combine for amazing imagery here though it appears to me that while a tilt shift may have been used, some additional photoshop work was necessary to blur very selectively.
Probably just the tilt/shift. You can tilt the focus plane *way* off vertical with such a lens. Someday, I vow to pick one up, since I don't already have enough lenses :-P
I disagree Fritz, I think it's either purely photoshop or both, but unlikely to be just a tilt-shift. Take photo #7. If we remember that the canvas is on a single plane, how does the camera know that the background is supposed to be blurred while the guy and his hat are not?
I disagree Fritz, I think it's either purely photoshop or both, but unlikely to be just a tilt-shift. Take photo #7. If we remember that the canvas is on a single plane, how does the camera know that the background is supposed to be blurred while the guy and his hat are not?
I agree. It sure looks like there's selective editing on some. If so why even bother with the tilt-shift lens at all since the entire effect can be done in photoshop.
I disagree Fritz, I think it's either purely photoshop or both, but unlikely to be just a tilt-shift. Take photo #7. If we remember that the canvas is on a single plane, how does the camera know that the background is supposed to be blurred while the guy and his hat are not?
I agree. It sure looks like there's selective editing on some. If so why even bother with the tilt-shift lens at all since the entire effect can be done in photoshop.
Yep, upon looking more closely, definitely not purely tilt/shift, which calls into question whether tilt/shift was used at all. Numbers 7, 12, 15 & 16 show it most clearly.
Yep--It seems at least plausible to me that "use of tilt-shift effect" somehow became "use of tilt shift lens" along the way.
I suppose it is possible that she used a tilt-shift lens initially, then noticed it didn't completely provide the effect she wanted, and added on more selective blur in photoshop then.
Can anybody explain *why* producing 3-D versions of Van Gogh masterpieces is a desirable goal, and what, if anything, this has to do with "photography" as we know & cherish it?
Seriously, I went to the site and my instant reaction was a barf reflex. It's that disgusting...
(for those who don't recognise the image it is from the exhibition 'The Rape Of Creativity' by Jake & Dinos Chapman in which they bought up a set of 19th Century Goya prints to improve)
I have to say I found it to be a fairly stupid exercise as well. Taking shots of established classics and photoshopping them (or even shooting them with a specialty lens) and then passing it off as personal creativity, and having the balls to then share it beyond your Facebook friends: idiocy.
Well, I'll be the sole heretic here and say I really like them because I learned something! I agree that it is not art to take someone else's work and and tinker with it, but I'm still learning to think "photographically" and see how images can be manipulated to create such differing results.
Not impressed.... I love Van Gogh... and these images are pure poo.
]
Fotomann - meet bandwagon.
To be honest guys, this was an idea by a student - someone probably a lot younger than a lot of us but with some good ideas - they had a good idea and run with it.. Nothing like stifling creativity eh? Personally I think they look rather good and its definitely an interesting approach - expect to see a lot of people ripping this idea off in future.
Seriously - so here's something fun, an experiment. And yet, many holier-than-thou people seem very justified to sit in judgment. How about the Van Gogh refrigerator magnet, or the Van Gogh mouse pad, the Botticelli lipstick case, not to mention what all has been done with da Vinci. So please, save it for something worth getting in a huff about.
Seriously - so here's something fun, an experiment. And yet, many holier-than-thou people seem very justified to sit in judgment. How about the Van Gogh refrigerator magnet, or the Van Gogh mouse pad, the Botticelli lipstick case, not to mention what all has been done with da Vinci. So please, save it for something worth getting in a huff about.
Agree, there are probably a few here getting all `hoity toity` who know nothing of Van Gogh other than "The Starry Night", "Sunflowers" and his work in the Sistine Chapel..
