Recent Professional Works

[ChristopherBarrett]

Thanks for the comments.  I should probably clarify some of the parameters of our shoot.  It was a long Still shoot for the product brochure.  The client asked if we could pick up some video while we were there for web use.  The motion work was definitely secondary and a last minute add.  Would it be more animated with people and action?  Sure, and videos that show the product in use have their application as well and we'll be shooting something like that next month.  These clips, though,  were to work much in the same way that the photos do, to create almost a gallery experience of the product... like you're walking by it with... I dunno something akin to reverence and I feel for that application they serve their purpose well.

There are all kinds of ways to shoot this stuff, this is what happened to work for the client needs with our given budget.  Of course I'm learning much as I go and it's all such a gas.

CB

Also... I happen to feel that even very little movement can exploit powers inherent in motion that will never exist in a panned still.  It's subtle nearly subconscious stuff.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Also... I happen to feel that even very little movement can exploit powers inherent in motion that will never exist in a panned still.  It's subtle nearly subconscious stuff.

I totally agree. I found the video very classy, almost mystical in its elegance. I don't see how that same mystique could be maintained in a more "realistic" video with models, moving drawers, sound, etc.

Eric

[Frank Doorhof]

Some images from today

[BobDavid]

Nadine jpg 96 is pretty spectacular.

[JoeKitchen]

Frank Doorhof, nice, the 2nd image is magical. 

[MichaelEzra]

Frank, 1-st two images are magical:)

[Frank Doorhof]

thanks guys, glad you like them.

[wolfnowl]

The first two are also my favourites, with the 1st at the top of the list.  More evocative somehow.

Mike.

[fredjeang]

Nice? yeah...but I stay with the Frank's DOM stuff.

[Frank Doorhof]

DOM ?

[fredjeang]

DOM ?

dom for "domination", the whip ones with the stricking blonde.

[Frank Doorhof]

Ah ok lol
Dom overhere means stupid.

[fredjeang]

Ah ok lol
Dom overhere means stupid.

Ha ha...did not know of course. Writing in a foreign lenguage can sometimes being dangerous. It happened to me in Spain at first, same word in french and spanish but with 2 different meanings.
In Canada Montreal, there is a concert hall called "Les Foufounes électriques" and it's french but the use of french in Canada and in France differs, in france the translation would be "the electric cunts"...
Very risky.

[Rob C]

Ha ha...did not know of course. Writing in a foreign lenguage can sometimes being dangerous. It happened to me in Spain at first, same word in french and spanish but with 2 different meanings.
In Canada Montreal, there is a concert hall called "Les Foufounes électriques" and it's french but the use of french in Canada and in France differs, in france the translation would be "the electric cunts"...Very risky.

And in Spain, coño is a relatively mild explet¡ve, used by as many women as men, as would probably be their right, come to think of it. As for why it's a masculine noun, God alone can explain, though I wouldn't guarantee that either; it's different in the Mediterranean. All the same, an electrical one might be more useful than a wooden one, in Montreal as in Pollença.

Rob C

[KevinA]

Still a bit of work to do, about a 6 frame stitch 1DsmkIII from a Helicopter.

Kevin.

[KevinA]

A bit larger,

Kevin.

[Frank Doorhof]

I knew you didn't mean stupid but I thought what does he mean beside that lol.

[pfigen]

This is sort of recent. Originally shot on Canon digital, but had the product - the turbos from the winning Audi at LeMans 2010 - for a few days, so bought a box of T-Max100 4x5 and shot twenty sheets - two sheets each of ten focus slices. Drum scanned one set at 2667 ppi on the Howtek. Photoshop would get through an Align Layers command in an hour or so, and even made it through a Blend Layers, but it looked like crap, so I then exported ten identically sized layers into Helicon Focus, which crunched through the files but still looked like crap, so I hit it for an hour or two every few days for a month or so, gradually blending focus by hand. A 30x40 test print is looking really sweet at this point, with a depth and luminance that the digital could only dream about.

[Dick Roadnight]

the turbos from the winning Audi at LeMans 2010

15/10 for effort...but I think I will be quite happy with MS MFD, or even 60Mpx single shot.

Why do you think the hardware/software could not do an adequate auto-merge?

[pfigen]

Dick,

With this shot, I wanted to have everything in focus from front to back, and even with lens movements and stopping to 22-1/2, at this distance, there was essentially about an inch of depth per slice. Sure, I could have shot it on a higher mp mfdb but I still would have had to stack focus for the effect I wanted. The tonality of real black and white film still can't be matched by any digital I've run across.

As to why the software blending didn't work, I'm not really sure. It can't be solely file size as both programs did complete the process, but both got confused in very different ways. Maybe a note to Adobe and Helicon would be in order. I'd have to re-do them to send examples, as I didn't save either of those attempts. I just figured I was trying something way beyond what anyone had envisioned  - sort of in the idiot or crazy category.