Take a look at this photograph: "The Extras, 2009," the seventh photograph on this page -
https://www.lehmannmaupin.com/exhibitions/alex-prager6(I'm posting the link, not the photograph, because I did not take it and do not have permission from the photographer to use it.)
There is something about it that I just can't put my finger on. To me, it looks unrealistic. I'm not talking about the scene or other "content" but the "qualities" of the image. I don't know how to describe it--like the difference between the photo of a building and the "artist's rendering." In a way, it seems almost like a drawing than a photograph.
How would one go about achieving this "effect," if that's what it is?
Does anyone see what I mean, or is it just my imagination?
No... it is not your imagination. I can't speak to the technique. But the people look like mannequins.
Barry
I think the problem is, despite the great depth of field, every part is in focus. There is also a large number of people crowded together, but do not appear to be in any way aware of each other -- there's a car parked in the middle of a crowded fairway where someone is sitting in a chair.
bbrowner wrote:
No... it is not your imagination. I can't speak to the technique. But the people look like mannequins.
Barry
Yea, something looks funny, even thought that about the first image on the page.
Then there is the shadow angle differences from the image sources for the copy-n-paste.
The mannequins are not wearing masks, so it is unrealistic that they would be so near to other mannequins.
BudsOwl
Loc: Upstate NY and New England
TomHackett wrote:
Take a look at this photograph: "The Extras, 2009," the seventh photograph on this page -
https://www.lehmannmaupin.com/exhibitions/alex-prager6(I'm posting the link, not the photograph, because I did not take it and do not have permission from the photographer to use it.)
There is something about it that I just can't put my finger on. To me, it looks unrealistic. I'm not talking about the scene or other "content" but the "qualities" of the image. I don't know how to describe it--like the difference between the photo of a building and the "artist's rendering." In a way, it seems almost like a drawing than a photograph.
How would one go about achieving this "effect," if that's what it is?
Does anyone see what I mean, or is it just my imagination?
Take a look at this photograph: "The Extras, ... (
show quote)
It reminds me of something we would see in the Saturday Evening Post by Norman Rockwell. The artist (photographer) probably copied in individuals from other photos onto the photo with the building. I have used this technique to superpose on owl onto a full moon and then use it as one side of my business card.
BTW I see you are from Kingston. Have you ever gone out to eat at the Hurley Mountain Inn?
Bud
WF2B wrote:
BTW I see you are from Kingston. Have you ever gone out to eat at the Hurley Mountain Inn?
Bud
I've been in Kingston almost 14 years. I've passed Hurley Mountain Inn hundreds of time, but only had lunch there once. It's probably time to visit there again.
Tom
BudsOwl
Loc: Upstate NY and New England
TomHackett wrote:
I've been in Kingston almost 14 years. I've passed Hurley Mountain Inn hundreds of time, but only had lunch there once. It's probably time to visit there again.
Tom
Before Covid-19 our ham radio club would go there for dinner on the second Monday of the month before our meeting in the church just up the road. Good food.
Bud
I'm SOoooo glad I just look at images and either like them or do not...
Much simpler for my simple mind.
Indeed, it was the New Yorker article you mention nearly a year ago that first brought this photograph to my intention. I guess it's time to re-read the article.
Tom
PP taken to the Nth degree. Not sure if I like it or not but I can appreciate the monumental task to produce it.
TomHackett wrote:
Take a look at this photograph: "The Extras, 2009," the seventh photograph on this page -
https://www.lehmannmaupin.com/exhibitions/alex-prager6(I'm posting the link, not the photograph, because I did not take it and do not have permission from the photographer to use it.)
There is something about it that I just can't put my finger on. To me, it looks unrealistic. I'm not talking about the scene or other "content" but the "qualities" of the image. I don't know how to describe it--like the difference between the photo of a building and the "artist's rendering." In a way, it seems almost like a drawing than a photograph.
How would one go about achieving this "effect," if that's what it is?
Does anyone see what I mean, or is it just my imagination?
Take a look at this photograph: "The Extras, ... (
show quote)
Description has W22 st NYC. Not even close. Should read somewhere in the midwest.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.