic isnt too far of a stretch. Probably shouldn't be assuming, but when this type of model is used for a shoot, there are more serious issues than someone assuming a model is unhealthy
-
Just a small sofa, a wide angle and a long girl, no annorexia and no fat to spare, just well trained. Long people tend to have large hands and feet, no big deal.
-
I believe, this is the same model: http://shop.guess.com/Advertising.aspx (http://shop.guess.com/Advertising.aspx)
I see no problem with her. Very good looking tall girl.
I believe it's is "clumsy" or intended photoshop to blame. Combined two shots without paying attention to the proportions of her elbow.
-
I'd say her leg length in this image is twice her torso. Would agree with some of the other comments; imo these are not natural proportions and think the image is either a franklenstein composite or her body has been has been transformed.
-
I think you are right. 2 horizontal shots with some perspective correction and stiching and perhaps even more images included. Look at the sofa joint in the middle. Her fingers seem to have more bones than normal.
Thanks for the link to V Magazine.
Best,
Johannes
I think we're looking at a pretty straight shot with a wide angle lens...the "misaligned" gutter is simply what you'd get if you looked at the actual printing pages (added gutter so when you look at the perfect bound magazine, you don't feel like you're missing a half inch of the photo. I took a screenshot of the pages and overlapped them...they fit perfectly. My guess is that she had really bad toes so they stretched her foot a little to get them out of the frame, and probably also to make her legs look longer..and maybe the head was replaced, because it doesn't look quite right (notice her upper arm is showing the typical w/angle edge of the frame distortion (like her foot), but her head isn't)...but other than that, I think this is a pretty straight shot, certainly not as crazy some of the things I've been asked to do.
Barry
-
My take: thin model taken relatively close up with a wideangle lens that imparts more edge distortion than center distortion.
-
...the "misaligned" gutter is simply what you'd get if you looked at the actual printing pages (added gutter so when you look at the perfect bound magazine, you don't feel like you're missing a half inch of the photo. I took a screenshot of the pages and overlapped them...they fit perfectly...
Just for the sake of argument, this is what you get when you correct for the misaligned gutter:
[attachment=21560:Guess.png]
Come to think about it, isn't if fascinating (scary?) that a bunch of experienced photographers can not figure out what (if anything) is wrong/right with the image? What's left for general public then... to simply give up on photography and assume it is all "photoshopography" from now on? Hmmm... I think I should trademark this term
-
Another option, however I still think it's a composite, would be that this photo is a crop of a right bottom corner of a wide angle shot. That would leave the distortion on the right and bottom side, while the other two sides were cropped off.
Alex
-
Just for the sake of argument, this is what you get when you correct for the misaligned gutter:
[attachment=21560:Guess.png]
Come to think about it, isn't if fascinating (scary?) that a bunch of experienced photographers can not figure out what (if anything) is wrong/right with the image? What's left for general public then... to simply give up on photography and assume it is all "photoshopography" from now on? Hmmm... I think I should trademark this term
dude you should delete that image, I'm pretty sure you don't have a license to use it in this way - you are violating another photographers copyright
-
dude you should delete that image, I'm pretty sure you don't have a license to use it in this way - you are violating another photographers copyright
Isn't this type of usage covered under editorial (i.e., non commercial) use? Or, to be more precise, isn't this a textbook example of the fair use concept, as per the Copyright Act of 1976:
...the fair use of a copyrighted work... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching... or research, is not an infringement of copyright..."
-
This guy does some of their retouch:
http://www.nicolaspotts.com/frameset.html (http://www.nicolaspotts.com/frameset.html)
-
You guys should not be speculating so wildly about this image unless you have already studied the Definitive Guide that will show you how to tell whether an image has been Photoshopped or not. It appears on another website of Significant Photography, here. (http://cuteoverload.com/2010/04/01/shopped-or-not-a-handy-guide/)
-
It's always amusing how laypeople make medical diagnoses based on a single photograph; I know plenty of girls and women who are naturally skinny but eat healthy diets and exercise.
As an ex-RN I can say that whether ones diet is "healthy" and exercises, being too thin is harmful. Its sad that fashion dictates that models be unnaturally thin.
-
The photographer's name is Raphael Mazzucco for those of you who want to see more of his work. The AD on this shoot is Paul Marciano.
Andre
-
This looks like a "normal" lens to me (as 50mm on a 35 mm camera, etc.)
I would bet that that is Raphael Mazzucco shot - you can look on youtube and find video of him shooting. He has shot tons of gorgeous stuff for Guess, SI, etc, etc. He uses a wide range of cameras, but seem to use a Canon with 50mm and 85mm lenses a lot these days. And the 24-70 2.8 seems to be one of his favorites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh5hBmHSv4g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh5hBmHSv4g)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...zzucco&aq=f (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=raphael+mazzucco&aq=f)
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&gbv...ai=&start=0 (http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&gbv=2&tbs=isch:1&sa=1&q=raphael+mazzucco+guess&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&start=0)
-
Lisa
Put 50mm on a FF, find a sofa and a person to lay on it and try to compose it. You will see how impossible it is to take it with this lens.
-
Andre, watch the videos I posted. Some of the footage is that very shoot - Guess Spring 2010. It's the Canon 24-70 2.8.
Anyway I do not see what looks impossible about this this image... just some distortion due to close proximity to the model? You will see in the videos that he shoots very close.
-
Lisa
I watched it. Thank you for posting. Possibly 24 but I will guess 17mm with PS. Anyways this one is solved thanks to you.
Andre
-
He uses a wide range of cameras, but seem to use a Canon with 50mm and 85mm lenses a lot these days. And the 24-70 2.8 seems to be one of his favorites.
Andre Napier,
Be honest -- doesn't this just kill you, to read this?
-
Honestly it does.
I just keep wondering if he does so great with Canon what kind of wonderful images would he do with 10 lbs Rz and a Leaf back. LOL.
I have one for sale.
Andre
-
if he does so great with Canon what kind of wonderful images would he do with 10 lbs Rz and a Leaf back. LOL.
I think it's about the energy, and the spontaneity, and the looseness, and the motor drive, and the moment, and not getting bogged down with gear, and being able to shoot all day handholding. And honestly, what's wrong with the quality in that image? It's going to be retouched to death, and gone over with a fine tooth comb, if it's a chosen final image.
Secretly, I'm with you, wondering how the lenses would render even better, with RZ. But you can't argue with his results. It seems to work fine for him. You think he's obsessing about RAW processors or pixels? Hell no, he's at dinner.
-
I think this is the first time I agree with you. I hate to agree with you but at the same time it makes me feel very good.
I just have to forget about all that DOF, bokeh etc and replace it with pretty models.
-
Isn't this type of usage covered under editorial (i.e., non commercial) use? Or, to be more precise, isn't this a textbook example of the fair use concept, as per the Copyright Act of 1976:
...the fair use of a copyrighted work... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching... or research, is not an infringement of copyright..."
Yup.
-
As an ex-RN I can say that whether ones diet is "healthy" and exercises, being too thin is harmful. Its sad that fashion dictates that models be unnaturally thin.
She's not too thin. When you see these girls in person they look gangly and tall. Theses girls are a small percentage of the population, are naturally thin, and their height makes then appear even thinner than they are.
-
Just fyi: Raphael has been making stunning images for so long it's crazy. I have Guess catalogs from years ago which I kept because the girls are gorgeous, the image quality is amazing, colors, locations, printing, etc. Too bad they are not printing those catalogs anymore. I used to go the Guess store on lower Broadway just for the catalogs.
Too bad his agency's site is down right now, but check it out when it is back up: http://www.miconworldwide.com/ (http://www.miconworldwide.com/)
And I thought it was funny that the photo posted was this amazing girl on a couch, and the guys here start measuring body parts, speculating on trick cameras, etc. Just funny! From a technical standpoint this looks like the simplest picture to me. (shot by a highly skilled crew, of course...)
I would have asked the same question about the Michael Kors ad on page 38: how was that shot, how many images went into the composite, etc. THAT photo looks funny to me.
-
If you really want to knock your brains out with 'how did he' questions, have a closer look at the early work of Marino Parisotto Vay. According to an article on him in an old French PHOTO magazine, he claimed to have a guy in Rome who fashioned anamorphic lenses for him to use on his Pentax 67...
Maybe my fading memory or maybe not; just some publicity hype, perhaps, but certainly something unusual going down.
Rob C
-
I'm not sure why the fuss about his shot. Looked like a wide lens up close and apparently it was.
But then 24mm is my standard lens and I like to shoot close.
What did bother me was the tip of the foot being missing, always looks like a mistake when that happens.