** MORAL DILEMMA WARNING **I dunno why but I just had a scary vision of Doug running around the house in his underwear singing Justin Bieber songs...
Is it a bit weird to like Kens comment???????
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!
** MORAL DILEMMA WARNING **I dunno why but I just had a scary vision of Doug running around the house in his underwear singing Justin Bieber songs...
Totally agree. Heck the rest is a snap. LolI 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!
+1Thanks again Doug. Love to learn ... keep it coming, because we all benefit.
Enjoyed the tear down Marc.Many thanks to Doug for posting this.
The article and video was interesting to read, watch and learn from ... I love to break down the "why" behind what was done.
Why 150mm and three shots? 150mm keeps the personalities in the back tiers from receding and becoming noticeably smaller than those in the front tiers. Three shots to keep the perspective even side-to-side to avoid people distortion on the edges.
Why a 60 meg MFD? Because that is what Art's tech guy selected to assure needed resolution. Big images are also often done to facilitate retouching for commercial works. As a user of a 60 meg back, I get why, but won't get into a debate as to why 36 meg 35mm would not be my choice for this work or a lot of other applications. Suffice it to say that in my experience with a broad variety of commercial shots, bigger is better and the more bigger the better.
Why tons of light (literally)? To get enough DOF front to back at a low ISO. Magnum reflectors with grids? To maximize the output and control placement. Note: Considering he had all kinds of continuous "BIG" lighting available to him through the studio resource (including massive Fresnel's), why strobes? Familiarity? Logistics of placing big lights? Reducing the time the personalities were subjected to the lights? Using his own people to light the set rather than union studio people?
The reason the background was eliminated for the magazine article was explained in the text ... to get the personalities big enough to recognize at the publication size including bleed and safety crop. Plus, the text in the Vanity Fair spread was reversed out in the background, so it had to be a relatively smooth transition to assure readability = airbrush technique.
As to the subjects being "pretentious" and "egotistical" ... that's seems harsh given that none of us probably know any of these people personally. I can say that I've worked with movie stars in past, either as voice overs or on-camera talents ... none were pretentious, over-bearing or particularly full of themselves ... in fact, in my experience quite the opposite ... professional, accommodating, and gracious ... Jeff Goldbloom even sat with me after a session and discussed art and painting which he was passionate about.
Thanks again Doug. Love to learn ... keep it coming, because we all benefit.
-Marc
bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha** MORAL DILEMMA WARNING **
Is it a bit weird to like Kens comment???????
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.
fantastic to read ! thanks MarcMany thanks to Doug for posting this.
The article and video was interesting to read, watch and learn from ... I love to break down the "why" behind what was done.
Why 150mm and three shots? 150mm keeps the personalities in the back tiers from receding and becoming noticeably smaller than those in the front tiers. Three shots to keep the perspective even side-to-side to avoid people distortion on the edges.
Why a 60 meg MFD? Because that is what Art's tech guy selected to assure needed resolution. Big images are also often done to facilitate retouching for commercial works. As a user of a 60 meg back, I get why, but won't get into a debate as to why 36 meg 35mm would not be my choice for this work or a lot of other applications. Suffice it to say that in my experience with a broad variety of commercial shots, bigger is better and the more bigger the better.
Why tons of light (literally)? To get enough DOF front to back at a low ISO. Magnum reflectors with grids? To maximize the output and control placement. Note: Considering he had all kinds of continuous "BIG" lighting available to him through the studio resource (including massive Fresnel's), why strobes? Familiarity? Logistics of placing big lights? Reducing the time the personalities were subjected to the lights? Using his own people to light the set rather than union studio people?
The reason the background was eliminated for the magazine article was explained in the text ... to get the personalities big enough to recognize at the publication size including bleed and safety crop. Plus, the text in the Vanity Fair spread was reversed out in the background, so it had to be a relatively smooth transition to assure readability = airbrush technique.
As to the subjects being "pretentious" and "egotistical" ... that's seems harsh given that none of us probably know any of these people personally. I can say that I've worked with movie stars in past, either as voice overs or on-camera talents ... none were pretentious, over-bearing or particularly full of themselves ... in fact, in my experience quite the opposite ... professional, accommodating, and gracious ... Jeff Goldbloom even sat with me after a session and discussed art and painting which he was passionate about.
Thanks again Doug. Love to learn ... keep it coming, because we all benefit.
-Marc
I think that the ideal way to do this shot is to use three technical cameras... "shift-and-stitch" using three cameras instead of moving the camera and shooting three times... this could be done so that it looked very much as if all three pictures were taken form the same point (virtual viewpoint photography).Used a long lens so he was pretty far back so just panning camera to either side is very minimal. Easy cheat that way