[Spenner]

I don't want to keep stretching pages but overall I respect the analysis of the analysis very valid for the most part. Just a few things;

Originally Posted by _.Spitfire._

Here's my analysis of your analysis, spenner!

First off, I don't think he's explicitly trying to pass these off as real. Some of these images are simply impossible to do without editing in the first place. They're fine art photographs and there's plenty of editing in photography as it is already so your assumption of him trying to pass it off as real when it's not is unfounded imo and makes you sound really biased.

Perhaps, but it's moreso the context here; this thread states "this guy's photography" and it was kind of a stream of thought before bedtime I wanted to get out of my system. Had I looked into it, I would've seen that these are not in fact necessarily trying to cheat their way into a category they don't belong. On sites like 500px which are known for having no distinction between the two (hardly ever pointed out), that's where it urks me, but there's not much I can do about that.

Originally Posted by _.Spitfire._

Shadow color and softness is heavily dependent on context. If it's a cloudy day, then a lot of shadows will be soft and greyish in color so that's really not an issue.

The thing which threw me off about the hands was the fact that the greyness did not at all mix with some of the skin tone values underneath, when there is at least some general warmth to the scene that would have at least brought it to more of a cool tone (comparatively to the skin), and not right at the stark grey. My eyes could be fooling me though colourblindness wise. You're right that lighting inconsistency is the biggest issue here, overall though. And the fact that there's no people underwater lmao.

Originally Posted by _.Spitfire._

Agree the paper is obvious, but it's not a perspective issue more so a shadow/lighting issue (which technically is part of perspective too but it's handled as a separate criticism). Since paper can fold in a variety of ways and still look convincing, perspective isn't so much the issue here but a lack of understanding of lighting is. The color is also a bit off on the paper, which makes them seem out of place (particularly noticeable in the top left piece of paper).

Yeah it is indeed a matter of lighting/shadows which gives it the impression of false perspective for me, particularly the right corner of that paper in the base of the briefcase. Given how the shadow direction is with the left part of the briefcase, the other side shouldn't be casting a shadow on it, just the paper casting one on it, which you cannot see.

Originally Posted by _.Spitfire._

The highlights on the pants can be passed off as realistic given the fabric and folds.

The part that bothers me though is the fact that there's no other indication of that same type of lighting which can crease highlights/shadows like the pants. The scene is just that of a softer atmosphere diffused with it's lighting.

Originally Posted by _.Spitfire._

The highlights along the water's edge are consistent with reality since water attaches itself to a surface and that small curve that connects the water allows for a reflection of the sky. This isn't necessarily painted on.

I'm aware of that effect, and the part that singles it out for me is the fact that they are all identical, regardless of the fact that the rest of the surrounding area may be in shadow. I'm not saying the ridge has to be in shadow, but it should reflect more than just the solid colour to have an element of realism.

Originally Posted by _.Spitfire._

For the rest, I agree with it, the rain and blur are obvious edits but the blur doesn't detract from the photo imo.

My biggest beef is with that swirling fabric photo, because the fact that it is so off with the depth of field that I can't help but say that it is a distraction.

It's seems really nitpicky but the difference between gaussian blur and natural lens blur is definitive. Granted, in some of these photos it was a subtle use, but it's usually mimicking something that a lens wouldn't allow for.

A counterargument for that though is the fact that, since these are indeed more of the fine art category (maybe on some of the sites he's posted on, others have no such labelling), that the effect of the blur is to aid the visual hierarchy, regardless of it's consistency with reality. That's valid in my books for fine art.

Originally Posted by _.Spitfire._

As for the background mountains (I'm assuming you meant this with the out of focus areas), this is entirely conform to reality as the light appears from behind the mountain top. You can still see the edge of the mountain if you follow it along. It's the natural lighting + the fog that obscures this, not a blur.

Nah the backgrounds are not a concern to me, I only meant the parts of the foreground subject. Though it does, by contrast, suggest that most of the fabric should not have a blur if the infinity focus is visible too. Nothing a non photographer would even care about, and since it's more a matter of fine art I suppose it doesn't even matter to point out.

Originally Posted by _.Spitfire._

The rain is fake, but this is what I meant with how you can even argue that he's trying to pass these off as real. The head is obviously edited in because it's highly unlikely the pool of water is even that deep, so why are you worried about the blending?

You've misunderstood what I meant by blending, and I probably didn't make that obvious-- it was this stuff:

Originally Posted by _.Spitfire._

Reflection in water isn't possible if the water flows turbulently (as the water does there). The suit part is pure speculation and assumption. There are definitely some water stains on the suit from where the water touches but it doesn't have to reach high up at all if the water is a gentle stream.

True say. I suppose part of me expected more of the shadow to be projected into the water, but turbulence would obscure it.

Originally Posted by _.Spitfire._

Look again buddy, there is definitely shadow casting from the mask onto the body.
If the rope has a shadowy definition, so should the body? The body has shadow definition too though, just not the same values as the rope. Rope is also a completely different material than skin so they give off different reflections/values/colors so this argument doesn't make any sense.
Given that the smoke and fire is so well incorporated into the environment, I doubt the pixel edge was due to a crop, but more likely due to a sharpen to make it pop out more.

The fire is not what I'm proposing has been composited in, it's the body. The smoke is totally fine, it's got that texture like you mentioned because of sharpening, and because of the clarity function in camera raw.

You're going to need to elaborate though, because I don't see a shadow here:



Also the rope comparison was merely to say that since there's clearly some shadow happening in the environment (I don't think necessarily the material of the rope is cause alone for it to have a shadow, it's because of lighting; there is fire right above it which is likely the cause of that shadow, but there's is just nothing coming off of that fabric and onto the body).

Originally Posted by _.Spitfire._

The photos are listed under his fine art category, not portraits or anything else. I don't see how this is "upright disrespectful" to not mention it is composited when it's listed under fine art. A bit of rational thought would tell you this is obviously composited due to some physical impossibilities and I think the fact that you assume he is trying to cheat is a disrespectful assumption on its own.

There are a LOT of cheaters out there, especially on 500px, and it's not always obvious to everyone--

Ohaider, just curious, did you think these were legit when you posted the thread?

--and while I definitely agree it's disrespectful to assume these were designed as a form of trickery, it was under the assumption that these were under the category of photography, which they are definitely not, so that opinion of mine has been rendered flat. Also I recognize that being fooled by these does not automatically make them any less of what they are, fine art, and one should probably be questioning their beliefs of a lot of the photographs they see.

I appreciate the insights Tristiano~