|
I didn't see this posted. Apparently, you can get an original print for $900. He says he did all that in-camera, but... gently caress. How? The only thing I can think of is a shitload of lighting so that he could get the sky like that. Also, to beat a dead horse, I wish I were as lucky (unlucky?) as the guy who took this: 
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2009 09:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
notlodar posted:Or he used film? Yeah. That photo is at least 27 years old. From the album cover of "A Broken Frame", which came out in 1982.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2009 06:14
|
|
|
spog posted:I am not surprised that he used film, but I don't think that is significant: that photo's main characteristics suggest to me a big lighting rig. I get ya. I think my main thing was that it seems like a modern photograph, even though it's almost 30 years old. And, thinking about it, he most definitely used a big lighting rig. So, technically, I understand the photo. But I still think it's a badass picture. It seems like it mixes the usable parts of HDR tomfoolery with traditional portraiture and then a little bit of "something else". But maybe I'm too stuck in the 80s.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2009 08:45
|
|