Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

  1. #1
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    116 Celebrities. IQ160.


    - 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).
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,500
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post
    However, its important to note that all 116 people were on stage at one time. Nobody was stitched into the photo, nobody was added in post."
    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.

  3. #3
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    "Contrived?" Meaning you suspect that it wasn't a candid shot?

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,500
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Quote Originally Posted by stephengilbert View Post
    "Contrived?" Meaning you suspect that it wasn't a candid shot?
    To me, it looks like several candid shots merged into one.

  5. #5
    Member padams's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    22
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    I'd be interested to know how they controlled moving the camera sideways so that the merge was clean in post.

    --
    Peter Adams
    http://www.peteradamsphoto.com
    Buy my new eBook: WordPress For Photographers!

  6. #6
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Used a long lens so he was pretty far back so just panning camera to either side is very minimal. Easy cheat that way
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  7. #7
    Workshop Member lance_schad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Phila./NY
    Posts
    1,146
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    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
    LANCE SCHAD - Digital Transitions - Phase One,Mamiya | Leaf,Arca-Swiss,Cambo, Profoto
    direct/cell:610-496-5586 office:877-367-8537x224
    http://www.digitaltransitions.com email:[email protected]

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Used a long lens so he was pretty far back so just panning camera to either side is very minimal. Easy cheat that way
    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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member johnnygoesdigital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    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!

  10. #10
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,911
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    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?!!
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography

  11. #11
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnygoesdigital View Post
    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!
    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.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  12. #12
    Senior Member danlindberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Spain & Sweden
    Posts
    1,196
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    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....
    Alpa FPS MAX TC | Alpagon 32Hr | Helvetar 75 | Schneider 120N | Leaf Aptus II 5 Leaf Credo 60 | www.danlindberg.com

  13. #13
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnygoesdigital View Post
    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!
    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).
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  14. #14
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Colson View Post
    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?!!
    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.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Doug - I'm a bit confused. You're saying that the image is only created from 3 frames?

  16. #16
    Senior Member kdphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Carmel/Tucson
    Posts
    2,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    I dunno why but I just had a scary vision of Doug running around the house in his underwear singing Justin Bieber songs...


  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32 31' 37.06" N, 111 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    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.
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  18. #18
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Quote Originally Posted by kdphotography View Post
    I dunno why but I just had a scary vision of Doug running around the house in his underwear singing Justin Bieber songs...

    **** a good thread just went completely south now. LOL
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #19
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    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.
    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
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    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!
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  21. #21
    Senior Member johnnygoesdigital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    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!

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Quote Originally Posted by kdphotography View Post
    I dunno why but I just had a scary vision of Doug running around the house in his underwear singing Justin Bieber songs...

    ** MORAL DILEMMA WARNING **

    Is it a bit weird to like Kens comment???????

  23. #23
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnygoesdigital View Post
    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!
    Totally agree. Heck the rest is a snap. Lol

    To be honest this is one of the pitfalls of being a working Pro. I got burned badly on this with a M8 shot that went from web to a 40 ft wide x8 ft high mural in a corporate cafeteria. To me it looked like **** and it made me look bad. Although great shot artistically and all but just fell completely apart. It was what finally made me move into MF and sell off the M8 which I loved but 10 mpx is just not enough when they do stuff like this to your work. Now we all know they print those things like 6 dpi anyway when that large but 10 mpx just was not enough meat to the file.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  24. #24
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    A Great Day in Harlem, a wonderful low-tech example of this kind of photo: http://www.apassion4jazz.net/harlem.html

    After seeing the documentary of the shooting of A Great Day in Harlem, I bought a print. It's still on the wall.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #25
    Senior Member johnnygoesdigital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Thanks for the link Stephen...now those are celebrities...with real talent! Great Photo!

  26. #26
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Johnny,

    You can check out the documentary on YouTube. Part one is here: A Great Day In Harlem - Harlem 58 - The Photograph - Part 1 - YouTube

    Steve

  27. #27
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,575
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Speaking of portraits and egos - a photographer and instructor at the ICP showed his class a particularly ugly example.

    He had an assignment to take portraits of some famous architects. One of them, (notorious for crumpling up a piece of paper, throwing it on a desk and yelling "There! There is my proposal!") sat down, stuck a finger up his nose for the first shot, and then left the studio. Well, it did yield a portrait that captured the soul... as well as entertaining and terrifying his class.

    -Matt

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    I think it's a job well done and we have no right to question the photographers equipment choice or shooting style from the comfort of our arm chairs when he was the one faced with a challenging subject/environment we know very little about.

    My only gripe is considering its an image to celerbrate 100 years for Paramount, I'd have loved (as a viewer) to see more of the studio feature in this shot than the photoshop graduated background the magazine ran with.

  29. #29
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    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
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Thanks again Doug. Love to learn ... keep it coming, because we all benefit.
    +1

  31. #31
    Senior Member johnnygoesdigital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Tongue in cheek Marc, tongue in cheek...

  32. #32
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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
    Enjoyed the tear down Marc.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  33. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    254
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Quote Originally Posted by gazwas View Post
    ** MORAL DILEMMA WARNING **

    Is it a bit weird to like Kens comment???????
    bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahaha



    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post
    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.

    going OT, I'm sorry, I find bieber inclusing completly ridiculous and a bit insulting.

    I'm not an old fart ( lol ), Im mid 30's and I find that a picture like this ( OnTopic: the photographer did a tremendous job ! again, I'm one of the ones that would have slept zip the night before.. 160 divas .. oh lord.. ) is downright insulting.

    Half of the people here are celebrities for years or simply LEGENDS.

    Bieber is a kid that makes songs and entered one movie. ONE.

    Yeap, he has a cult following, teens love him, all nice. It this was a shot for a Music Label, he had all the right of the world to be there.

    Now, was a shot for a movie studio and he is sharing the stage ( well ladder ) with movie icons and legends and hes hanging like a monkey. *sigh*

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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
    fantastic to read ! thanks Marc

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Warks, UK
    Posts
    550
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 116 Celebrities. IQ160.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Used a long lens so he was pretty far back so just panning camera to either side is very minimal. Easy cheat that way
    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).

    The problem with that is that you might be short of image circle... SK Apo-Digitar 47XL or 60XL?

    ...but you can "cheat" by arranging the subjects on an arc or polygon, so that you can stitch without having to use a technical camera or lose res by distorting the images with pan-and-stitch software... but this would be difficult using straight staging as in this picture.

    Even if you take the whole picture in one with three cameras, you can still "cheat" by cutting and pasting individuals from one image to another.

    I hope this post will not start another Darr'n flamewar... I have taken a "virtual viewpoint" picture which I hope to post soon, but perhaps not before my wife's show next Sunday, or before my 2nd cardioversion (heart reset) a week today, or while I have bronchitis, and am producing red expectoration (which is not a good indication when you are on warfarin)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •