Let's establish some ground rules here. You can either say a missing reflection is deliberate, or that someone is convincingly boating around in an upturned beach umbrella. You can't have both.
On the other hand, if this is a calculated attempt to get onto PsD then I salute you, sir.
Thanks to Ryan! Original is here!
54 comments:
It doesn't say anywhere that she's not a vampire :)
LOL a BIG detail is overlooked -.-'
Excellent.
Better to highlight "No detail is overlooked, which is reflected"
Agree with Drew, that's what I thought :-)
I didn't even notice her reflection missing, I was looking at how the left side panel is blue and the right side panel appears to be missing altogether.
Completely agree with Drew too! I thought that reflected statement was rather well placed.
REAL BS requires a high power rep.
i especially enjoy the fact that it is ''reflected'' in his photographs
You'll also note that although the angle of the umbrella post is correctly reflected (although it may be a tad long), the clouds have not been reversed in orientation in the reflection. So, only 1 of 3 major reflections was done sort of right.
@Mark Rose:
im pretty sure the sky and water were shot together, while the woman and umbrella were shot in a studio.. Besides, the rippling of the water distorts the clouds too much to say that they are incorrectly reflected.
oh, and the rippling of the water at certain angles would cause an elongated effect on the umbrella..
I question whether the umbrella would leave a reflection that is so sharp, given how diffuse the light actually is. The handle is particularly striking. The light source seems fairly high, so would the shadows be that long?
The shadowing/lighting on the woman does not seem to match with that of the umbrella. The shadow of the umbrella is reaching toward the viewer and the shadows on the woman are distinctly going to the left of the viewer.
The right hand seems too long. The light on the woman is also very harsh, and if you notice, the mountains on the left have been mirrored over to the mountains on the right. :)
@Susan Wensel:
Difuse Lighting doesn't affect on reflects. it is the cuality of the mirror wich alterate that (do you reflect better on a mirror with hard light than soft light?)
I think the umbrella and the sky were there. And I think the woman composition is perfect (I particulary love the cyan in her hand).
It hitted my very hard to notice her shadow was missing. Such a well coloured picture (maybe the blue mask in the left it's a bit too much), has that kind of mistake!
Reflections don't get fuzzy because of the light, they get fuzzy if the surface is diffused or rippled or something.
I think other than the woman being forgotten, the umbrella in water is real.
reflection, not shadow. sorry.
@Ninad Pundalik:
That's a normal lenght arm, the harsh light can be easily taken as the sun coming from outside the frame in a foggy afternoon (wich happens in real life, and can be set up in real life photography and you wouldn't notice), and those mountains, if mirrored, are quite natural and tastefully done to be looking at them.
Did anyone else notice the small owl in the clouds?
I dunno... if you look right about where the umbrella meets the water it look like her arm is reflected. Also if you look at the very bottom of the photo it looks like she might be reflected.
I love people really believing that she might be reflected somewhere here :)
wv: sedotri, triple sedative
Best.PSD.Ever.
Forget the reflections - surely I'm not the only one bothered by the physics of this image? She's not displacing even NEARLY enough water...
"It doesn't say anywhere that she's not a vampire :)"
And where, pray tell, do you see her sparkling?
She's behind the umbrella. There isn't supposed to be a reflection. The angles are all wrong.
This is not a PSD.
joAco: Have you ever seen reflections on a mostly cloudy day? What reflections there are will be rather indistinct, undetailed. I never claimed the shadows were diffuse, only that the obvious light was.
I was primarily observing that there were two different light qualities: one sharp and one diffuse.
wheyghey said "She's behind the umbrella. There isn't supposed to be a reflection. The angles are all wrong. This is not a PSD."
OK, three little steps: there is an umbrella with an umbrella pole. The reflection in the water is roughly the same size as the umbrella and umbrella pole. Therefore, somewhere along the umbrella pole's reflection, approximately in it's middle, there should be a hand's (with it's attendant parts such as wrist, arm, torso, etc.) reflection too. If the angles were all wrong for the hand/torso assembly, they would be wrong for the umbrella pole too. And lastly, since it's been definitely established that she is a vampire (without a reflection), you'd see the reflection of her clothes and hair tie. The rest is bogus: I can prove that a 120 pound vampirette and a forty pound umbrella does displace only five gallons of water.
Waldobaby
a gallon of water weighs about 8 pounds, so a 120 pound vampirette and a 40 umbrella total 160 pounds.
160 pounds divided by 8 pounds, means there would be about 20 gallons, or 2.674 cubic feet(almost a cubic yard) of water displaced.
So actually she is riding a little high in the water to be correct.
Yeah! Wot I sed, 'cept there's 27 squares in a cubic yard. Sorry, I'm anal like that...
wv: flogings
I kid you not.
Perhaps the real reason she's not leaving a reflection is that she's just got back from her last job - which was a Ralph Lauren shoot . . .
Susan:
Cloudy light just make images to have less contrast, no to be blurrier.
And what I said is that is a perfectly normal an acceptable kind of light mix. A sun beam escapes thru to teh clouds, drawing a fine sunshine spot.
It a normal phenomenon, so it's ok to reproduce it. besides, it's done quite well! (if we forget about the reflection, of course)
I will wager a goodly sum that the link to the picture will either disappear or be repaired within days of this posting. Especially with the artist's (or agent's) email address so convenient...sort of like how that small owl turned into a full purse on the VS page.
Kudos on the "reflected" comment use. Also, photographer promotion fail. way to go PSD. True disaster.
wv: diabun
Despite this being a bad messup, his portfolio looks really awesome though!
Huge disaster. Why did the photographer not go and shoot the image for real if he is incapable of retouching it to look real? The missing reflection of the woman reflects badly on the artist's work. I would be too embarrassed to put this online if it were mine.
duh not psd woman deliberate ironic sparkly twilight vampire small owl argle bargle blah unsribering.
There, that should cover it, now we can get on with the analysis...lol
joAco: I never said anything about blurry, so give it up. In addition, it is impossible for one type of light source to hit the umbrella and a different, sharper light source to hit the woman. Just can't happen (unless you believe she was hit by a sunbeam that slipped through a crack so small it was only 2 feet wide when it hit her).
Regarding the reflection, go out on the water and see for yourself. I have seen reflections on water from nearly every kind of light source. Given what is shown here, he's definitely screwed up the reflection - it shows way too much detail.
I don't think this is a PS blunder at all. Her reflection is clearly visible. If you take into account the angle of view and her size compared to the main part of the umbrella/boat base, her reflection would not appear as prominent as she does to the camera/viewer.
Oh god, was it too hard to place an actual woman floating on a umbrella in the middle of the ocean to take a photo of it?;)
I liked this image. The lack of reflection is funny, and it can be viewed as a new standard for anorexy, but it's cute. Loved the atmosphere.
Three types of commenters on this blog.
A) Crazy people that refuse to acknowledge the realities of physics, optics, and human anatomy.
B) Crazy people that claim every tiny element of the photo is horrifyingly screwed up. Never show these people your wedding photos.
C) Those of us that either stir the pot or ignore what the smell is.
I wonder how many of A and B are actually C...
first, we have to notice it is an ARTISTIC PHOTO. it's not meant to be REALISTIC, but verosimile.
Next, you have to admit that it easier to throw an umbrella to the water and take a picture of it than taking a regular picture, and one invereted, then compose the second below the other, mess up with it so it looks as an actual reflection.
second, Susan, if you look as how thelight hits the umbrella, you'll notice that it'd never have a direct beam of light hitting on it.
I don't know what detail are you seeing on it. the pole is just a dark line in the water. in the umbrella you have sky mixing everywhere (wich is difficult to do conciently, you know).
and, besides all that, if the picture had the reflexion it would be quite realistic.
Stop trying to find things where there's nothing. why an artist would have longen the arm? why????
why, if he could convincingly compose the umbrella, he couldn't do it with the girl?
who cares about how much water she had to desplace? (it would sink; it's not phisics, it's common sense).
Ok, he forgot to put the reflexion. and they say he is very in details. "LOL". move on.
If you look at just the reflection, there is more there than just the reflection of an umbrella. So I'm going to say that the woman's reflection is visible (even though it may not be that accurate).
I don't think I'd count this is a disaster. It's more of a boo-boo.
It is just barely possible that the umbrella is on a sand bank or that the water is very shallow. I've been places like that.
OTOH, there's no excuse for the long shadow pointing the wrong direction.
As some who nearly "turtled" a Lido 14' sailboat recently, I can say with great confidence that the lady in the photo would fall backward in her current position, overturning the umbrella and going for a swim. The umbrella has no "keel" and hence would be very tippy. Believe me. I know...
THEN there are questions about the light source--i.e., how is the panel of the umbrella we can see illuminated, and not her inner thighs?
Also, my wife can do that.
Go to the site and look at Andric's work. We can get a bunch of psd's from his portfolio.
hahahahaha OMG how embarrassing! Contradiction to the max with the caption.
Not really a disaster. She was obviously added to the floating umbrella picture, but her reflection would be barely seen if she was there.
And in fact there is a hint of a reflection shown, which is the most we could expect considering the angle. The only thing that gives it away actually is the fact that she doesn't cast a shadow on the umbrella itself, considering she has direct light hitting her (hardly a disaster).
BTW, it's obviously not physically possible, it's not supposed to be, it's the whole point of the picture.
I would comment that while the PsD itself is bad enough, combining the word reflection in the copy (which is meant to be selling copy) even though the meaning isn't "an image caused by return of light" is a Hurrican Katrina level disaster.
But then it wouldn't be only a PsD as such and therefore should be disqualified according to all those whose mission in life is to make the rules for this blog.
RE: This post -- d'oh! What a pretty picture, too bad about the reflection/reflection sitch.
RE: This blog -- WOW PsD readers need to chill out. A) You don't know anatomy. You don't know lighting. You don't know art. Stop critiquing the heck out of everything (or trying to excuse the obvious with magic bullet theories).
B) People aren't really unsubscribering, they don't really see small owls, their girlfriends can't do that, and yes, they (mostly) realize this really is a PsD. There is this crazy thing called a sense of humor. I recommend getting one this holiday season.
For a moment, just a short moment, I thought there was a PSD that no one could argue was not a PSD. But then, out they came. "Artistical!" "It's pure phisecks!" they cried. "Only a fule wood phale too see this is purfektly nachurl!"
I love this blog, but Christ sometimes people on the internets make me glad the average sperm count is dropping precipitously....
I just read through every comment here and lolled the whole way.
I feel that her arm may have been minorly modified, as it does look a tad too long - but that's not something I noticed until my second glance back over here.
Given what we can see from the pole, I would presume we would see something much more distinct from the woman in the reflection, and that this mysterious ghost of a reflection everyone is suggesting we're seeing is just from the umbrella.
Despite that, you people are really over-critical - It's not THAT horrid, it's just a silly mistake with an extremely ironic caption.
Given the copy below the pic, I'm tempted to think that the whole ad is tongue-in-cheek. She was clearly never in the umbrella -- the lack of water displacement is indisputable. Well... indisputable to anyone who has ever been in a canoe.
reflections sold seperately
wv: purtyr
this would be purtyr with her reflection
good looking
Post a Comment