I found that site a few months back. It really is fantastic. I especially loved how the artist explained how he created the photos. I’m probably going to buy a few prints from him once I have the chance.
I’ve encountered that guy a few times before… he has a history of being quite disingenuous with his “artwork”. For example, from his site:
These images have no digital or darkroom manipulation except a little spotting and selective levels compensation done in Photoshop. These images looked just like this when they came out of the camera.
and then:
the lighting FX and color are all done in-camera. These are not Photoshop creations. What you see is what I shot that night.
So, yes, they are Photoshop images, as admitted in the preceding paragraph. They are also heavily manipulated with false color (stage gels, etc.) as he briefly mentions later in the explanation.
and then:
TRUTH! How far is going too far with cloning? At what point does the image lose it’s sense of truth? Is compositing a sky from one location and adding it to the subject from another cool? Well, not for me. These images are real. They are accurate depictions of what happened while the lens was open for those minutes. This is especially important for documentary work like mine.
way to contradict yourself, dude. Sorry to be pedantic, but as an artist I find these type personalities to be the bane of the artistic collective’s existence. It’s the same with people who claim that Thomas Kinkaid’s paintings are “each one, all original” just because the mass production of the paintings systematically changes a small part of the painting with each “print” doesn’t make them “all original pieces of artwork”.
I think those are some neat shots, no matter how he got them their look. Perhaps because I grew up in a small desert town in decline I can relate to a lot of those. Plus I know where a few of those are, or were since they were near my town.
Neil: In your haste to berate him for adjusting levels, you missed the bit where he says composited two images: “Night, full moon outside, completely dark office, natural flashlight rotated on it’s axis on the floor and up at the ceiling. The windows are composited from a different exposure (with no light painting) to cover up the strong reflections from the flashlight on the glass.”. Not that I agree with you about either – I don’t think level adjustment, spotting, gels are ‘cheating’, and even the compositing is done in a way that I find perfectly reasonable to continue labelling as photography. It was two different versions of the same image, rather than two images in my book.
Comments
6 Comments so far. Leave a comment below.I found that site a few months back. It really is fantastic. I especially loved how the artist explained how he created the photos. I’m probably going to buy a few prints from him once I have the chance.
Great site, I just spent an hour wandering amidst the Argentoesque imagery. Get this guy to work on a FPS!
I’ve encountered that guy a few times before… he has a history of being quite disingenuous with his “artwork”. For example, from his site:
and then:
So, yes, they are Photoshop images, as admitted in the preceding paragraph. They are also heavily manipulated with false color (stage gels, etc.) as he briefly mentions later in the explanation.
and then:
way to contradict yourself, dude. Sorry to be pedantic, but as an artist I find these type personalities to be the bane of the artistic collective’s existence. It’s the same with people who claim that Thomas Kinkaid’s paintings are “each one, all original” just because the mass production of the paintings systematically changes a small part of the painting with each “print” doesn’t make them “all original pieces of artwork”.
Manipulation of an image is what art is all about. It’s all a matter of interpretation for the artist.
I think those are some neat shots, no matter how he got them their look. Perhaps because I grew up in a small desert town in decline I can relate to a lot of those. Plus I know where a few of those are, or were since they were near my town.
Neil: In your haste to berate him for adjusting levels, you missed the bit where he says composited two images: “Night, full moon outside, completely dark office, natural flashlight rotated on it’s axis on the floor and up at the ceiling. The windows are composited from a different exposure (with no light painting) to cover up the strong reflections from the flashlight on the glass.”. Not that I agree with you about either – I don’t think level adjustment, spotting, gels are ‘cheating’, and even the compositing is done in a way that I find perfectly reasonable to continue labelling as photography. It was two different versions of the same image, rather than two images in my book.