This guy's photography

[Ohaider]

how does he even... mad props, had to rep


















http://www.kylethompsonphotography.com/

[Hakulyte]

mfw..

[EAGAMES]

How to photography.

[Spenner]

Alright so these may look impressive, but do not be fooled: every one of these is a composite.

#1: The shadows on the hands are distinctly grey in tone, which would not be the case in a natural setting. They are also unrealistically soft. The highlights on some of the arms have been painted on, they lack the sharp specular nature that real ones would have. Some of the reflections lack distortion too.

#2: Paper is a pretty big indicator here, especially the one on the left within the briefcase. It has clear perspective issues, and that's mostly because of the mistake of the shadow at the bottom of said page: just shouldn't be there. It would have to be right up against the metal bracket to get that shadow happening. The pants are also a clear indicator of a composite photo, for obvious reasons in the highlights. ALSO: shadow from the briefcase onto the paper below looks fake as hell.

#3: This one's easy. The highlights on the ridges of the face that are along the water are painted in. The reflection is a vertically motion blurred version of whats above. The linearity of the rain indicates it was also just painted in + motion blurred. It has a distinct guassian blur to it which would not happen with a real camera lens.

#4: Gotta say, really awful depth of field here, and I actually am liking this photographer less by the minute, if in fact he is trying to pass these off as legit photos. The big "C" fabric to the left; how would the middle/bottom of it be sharp but the top part blurry, if it is further away from the subject? Bad attention to detail. Out of focus areas are clearly smudged looking because of a gaussian blur.

#5: Not as bad. Can't exactly tell if the rain is fake or not in this one, they're just too small. But they still feel gimmicky after seeing that other fake rain photo. The biggest downfall is something I'm not sure about, but think might've been added out of desperation: look at the "bokeh" at the bottom blurry spots in the image. Only some bokeh is present, other parts look gaussian blur'd. This means the photographer has likely brought in an out of focus photo, and blend moded over the gaussian blur to make it look more natural >_____________> really low blow if my speculation is true.

#6: No reflection in water, no upper parts of the suit are wet (by nature of taking steps in such deep of water, you would have spots of the suit wet that are higher up). Balloons guassian blurry, the one that is 2nd furthest back was just lazily flipped horizontally.

#7: No shadow at all on the on-fire fabric onto the body. If the rope has shadowy definition, so should the body. Really nerdy here but there are jagged pixels along the edges of the body which indicate it's been cropped and they've used "Make edge" with increased contrast. You would have a slightly fuzzy pixel edge if natural.

SO, hope I'm not bursting a bubble here, but I think this kind of photography is upright disrespectful, and should be said STRAIGHT UP if it is a composite or not. Otherwise, you're a cheating liar, who is being childish by denying the truth of your work.

[noname219]

I do appreciate those compositions. They are visually striking. At first sight, I doubt he create them in order to convey any specific concept. They're surrealist for the sake of being surrealist. (maybe I'm not putting enough thought about those, anyway)

I thought about asking him to write a bit more about his compositions, about his creative process and everything. He has a good style he can work with. I would just prefer he could spend more time thinking about the meaning of his work instead of spending it on building a complex photo-manipulation.

@Spenner : nice analysis. From what I understand, he stated earlier that he's heavily editing his photos :

You’ve mentioned on a few occasions that Phlearn has helped you with your photography/editing skills. Can you tell us a little about that?

Yeah, I’ve been a big fan of Phlearn for almost a year now. I usually check back a couple times a week to see what new videos are up. My favorite is Aaron’s video on drawing shadows, I thought it was really helpful!

http://phlearn.com/phlearn-interviews-kyle-thompson

Looks like people (and him) are just saying it's "photography" because it's the primary medium, or at least, the main one. What irks me instead is how people praise him like he's the only guy in the world that can do this like he's the innovator of the movement. It's been done before, as soon as the 1920s.
And, there's tons of people doing this kind of art around.

[Spenner]

I agree that it lacks meaning or even conveyance of emotion in some aspects. The elements in the photos, while seemingly surreal, are more or less a portrayal of nonsense. Rather than to be objects with placement that attempts to convey something beyond the realm of reality, they are just unlikely scenarios.

The most surreal part about the photos is the label of photography that comes with them.

[Mollocephalus]

Originally Posted by Spenner

Alright so these may look impressive, but do not be fooled: every one of these is a composite.

#1: The shadows on the hands are distinctly grey in tone, which would not be the case in a natural setting. They are also unrealistically soft. The highlights on some of the arms have been painted on, they lack the sharp specular nature that real ones would have. Some of the reflections lack distortion too.

#2: Paper is a pretty big indicator here, especially the one on the left within the briefcase. It has clear perspective issues, and that's mostly because of the mistake of the shadow at the bottom of said page: just shouldn't be there. It would have to be right up against the metal bracket to get that shadow happening. The pants are also a clear indicator of a composite photo, for obvious reasons in the highlights. ALSO: shadow from the briefcase onto the paper below looks fake as hell.

#3: This one's easy. The highlights on the ridges of the face that are along the water are painted in. The reflection is a vertically motion blurred version of whats above. The linearity of the rain indicates it was also just painted in + motion blurred. It has a distinct guassian blur to it which would not happen with a real camera lens.

#4: Gotta say, really awful depth of field here, and I actually am liking this photographer less by the minute, if in fact he is trying to pass these off as legit photos. The big "C" fabric to the left; how would the middle/bottom of it be sharp but the top part blurry, if it is further away from the subject? Bad attention to detail. Out of focus areas are clearly smudged looking because of a gaussian blur.

#5: Not as bad. Can't exactly tell if the rain is fake or not in this one, they're just too small. But they still feel gimmicky after seeing that other fake rain photo. The biggest downfall is something I'm not sure about, but think might've been added out of desperation: look at the "bokeh" at the bottom blurry spots in the image. Only some bokeh is present, other parts look gaussian blur'd. This means the photographer has likely brought in an out of focus photo, and blend moded over the gaussian blur to make it look more natural >_____________> really low blow if my speculation is true.

#6: No reflection in water, no upper parts of the suit are wet (by nature of taking steps in such deep of water, you would have spots of the suit wet that are higher up). Balloons guassian blurry, the one that is 2nd furthest back was just lazily flipped horizontally.

#7: No shadow at all on the on-fire fabric onto the body. If the rope has shadowy definition, so should the body. Really nerdy here but there are jagged pixels along the edges of the body which indicate it's been cropped and they've used "Make edge" with increased contrast. You would have a slightly fuzzy pixel edge if natural.

SO, hope I'm not bursting a bubble here, but I think this kind of photography is upright disrespectful, and should be said STRAIGHT UP if it is a composite or not. Otherwise, you're a cheating liar, who is being childish by denying the truth of your work.

My face while reading this post:



I do like the atmosphere in some of his pictures. They do not seem to convey any meaning per se but some of them are appealing to the eye and have a faintly evocative feeling. However, i really hope he doesn't try to pass these as photographic work as this is nothing more than deviantart tier digital manipulation, or slightly above that.

[gold stinger]

yeah these are masterpiece photoshop works. The paper shadow in the briefcase picture gave it away.

[Izzy]

I'm no expert, but it seems more praiseworthy artistic concepts rather than good photography. I also doubt these are simply photographs, they look edited.

[Nullifidian]

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.

Originally Posted by Spenner

#1: The shadows on the hands are distinctly grey in tone, which would not be the case in a natural setting. They are also unrealistically soft. The highlights on some of the arms have been painted on, they lack the sharp specular nature that real ones would have. Some of the reflections lack distortion too.

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 highlights also depend on context and aren't always sharp (especially if it is cloudy). I doubt he'd paint them on if the easy solution is to just get your arm wet and photograph that so I think you're seeing problems for the sake of picking it apart. The reflections are pretty convincing imo at first glance. Only if you start nitpicking you can see it's not -completely- accurate so that's kind of a non-issue.

The real issues though are the inconsistencies in lighting, spatial placement and cropping of the hands. The second highest arm for example has a dark burned shadowline on the right and there are a couple of cast shadows that don't look right. Some of the colors of the hands are slightly off too (like the hand that has the other hand resting on top of it near the center, which also somehow managed to be in front of the hand most center even though that hand looks to be in front of all of the arms). There's also the issue that the water is pretty clear, so you should be able to see the people underwater.

Originally Posted by Spenner

#2: Paper is a pretty big indicator here, especially the one on the left within the briefcase. It has clear perspective issues, and that's mostly because of the mistake of the shadow at the bottom of said page: just shouldn't be there. It would have to be right up against the metal bracket to get that shadow happening. The pants are also a clear indicator of a composite photo, for obvious reasons in the highlights. ALSO: shadow from the briefcase onto the paper below looks fake as hell.

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).

The highlights on the pants can be passed off as realistic given the fabric and folds. The lighting on the folds is consistent with lighting of the rest of the environment. There's a more obvious sign though, which is the straight cut off on the (for him) left leg's side. There's a small fold near the knee area but it's all a straight cut out. There's also the fact that the legs are missing cast shadows, when the briefcase does have a cast shadow.

Originally Posted by Spenner

#3: This one's easy. The highlights on the ridges of the face that are along the water are painted in. The reflection is a vertically motion blurred version of whats above. The linearity of the rain indicates it was also just painted in + motion blurred. It has a distinct guassian blur to it which would not happen with a real camera lens.

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. There's one part that throws it off though, which is the small corner of no shadow near the back of the front red boat, though that might be an editing mistake because what I suspect he did is take a few shots of the boats, then take a few shots of himself in the water and edit the two together. It'd seem like an awful lot of (unnecessary) work to digitally create/retouch the ripples and shadowing in the ripples that appear near his face as convincingly as they are.

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

Originally Posted by Spenner

#4: Gotta say, really awful depth of field here, and I actually am liking this photographer less by the minute, if in fact he is trying to pass these off as legit photos. The big "C" fabric to the left; how would the middle/bottom of it be sharp but the top part blurry, if it is further away from the subject? Bad attention to detail. Out of focus areas are clearly smudged looking because of a gaussian blur.

As I said earlier I doubt he is trying to pass this off as legit photos. They're posted under a fine art category. This would also explain the blurriness he added to the fabric, since an aspect of art is to keep details clear or blurry where necessary to direct the attention. How I see what he tried was that the fabric is spiraling towards the center and further away from the camera.

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.

Originally Posted by Spenner

#5: Not as bad. Can't exactly tell if the rain is fake or not in this one, they're just too small. But they still feel gimmicky after seeing that other fake rain photo. The biggest downfall is something I'm not sure about, but think might've been added out of desperation: look at the "bokeh" at the bottom blurry spots in the image. Only some bokeh is present, other parts look gaussian blur'd. This means the photographer has likely brought in an out of focus photo, and blend moded over the gaussian blur to make it look more natural >_____________> really low blow if my speculation is true.

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?

Originally Posted by Spenner

#6: No reflection in water, no upper parts of the suit are wet (by nature of taking steps in such deep of water, you would have spots of the suit wet that are higher up). Balloons guassian blurry, the one that is 2nd furthest back was just lazily flipped horizontally.

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.

The balloons seem legit as they reflect the lighting that is consistent with the environment and show some of the foliage and water too in the reflection, but there are definitely a few that are copied and pasted (given the mirrored lighting on the one you mentioned).

Originally Posted by Spenner

#7: No shadow at all on the on-fire fabric onto the body. If the rope has shadowy definition, so should the body. Really nerdy here but there are jagged pixels along the edges of the body which indicate it's been cropped and they've used "Make edge" with increased contrast. You would have a slightly fuzzy pixel edge if natural.

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. This argument doesn't make much 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.

Originally Posted by Spenner

SO, hope I'm not bursting a bubble here, but I think this kind of photography is upright disrespectful, and should be said STRAIGHT UP if it is a composite or not. Otherwise, you're a cheating liar, who is being childish by denying the truth of your work.

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. His editing is not a crime. He's using the tools at hand to what would otherwise be hard/impossible to accomplish (regardless of the editing flaws).

[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~

[Coolboyrulez0]

"looks photoshopped"

[Nullifidian]

I'll reply to a few more points where I take it it isn't that clear to you.

Originally Posted by Spenner

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.

As I said it's very contextual and hardly worth arguing about. The grey sky and green/dark surroundings can easily make a shadow grey on a reddish surface. The only shadows worth arguing about are the badly burned shadows and the ones caused by inconsistent lighting.

Originally Posted by Spenner

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.

Materials!
Different materials give off different reflections. If it's a kind of fuzzy material, it makes sense that the highlight is brighter than in other surroundings because light gets captured and reflected in all kinds of directions in a fuzzy material. See spoiler:

Originally Posted by Spenner

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.

In this scenario it makes sense if it only reflects a solid color of the sky because the rest is too dark to be reflected in the cast shadow of his face. There's also the fact that the refraction of this curve that's created by the water focuses the light of the sky into a dense stripe so even if anything else was reflected, it's condensed into a dense line.

Originally Posted by Spenner

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

No I know what you meant by blending of the bokeh and gaussian blur, but you're giving him flack for that blending when it's obvious the entire photo is an edit due to the obvious head in the shallow pool of water. The blur seems like a non-issue compared to the head in the pool of water.

Originally Posted by Spenner

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.

I know it wasn't the fire that you were proposing, but the entire figure (from the head that's on fire (and how the fire blends into the environment in a natural way) to the bottom of his body) seems to be consistent with reality so the only logical conclusion for the artefacts is a sharpening of the edges to make his body pop out more, not a pasting in of the body.

Originally Posted by Spenner

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

This is the shadowline highlighted in red

Originally Posted by Spenner

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).

The directions of shadow and lighting add up though. The rope is in a more spherical shape so that alone accounts for why there's a bigger shadow range than the body because a body isn't as spherical. The material of the rope is a lot more reflective giving it a golden appearance as opposed to the body which has consistent matte-ish skin reflections and the value of a rope is darker than his light skin type to begin with making his body lighter overall and the highlights on the rope more apparent.

[korny]

Tristin quit acting like you're all knowledgeable when it comes to photography and graphic design. Where's darkshark when you need him...

[Nullifidian]

[Arntonach]

Can't we all just agree that these pieces of photomanipulation are nice? Of course there's room for improvement though, especially on shadows and reflections, but this person's still pretty good.

[Spenner]

We've agreed to that already, albeit in some subtle ways, but there's no real hostility anymore.

[ShAiOnEi]

It's a fucking picture big deal.

[gold stinger]

tl;dr This looks shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.

still beautiful art tho

[Wafles]

Am I the only one who thinks that this kind of "art" is incredibly pretentious and overall really really low quality?

Its not unique, its not special, and really its pretty low quality too. The one with all the hands doesnt look like he even tried.