TiE23 Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 God damn! This is my latest and most ambitious digital painting of a Chicago scene unveiled at Photoshop World in Miami on March 22, 2006. It is a panorama of the Damen Station on the Blue Line of the Chicago Transit Authority. Adobe Illustrator was used for generating the majority of the basic shapes as well as all the buildings in the Chicago skyline. The rest was created in Photoshop. • The image size is 40 inches by 120 inches. • The flattened file weighs in at 1.7 Gigabytes. • It took eleven months (close to 2,000 hours) to create. • The painting is comprised of close to fifty individual Photoshop files. • Taking a cumulative total of all the files, the overall image contains over 15,000 layers. • Over 500 alpha channels were used for various effects. • Over 250,000 paths make up the multitude of shapes throughout the scene. http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/text/fineart_damen.htm >_> ..... He's leet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 leet... yet needs a life if he can spend 11 months doing one picture ;-) Its weird, cos some parts of it look photorealistc, and others look rather fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 Damn. That's a nice painting too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 leet... yet needs a life if he can spend 11 months doing one picture ;-) Its weird, cos some parts of it look photorealistc, and others look rather fake. It's his profession though- I imagine 11 months on a kickass photo(he probably still completed others in the meantime) would help with making his portfolio stand out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 Well that was a real double take Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWally Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 At first I was like "what the... it's a photograph..." then it turned into more of a "OHMIGOSH." That's incredible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 It's a shame his closeups aren't as good as the overall picture. Still, I commend his effort. That's some hardcore dedication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted April 15, 2006 Author Share Posted April 15, 2006 It's a shame his closeups aren't as good as the overall picture. Still, I commend his effort. That's some hardcore dedication. You do know how far down that train is? Look at the whole picture and that thing is far away, but the detail is amazing. Also, I wouldn't be suprised if this is the most incredible thing done on Photoshop to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 Yes, I quite understand the detail that goes into this painting. I have taken two years of art in high school and I use photoshop a lot for signatures, so detail and perspective are nothing new to me. Nonetheless, the closeups of his painting don't look as realistic as the overall picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 Wow, that looks like a real picture. I can't imagine being that good at photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 Don't mind Mike, he criticizes everything like that. He could probably find a few things wrong with the Sistine Chapel. Awesome picture though. I wish I could see the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 The dude's in the Photoshop Hall of Fame, and deservedly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 Don't mind Mike, he criticizes everything like that. He could probably find a few things wrong with the Sistine Chapel. Awesome picture though. I wish I could see the whole thing. Actually, I couldn't. There's a lot of art that I like and have no critiques about. Classic art falls under that category. Please, don't accuse me of being overly critical. Back on topic ----- The reason I say that his closeups lack the photorealistic quality of his overall picture is that the level of detail in the closeups contrasts the overall detail of the picture. I don't really know how to describe it other than that... it's kinda like how you know the stuff in CG movies is CG and not real... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted April 15, 2006 Author Share Posted April 15, 2006 The reason I say that his closeups lack the photorealistic quality of his overall picture is that the level of detail in the closeups contrasts the overall detail of the picture. I don't really know how to describe it other than that... it's kinda like how you know the stuff in CG movies is CG and not real... The thing is that it is hard to draw stuff even that detailed. Sure it wouldn't be that impressive if it was a CG art, but he did it all by hand, which is pretty cool. Also, I think only one thing that doesn't look realistic is the two trainstop booth things down the walk way a little, the glass on them look all wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 Yes, once again, I reiterate that I understand the difficulty of drawing such a painting, much less digitally creating one. I said I liked it. Back off me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted April 15, 2006 Author Share Posted April 15, 2006 *Gets out baseball bat*.... *Phone rings*... *Pick-up* "What, he gets it? Really? Okay." *Puts bat down* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 Oh, man, I saw that and almost had a spasm attack. Miami... okay, good. Thought it was San Francisco for a second. *Shudders* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 "What, he gets it? Really? Okay." I got it in my first post. People just fail to grasp the concept of criticism. Whenever someone says anything negative, it automatically outweighs the positive. You can like something and critique it at the same time. They do not exist in black and white. We learn something today, kids? Good. Now perhaps someone can answer my question of what is the comparison rate in size between pixels and inches? It says 40 by 120 inches (which is absolutely ridiculous to print out), but how much is that in pixels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBomber Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 40x120 inches is 2880x8640 pixels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 I got it in my first post. People just fail to grasp the concept of criticism. Whenever someone says anything negative, it automatically outweighs the positive. You can like something and critique it at the same time. They do not exist in black and white. We learn something today, kids? Good. We only think that beacause that's the way you make it sound. You tried to sound like Mr. Professional by saying "Still, I commend his effort," which doesn't give it justice. You shouldve just said something like "But that doesn't detract from the awesomeness of this painting." Maybe the fault is with your own way of criticism and not with the "people." Just a suggestion, don't take it personally. Anyways, about the painting, I still wish I could see the whole thing. I don't wanna have to pay for a print though. Bleh. Maybe he should set up some sort of viewer like a google maps type thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 Damn. That's a nice painting too. I agree, I want to see the entire painting too... 3 ft by 12 ft is kinda weird proportions I think... but it'd be cool to see.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupes. Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 40x120 inches is 2880x8640 pixels Actually this is only true with a 72 dpi resolution, but since he's giving the dimensions in inches, I'm guessing it was made with printing purposes in mind, meaning the resolution would be at least 300 dpi, even 600 dpi. This would result in an image as big as 24,000 by 72,000 pixels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted April 16, 2006 Author Share Posted April 16, 2006 You guys are all idiots X x Y It's 120x40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 • The image size is 40 inches by 120 inches. asdkfdjsklrsd whatever, it's longer than it is tall. :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted April 17, 2006 Author Share Posted April 17, 2006 asdkfdjsklrsd whatever, it's longer than it is tall. :| (At the artist) http://deeddee.ytmnd.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.