Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

116 Celebrities. IQ160.

D

dougpeterson

Workshop Member

- Image by Art Streiber, see link below for original context

Fstoppers Exclusive Look at Art Streiber and Paramount’s 100th Anniversary Masterpiece | Fstoppers

"Art fired 63 frames on a Hasselblad H2 camera with the new Phase One IQ-160 back and a 150mm lens, provided by his digital tech, Eric Vlasic at With Technology. He shot the photo in three sections, and in post production, the left, middle, and right sections were merged into the final triple page spread that appeared in Vanity Fair. However, it’s important to note that all 116 people were on stage at one time. Nobody was stitched into the photo, nobody was added in post."

I've been on some high-pressure time-limited shoots as digital tech. But I can't even imagine the pressure of having only a few minutes with 116 celebrities - at the same time.

Great application for an IQ160 as well - using anything less than the best available would be such a shame when you have such a historic collection of individuals in one place (I'd assume the IQ160 was chosen over the 180 because it has a higher frame rate).
 
Shashin

Shashin

Well-known member
dougpeterson said:
However, it’s important to note that all 116 people were on stage at one time. Nobody was stitched into the photo, nobody was added in post."
Click to expand...
But it does not look like not all the people where in the same exposure. This still looks like a composite. Fun photo, but contrived.
 
Guy Mancuso

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Used a long lens so he was pretty far back so just panning camera to either side is very minimal. Easy cheat that way
 
lance_schad

lance_schad

Workshop Member
I just read the article and the lighting setup was quite impressive as well.
"57 Profoto 7 heads with a mix of gridded P50 magnum dishes, 7 inch reflectors, and strip banks and affixed them in an array on the truss, hoisted it onto the ceiling, and tested to gauge the light direction."
All triggered by 5 Pocket Wizzards and a bare bulb to trip the slaves..

Lance
 
G

gerald.d

Well-known member
Guy Mancuso said:
Used a long lens so he was pretty far back so just panning camera to either side is very minimal. Easy cheat that way
Click to expand...
Panning the camera isn't really cheating, in fact, it's the only correct way to shoot something like this without creating parallax problems.

What I don't understand is the "63 frames in 3 sections" comment. Are they actually implying that he shot from 3 different locations?

I don't "do" lighting, so I can only assume the lighting part of this is impressive. Obviously it took a bit of organisation, but 63 shots in 642 seconds and then stitching them together really isn't particularly challenging at all.
 
Guy Mancuso

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
johnnygoesdigital said:
What's the point? This does not show any benefit to MFD, if it's only printed in a magazine. A D800 could do that!
Click to expand...
Well like any other gig is that really the only use for it. My bet they will make a mural out of it and put in lobby at Paramount. My clients do this on a regular basis. I never go by there 1st intended usage as a lot of times it's the second usage that will get ya. Been here have the T shirt. I certainly would have shot it with MF either owning it or renting it. On a gig like this I would not take the chance and rent whatever I needed . The fee is most likely billed back to client just like all the special lighting. No one has 57 Profoto heads sitting in there studio. So it's just another line item. Love to have this receivable . LOL

BTW Art did a amazing job on this, this took a lot of planning and testing to nail this, not to mention deal with about 150 people on set dealing with them. Great work and kudo's to Art and his team.
 
danlindberg

danlindberg

Well-known member
In my imho very well done. No easy task. I would not have slept well the night before that shoot, but then it isn't my field either....
 
D

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
johnnygoesdigital said:
What's the point? This does not show any benefit to MFD, if it's only printed in a magazine. A D800 could do that!
Click to expand...
That's 100% my point. If an image is a passing thing with no long term value for either the photographer or the client then perhaps the minimum requirements of the specific immediate use of today are enough.

An advertisement of an iPhone case for instance - in two years the image will hold zero value for the client, and unless there is some portfolio/self-promotion requirement then that image is as fleeting as you can get. Then again, as the counter argument to that - I try very hard to never give "good enough" to a wedding client. I bring the best effort, equipment, and passion I can to every client. I was fortunate to have a mentor in my life that instilled that in me.

But this image is not fleeting. Amongst those 116 are some true legends and to have an image with all of them together, showing the range of talent at this point in time holds nearly endless value.

When Paramount celebrates their 200th anniversary (or when another entity observes it in their absence) this photo will have tremendous value. Having it done to the best technical standards available at the time (assuming the technical arrangements were made in a way not to obfuscate the more important aesthetic/artistic elements like getting good poses, meaningful groupings/arrangements, and good lighting) is the right choice.

In fact the photographer and/or client deemed that 60mp wasn't enough. It would have been very easy to simply swap the 150mm for an 80mm or 50mm and shot it in a single frame and crop out a perfectly fine magazine three-fold from the 60mp raw. Instead they shot three frames allowing a really high res file (while keeping the number of frames to something that was manageable in a high-stress situation).
 
D

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Joe Colson said:
I'm getting too old. This part is downright obscene:

"The photo required balance, as there were actors in their 90′s (Mickey Rooney, Ernest Borgnine and Kirk Douglas) along side teenagers like Justin Bieber and Elle Fanning."

Bieber?!! Really?!! :ROTFL:
Click to expand...
Even the inclusion of someone who doesn't have 100 movies under his belt, like Bieber, could prove to have huge historic context. Think of Michael Jackson in the Jackson 5 - in that context but could have been easily written off as a passing fad, a performer of trite crowd-pleasing songs largely orchestrated by the adults around him, a singer appealing to a specific demographic (from which it would be easy to assume he would only ever appeal to his demographic). Fast forward to Thriller and Jackson became a cultural icon, a musician/performer of incredible influence, an innovator, and a deeply complicated man (in both music and life). The photos, footage, and music of Jackson at that early age provides an amazing context to the man he would become later.

I can't say whether this transformation will be true of Bieber, or whether he will be shown as a momentary wave. Only time can tell that.
 
kdphotography

kdphotography

Well-known member
I dunno why but I just had a scary vision of Doug running around the house in his underwear singing Justin Bieber songs... :eek:

:D
 
Don Libby

Don Libby

Well-known member
Thanks a heap Ken. Now I'm trying to erase the image from my brain.

Personally I like the image for what it is - reminds me of a class photo. I don't care what it was taken with or why - it's just neat.
 
F

fotografz

Well-known member
Guy Mancuso said:
Well like any other gig is that really the only use for it. My bet they will make a mural out of it and put in lobby at Paramount. My clients do this on a regular basis. I never go by there 1st intended usage as a lot of times it's the second usage that will get ya. Been here have the T shirt. I certainly would have shot it with MF either owning it or renting it. On a gig like this I would not take the chance and rent whatever I needed . The fee is most likely billed back to client just like all the special lighting. No one has 57 Profoto heads sitting in there studio. So it's just another line item. Love to have this receivable . LOL

BTW Art did a amazing job on this, this took a lot of planning and testing to nail this, not to mention deal with about 150 people on set dealing with them. Great work and kudo's to Art and his team.
Click to expand...
Yep, happens all the time ... client down plays the use when getting the quote, "Just something simple for pictures in the annual report and our website" ... then afterwards jacks up the requirements with a little aside mention ... "Oh, by the way, we'd like to blow up these shots to 8' for the lobby, and also use them on the walls of our trade show booth.

Or ... "While we are at it, can we shoot all of the R&D staff (i.e., 80 people) in front of the building?" I had to do a two shot 39 meg MFD stitch to pull that one off ... and people wonder why I carry so much lighting to every shoot :)

-Marc
 
B

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
To be honest the logistics of the actual shot was probably childs play compared to the logistics of getting them actually there in the first place!
 
johnnygoesdigital

johnnygoesdigital

New member
I guess it's safe to assume it will be printed as a mural as Guy pointed out, so do agree with the choice of format, but with a soundstage and a controlled environment, the hardest part of this would be wrangling the pretentious egos!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top