M V Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 http://www.bertmonroy.com/timessquare/timessquare.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claudio Branch Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I recently attended one of his seminars when Kelby Training Live came through town. Nevermind the layer count...the man has a wealth of knowledge that was well worth the $99 admission. If you get a chance to see him, go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberstyle Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Seriously if that is "pushing the boundries of the software" I'm asking for a refund. I really don't find the image or the details about it impressive at all. Quite the opposite really. Tell me if you were given 4 years to produce an image just in photoshop and illustrator, could you do better? 6.52gig file, 500,000 layers. Who's he trying to impress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattclinch Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 "The image size is 60 inches by 300 inches" sigh.... means absolutely nothing. for a photo-real digital artist i would expect something other than a print resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 .....Who's he trying to impress. agreed. All those stats certainly aint a brag! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil poppleton Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 You have to ask why so many layers.........not needed Im sure.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 This must be a joke, 4 years to create that thing hell I could have done it in one! Seriously this is nothing more than an advertisement for Epson to show off how big and colorful their prints can be, if I were this guy I wouldn't be bragging on how this was "A defining moment in his quest for new digital art techniques", what were they exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notamondayfan Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I wouldnt mind even if the image was interesting or nicely composed. It almost feels orthographic, if you know what I mean. The fore, mid and background all merge into one. But 4 years for that? Maybe he had to put 500000 layers, new exciting techniques to justify 4 years of work to Epson!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I nearly replied to this thread after a couple of beers last night, thought better of it though. Whilst this guy has achieved quite a feat, the final product....just doesn't do it for me. It reminds me of those car images you see that are done in Microsoft Paint. They are really good, but only because the we all understand the limitations of MS Paint. Same thing here. It is indeed a giant pain in the arse to make an image that's 60"x300". Its also tricky to do what he's done with pure PS. But at the end of the day, my reaction is "it looks like its done in Photoshop", which amongst 3d artists is not a resounding compliment. 10 out of 10 for effort. Just maybe a mis-guided 4 year effort. And yes, there are many here that could have done it in a couple of weeks or less in 3d. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I wonder how much they paid him to do that, probably more than I make in a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BVI Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 agreed. All those stats certainly aint a brag! Dude, 60 inches! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I wonder how much they paid him to do that, probably more than I make in a year. I was simply hoping he got paid for it, and it wasn't a project that was sponsored later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easy3dsource Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I think everyone is totally missing the point here.... did you read those numbers?!?! 500,000 layers? 6.32 jiggawatts?!? Since when did big scary numbers lose their value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) did you read those numbers?!?! 500,000 layers? 6.32 jiggawatts?!? Sounds to me like he is counting every little thing, or his production work flow needs major overhauling. I guess my feeling is that just because you can, doesn't necessarily mean you should. Edited February 14, 2011 by Crazy Homeless Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claudio Branch Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I believe the reason he has so many layer has to do with the way he "paints." Every single object in his scene is created individually and each object may have several parts of its own with separate layers. I really doubt the man set out to create something with 1,000,000 layers for bragging rights. If he can manage it, more power to him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I frequently find that my PS files get tedious, bordering on the unmanagable just because my layers are badly organised. AE is even worse... I think its easy to knock this guy, mainly becasue he's using a more 'traditional' tool than 3d. The end product may not be to your taste, but if I was to quote this as a project and had to do it to that resolution and HAD to use photoshop, I wouldnt know where to start. I simply dont have the ram. I also dont have the patience or the skill. So I do tip my hat to this fella, even though I dont like the work. Just as Im not keen on Picasso, I recognise his acheivements. I also think this may be a piece of work that looks better in the flesh than on a website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) True, I don't mean to knock his skill and talent. But even with painting something at that res, I am not convinced that making 500,000 layers created the most efficient and manageable workflow. In a personal world with personal art projects, efficiency is what you want it to be. The working methods may have very much to do with the technique and look you want. In a professorial world though, efficiency is very important. Maybe I have been working to much in the professorial world that I am caught up in wondering about the efficiency of the production. I guess I have been around long enough that I worry about the number of hours spent vs final product. Based on what I see of that image on the website, I just don't believe there is enough there to warrant 500,000 layers. It would be interesting to see in person/ I am sure the intense detail resonates more than it does through the zoomy image on the website. In the article it says that he used 750,000 layers, ..but maybe only 500,000 made it to the final? I would be really curious to see some working files. How each person was broke down. Was any photo overpainting user? Etc... So, ...does he say what version of Photoshop he used? I am guessing it is CS3 or earlier. Edited February 14, 2011 by Crazy Homeless Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle_ear Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now