“A good photograph is knowing where to stand.”

October 15, 2016 8:57 PM

Profiling a mix of practical effects, Photoshop®, photographer effort, modelling and correct angles this series of tricky photos presents the photo and then with a click shows how they were setup. Part 1 {1 - 15}, 2 {16 - 30}, 3 {31 - 45}, 4 {46 - 53}.

The attribution below the photo usually links to more information on the setup.

Title quote attributed to Ansel Adams

posted by Mitheral (24 comments total)

That was fascinating, thanks for the post.

I've always loved photography and seeing how some of it gets done is truly awesome. Such creativity and vision!
posted by ashbury at 9:22 PM on October 15, 2016

That was fun, but half of them are just "it's basically what you see, except there's a photographer there too"
posted by aubilenon at 9:41 PM on October 15, 2016 [10 favorites]

About 1967 I acquired a 35mm camera, an old Argus brick, I spent the next couple of years taking pictures, spending more money than I had to have the film developed and printed.... one shot out of 200 was worth saving... My favorite was an image of fire hoses winding towards a fire in downtown Jackson, Michigan. Over the years I acquired some better cameras, ending up with a higher end Pentex SLR and a decent set of lens, eventually, 40 years later, moving to digital equipment.

I learned that it isn't about the manipulation of the photo, about the staging... it was about being in the right place at the right time, having your camera in your hand, and having the light exactly right... and then, and only then, do you end up with the image that will be exactly what you wanted....

These are interesting shots, but.....
posted by HuronBob at 9:53 PM on October 15, 2016 [3 favorites]

This is really neat, and definitely not something I would think of. Well I would think of the close-up of the fox just being a close-up of a fox, but I probably would not get that close to Reynard to take it.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 10:07 PM on October 15, 2016 [1 favorite]

aubilenon: but half of them are just "it's basically what you see, except there's a photographer there too"

That was interesting to me - how many of them were just that.

A large number seemed to be based on the simplest photoshop effect - if you have a tripod so you can first photograph your background, and then assemble a subject in front of it and photograph that with an identical background, merging the two shots to selectively remove props (pun intended :) ) is pretty easy.

#48 just seems wrong to me.

As HuronBob says, the lighting is critical. That has always been the hardest thing to spot for me. Look at #42 for a great example of a simple lighting effect.
posted by merlynkline at 11:32 PM on October 15, 2016

Ok, number 20 is good.

Edit for context: the photographer is on fire!!!
posted by Literaryhero at 1:23 AM on October 16, 2016 [7 favorites]

I learned the ins-n-outs-n-ticks of photography as the young graphic artists working in the ad department of a regional department store chain. Much of my week was spent in the studio with a photographer shooting mundane, everyday objects creatively.

One of the more fun shots was when we had to shoot something with a multitude of objects...like a silverware set. It had to fit into a square format ad, but, of course, we couldn't shoot 100+ objects from straight overhead. It was a tabletop and we had to account for the keystone effect of perspective. Many hours of detail work can go into the most mundane of shots.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:01 AM on October 16, 2016 [1 favorite]

A few bloopers in there where the reveal doesn't really match the photo. See the hummingbirds, for example.
posted by oheso at 4:10 AM on October 16, 2016

Yeah, the explanation for #20 is more interesting than the photo. Same with #16. They built a huge room in a water tank to film the model underwater.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 4:23 AM on October 16, 2016

I was assistant to a photographer who insisted on doing everything for real, meaning no Photoshop at all even when we did things like blowing up statues (maybe a couple of wires airbrushed out, but nothing major). We would have got far better results doing it all digitally most of the time, but it gave us something to do and you had a story afterwards for the client!
posted by Coda Tronca at 4:32 AM on October 16, 2016 [1 favorite]

#23, basically any food that looks insanely great in a photo is inedible, or downright toxic after the 'food stylist' is finished coating it with oils or whatever trick makes it shine.
posted by sammyo at 4:59 AM on October 16, 2016

We would have got far better results doing it all digitally most of the time...

Doesn't that depend on your definition of "better", though? More cinematic, dramatic or perfect, perhaps. But, it could be argued that what you got, working that way, was more "real." Sort of the difference between the what a movie pound of C4 looks like going off, and what a real pound of C4 going off looks like.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:00 AM on October 16, 2016

Not a fan of the title "Photography Is The Biggest Lie Ever" but a lot of these are neat ideas.
posted by octothorpe at 5:24 AM on October 16, 2016 [2 favorites]

This holds for many values of photographs but breaks down somewhere near National Geographic.
posted by Nanukthedog at 5:25 AM on October 16, 2016

I think 'better' meant 'looking more like what the client and the photographer wanted in the first place'... but the thing is that when you build it for real, things can happen that you don't expect and you come away with lots of other shots and ideas. Which doesn't really happen when you're sitting over the shoulder of a guy painstakingly digitally compositing stuff.
posted by Coda Tronca at 5:37 AM on October 16, 2016 [1 favorite]

> Well I would think of the close-up of the fox just being a close-up of a fox, but I probably would not get that close to Reynard to take it.

I thought that foxes (apart from the urbanised ones) tend to avoid humans, so what made Reynard get that close to the photographer?
Maybe they rubbed a chicken wing over the lens.
posted by farlukar at 8:08 AM on October 16, 2016

sammyo: "any food that looks insanely great in a photo is inedible,"

For food advertising you can pretty well assume everything in the frame with the exception of the actual item being advertised is adulterated or faked in some way.
posted by Mitheral at 9:05 AM on October 16, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'd agree, but include the "actual item being advertised" as faked as well.
posted by Greg_Ace at 11:27 AM on October 16, 2016

Those wedding shots with the photographers squatting and lying in muddy puddles!
posted by treepour at 11:29 AM on October 16, 2016 [1 favorite]

Thank you for sharing these. There are some good, accessible techniques in there, e.g.

• placing the camera close to a puddle to capture the reflection and/or give the impression of a lake;
• paper cutouts to cast unique shadows, e.g. stylized window frames;
• a computer monitor can display a stylized background when shooting small items;
• using props to create floating poses (that you then photoshop out);
• splashing water (or flour) to add action or drama;
• paper lens covers with (heart) shaped cutouts to create light flares in those shapes, etc.
• plastic wrap around the edges of a lens to create blur, softer light

Less so with the underwater shots that require a giant diving tank, scuba gear, divers, waterproof equipment, and spare furniture. :)
posted by Davenhill at 11:30 AM on October 16, 2016 [4 favorites]

Screw Bored Panda for saying, "Every woman eventually turns into her mother." If that is the case than life is rigged.

I took some fun, underwater selfies last year. Mixed reviews. The drowning mother / Ophelia meme, was confusing for some.
posted by Oyéah at 11:45 AM on October 16, 2016

Use this old-school photography trick to make it seem like someone is levitating or falling: photoshop out the supports! Wow!
posted by Pyry at 11:46 AM on October 16, 2016 [2 favorites]

Greg_Ace: "I'd agree, but include the "actual item being advertised" as faked as well."

Depends on what you mean by faked. EG: if an ad's subject is waffle cones (IE: the waffly bit) then the "ice cream" is the picture is something like mashed potatoes and shortening. But if the subject is the ice cream itself then it'll be ice cream. Though the perfect ball might be sitting in a cone filled with ice to keep the ice cream firm. And the cone might be cardboard or a plastic casting.
posted by Mitheral at 12:54 AM on October 17, 2016

Some more from the same source.
posted by Mitheral at 12:44 PM on October 21, 2016