So you think you can do photoshop..?
Discussion
Not really my thing but I can certainly appreciate the work that's gone into it...
www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/text/fineart_damen.htm
A bit more invovled than - auto levels, crop, sharpen, save
www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/text/fineart_damen.htm
A bit more invovled than - auto levels, crop, sharpen, save
All that work, for such a dull pic? I'd have thought the point of creating a picture by this method would be to create something surreal?.... Still, each to their own.... (This guys got too much time on his hands or he never sleeps!!!)
You guys have killed it!
Here's the details, check out the images later:
This is my latest and most ambitious digital painting of a Chicago scene unveiled at Photoshop World in Miami on March 22, 2006.
It is a panorama of the Damen Station on the Blue Line of the Chicago Transit Authority.
Adobe Illustrator was used for generating the majority of the basic shapes as well as all the buildings in the Chicago skyline.
The rest was created in Photoshop.
• The image size is 40 inches by 120 inches.
• The flattened file weighs in at 1.7 Gigabytes.
• It took eleven months (close to 2,000 hours) to create.
• The painting is comprised of close to fifty individual Photoshop files.
• Taking a cumulative total of all the files, the overall image contains over 15,000 layers.
• Over 500 alpha channels were used for various effects.
• Over 250,000 paths make up the multitude of shapes throughout the scene.
Here's the details, check out the images later:
This is my latest and most ambitious digital painting of a Chicago scene unveiled at Photoshop World in Miami on March 22, 2006.
It is a panorama of the Damen Station on the Blue Line of the Chicago Transit Authority.
Adobe Illustrator was used for generating the majority of the basic shapes as well as all the buildings in the Chicago skyline.
The rest was created in Photoshop.
• The image size is 40 inches by 120 inches.
• The flattened file weighs in at 1.7 Gigabytes.
• It took eleven months (close to 2,000 hours) to create.
• The painting is comprised of close to fifty individual Photoshop files.
• Taking a cumulative total of all the files, the overall image contains over 15,000 layers.
• Over 500 alpha channels were used for various effects.
• Over 250,000 paths make up the multitude of shapes throughout the scene.
tony is correct, the way I understand it is that this was not a photo that was changed or edited, this is something that has been entirely created.
Show it to anyone and they would think it's a photograph. As an exercise in what's possible to achieve in terms of realistic computer generated scenes, it's very impressive, although i'd agree it seems a little pointless!
Show it to anyone and they would think it's a photograph. As an exercise in what's possible to achieve in terms of realistic computer generated scenes, it's very impressive, although i'd agree it seems a little pointless!
That is some work, must have been dedicated alright. 
Looks fantastic but everything looks "too" clean. In real photographs bits are often slightly out of focus in places due to imperfections on the lens, atmospheric conditions and other natural phenomena. Yours has the "too" perfect look of computer imaging though extremely impressive all the same.
Need to add sum random messiness to make them more "real".
Only my tuppence worth - I have the photoshop ability of a colour blind hedgehog in a gimp mask.
Need to add sum random messiness to make them more "real".
Only my tuppence worth - I have the photoshop ability of a colour blind hedgehog in a gimp mask.
TonyHetherington said:
Actually that is really bad Photoshop.
Why do you say that?
Perspective is not quite right, the light seems false, the edges are too sharply defined. Good Photoshop is when it does not appear to have been retouched, seems true to life (that is effect as opposed to subject matter). Photographs record the world differently to how our eye does. It is difficult to sum it up in a few words (no time at moment). That is why artistic representation is very different to the photographic one. The Photo Realist movement of the Seventies were an interesting group of painters that strove to replicate photographic characteristics in their work, Richard Estes is a good example.
Will add to post at another time.
Jinx said:
Looks fantastic but everything looks "too" clean. In real photographs bits are often slightly out of focus in places due to imperfections on the lens, atmospheric conditions and other natural phenomena. Yours has the "too" perfect look of computer imaging though extremely impressive all the same.
Need to add sum random messiness to make them more "real".
That sums it up rather succinctly.
Jinx said:
Only my tuppence worth - I have the photoshop ability of a colour blind hedgehog in a gimp mask.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff