How to Cheat in Photoshop

» Forum Index » The Friday Challenge » Topic: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

Posted on 28/09/19 8:31:59 PM

Ben Mills
Luminous Luminary
Posts: 570

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

DavidMac wrote:
A curious aspect of this image is that it's nigh on impossible to scale. The object in the centre is no help either as its size and function are, as yet, undetermined.

I am wondering if it hasn't been populated by giants so far. In Ant's case this must be entirely intentional. However, every entry so far has populated the room with people whose size would make the passage a crawl space. This could, I suppose, be the case with a larger full height entry behind the camera (unless visitors are expected to crawl, which strikes me as unlikely).

I have made myself small enough (just) to walk in the passage on the left, but I am wondering what it is about this image that has led the other entries so far to presume the space to be so tiny - which it, of course, it could just be.

What he said.

Posted on 29/09/19 02:43:25 AM

Mariner
Renaissance Mariner
Posts: 2817

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

Superb Ben

Posted on 29/09/19 02:59:23 AM

Mariner
Renaissance Mariner
Posts: 2817

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

I agree, David. To make this "dungeon" look more natural I am having to redesign all the walls, which sort of misses the point a bit. No matter, it's what keeps me amused.

Posted on 29/09/19 11:27:42 AM

DavidMac
Director of Photoshop
Posts: 4936

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

lwc wrote:
Oooh, I really like "Jaws"! Wish that I had thought of it.

Yes well, as everyone here knows, when I can't really cope with a challenge I resort to silly.

As far as I'm concerned, scale can be whatever you want it to be in the Photoshop phantasy world.

Yes of course. That's the fun of it! But, with my love of illusion and tricking the senses, I am fascinated by the way we perceive things and how easily we can be deceived, often quite unintentionally.

Now I have a feeling that neither you (in your first image) nor Josephine set out consciously to make the figures large. They look and feel quite natural and comfortable. I accepted them completely at first viewing. I never questioned them for a moment. It wasn't until I came to put myself in the image that suddenly the oddities popped out at me. I started off big too and somehow when it was me in the image it suddenly felt wrong! So then I reduced my size using the passage as guide.

It is only when you really stop and examine the image that anomalies start to become apparent. So I was simply curious as to why it should have this effect ..... ?

This fellow is using his smartphone to adjust the speed of his 'pole dancer' display.

Now here's another veritable Pandora's box!

Every time we get an image with transparent sphere's in them it provokes discussion as what would happen visually 'inside' the sphere. Spherical refractions or not? Right way up or upside down?

Now I am not about to re-open these. I shall content my self with saying that you have created a few optical conundrums.

If the girl was behind the sphere, seen through it, then she would not move. Depending on where she was she would be subject to various curved distortions but she would remain static. The fact that the sphere is rotating wouldn't change what we see though it.

To rotate as she does she and her pole need to be embedded inside the sphere. If this was at it's centre then she would simply spin on the spot like an ice skater. To behave as yours does and spin with a centre of rotation quite a long way outside her body she would need to be embedded inside the sphere quite close to it's outer surface. That's fine and, setting aside the probability or improbability of this, you've done it extremely well.

BUT .... the walls, which are seen through the sphere would NOT move with her. They would remain static.

So, having done my best to shred your physics, let me say it doesn't matter a damn! I think the image is just bloody marvellous! I love it!

As you say, the wonderful thing about Photoshop is we can bend the world to be what we want it to be and not what it is ......... and that's FUN!!

_________________
The subtlety and conviction of any Photoshop effect is invariably inversely proportional to the number of knobs on it .......

Posted on 29/09/19 11:37:43 AM

DavidMac
Director of Photoshop
Posts: 4936

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

Ben Mills wrote:
What he said.

This is lovely Ben. Are there even bigger giants at the top of the beanstalk?

_________________
The subtlety and conviction of any Photoshop effect is invariably inversely proportional to the number of knobs on it .......

Posted on 29/09/19 11:45:17 AM

DavidMac
Director of Photoshop
Posts: 4936

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

Mariner wrote:
I agree, David. To make this "dungeon" look more natural I am having to redesign all the walls, which sort of misses the point a bit. No matter, it's what keeps me amused.

I am sure it will leave us all going "Wow Michael's done it again!"

I am tempted to send you a private 'rebuild/cleanup' challenge in one of the other threads - 'Problems and Solutions' perhaps?.

Let me see if I can find the necessary pictures first ......

_________________
The subtlety and conviction of any Photoshop effect is invariably inversely proportional to the number of knobs on it .......

Posted on 29/09/19 12:57:37 PM

Mariner
Renaissance Mariner
Posts: 2817

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

David wrote:
...Let me see if I can find the necessary pictures first ......

Bring it on!

Posted on 29/09/19 1:26:26 PM

lwc
Hole in One
Posts: 2630

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

DavidMac wrote:
.... the walls, which are seen through the sphere would NOT move with her. They would remain static.

This is not intended to be an entry

A quickie... for fun the walls are static in this example. Since the sphere is now transparent, the difficult part is returning the girl to the left side. Right now I can only think of a 'workaround' for my software that might work. At first glance, it may require somewhere in the neighborhood of an initial 320+ frames, and a lot of editing. Hmmm... maybe if I find some extra time later...

EDIT Replaced image with modified version... it doesn't work very well, but my curiosity is satisfied.

Posted on 29/09/19 1:56:09 PM

DavidMac
Director of Photoshop
Posts: 4936

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

I really wasn't suggesting for a moment that you change anything Loyd. Rather the reverse actually. I was trying to say that the flavour can be more important than the ingredients.

_________________
The subtlety and conviction of any Photoshop effect is invariably inversely proportional to the number of knobs on it .......

Posted on 29/09/19 2:18:07 PM

lwc
Hole in One
Posts: 2630

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

DavidMac wrote:
I really wasn't suggesting for a moment that you change anything Loyd. Rather the reverse actually. I was trying to say that the flavour can be more important than the ingredients.

I know, I was just more curious than anything to find out if & how I could make it work.

EDIT - Replaced original animation above with modified version...

Posted on 29/09/19 3:46:35 PM

DavidMac
Director of Photoshop
Posts: 4936

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

lwc wrote:
I was just more curious than anything to find out if & how I could make it work.

That's a very creditable effort. It's hard to judge because I, for one, have absolutely no idea what would really happen under such bizarre circumstances.

Instinct says that as she passes around the rear she should grow smaller as she approaches centre and then larger again as she approaches the edge.

However at the centre point we are viewing her though the thickest part of the sphere and thus with maximum enlargement so maybe she would counter intuitively get bigger. On the other hand because she is inside the sphere there is only one glass to air refractive surface involved so the rules for looking through a sphere don't apply and maybe she wouldn't get enlarged ........

Don't ask me to help ................... I am having far too much fun muddying the already turgid waters .....

_________________
The subtlety and conviction of any Photoshop effect is invariably inversely proportional to the number of knobs on it .......

Posted on 29/09/19 4:12:32 PM

lwc
Hole in One
Posts: 2630

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

DavidMac wrote:

Instinct says that as she passes around the rear she should grow smaller as she approaches centre and then larger again as she approaches the edge.

That's it... possible, but due to my software limitations it would have to be done by hand for around 25 individual frames... and that's not gonna' happen!

Posted on 29/09/19 4:33:53 PM

DavidMac
Director of Photoshop
Posts: 4936

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

Mariner wrote:
Bring it on!

This is really waving a red rag at you Michael. Definitely at 3000 piece jigsaw level. You're either going to love it or hate it. If it's the latter please don't feel obliged - even for a second.

Palais de Justice in the Problems and Solutions section.

_________________
The subtlety and conviction of any Photoshop effect is invariably inversely proportional to the number of knobs on it .......

Posted on 29/09/19 4:39:06 PM

DavidMac
Director of Photoshop
Posts: 4936

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

lwc wrote:
That's it... possible, but due to my software limitations it would have to be done by hand for around 25 individual frames... and that's not gonna' happen!

I think you have more than earned the chance to relax!

_________________
The subtlety and conviction of any Photoshop effect is invariably inversely proportional to the number of knobs on it .......

Posted on 29/09/19 6:04:16 PM

GKB
Magical Montagist
Posts: 3723

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

http://vimeo.com/363136511

_________________
If at first you don't succeed then skydiving is not for you.

Posted on 29/09/19 11:44:05 PM

Mariner
Renaissance Mariner
Posts: 2817

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

DavidMac wrote:

Mariner wrote:
Bring it on!

Wow! I can only promise to take a long look at it. If it is going to be too time consuming or I am not mad enough to try it I will let you know.

Posted on 30/09/19 09:07:26 AM

DavidMac
Director of Photoshop
Posts: 4936

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

Mariner wrote:

DavidMac wrote:

Mariner wrote:
Bring it on!

Wow! I can only promise to take a long look at it. If it is going to be too time consuming or I am not mad enough to try it I will let you know.

Michael, although there is a strong element of devilry here, I don't want you to even think about it unless you are going to enjoy it.

_________________
The subtlety and conviction of any Photoshop effect is invariably inversely proportional to the number of knobs on it .......

Posted on 01/10/19 00:12:24 AM

lwc
Hole in One
Posts: 2630

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

Posted on 01/10/19 05:46:29 AM

Tom
Texture Technologist
Posts: 401

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

High res here.

Posted on 01/10/19 07:25:55 AM

tooquilos
Wizard of Oz
Posts: 2800

Reply

Re: Challenge 775: Overhead lighting

http://vimeo.com/363474066

This one was interesting because the moment you take away the doorway the concept of size and space is gone. It could be anything. Tom your image is beautiful. The subtlety of the constellation images on the wall is perfect. Great work so far from all.

By the way, I interpreted the object as a spinning top. Does anyone have any idea what it actually is?

_________________
Dorothy: Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

page: 1 2 3 4 last

Back

[ To post a reply, please Log In or Register ]