| » Forum Index » The Friday Challenge » Topic: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie |
|
Posted on 06/01/26 10:40:11 AM |
|
DavidMac
Director of Photoshop Posts: 5979 Reply  |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
Thank you Michael! It took a bit of doing. Your point about the image being less than glamorous is well taken. But this was a very specific technical challenge (addressed by Steve to me personally) so I stuck strictly to a very focused reply using as much of his original as I could. By the same token, placement in the old Islington Horticultural Hall, where the business Design Centre is situated, and keeping everything unadorned and a bit bleak seemed somehow appropriate. Beautification has definitely been relegated to the back seat! _________________ The subtlety and conviction of any Photoshop effect is invariably inversely proportional to the number of knobs on it ....... |
Posted on 06/01/26 12:29:48 PM |
|
Mariner
Renaissance Mariner Posts: 3226 Reply  |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
David, it would have been far too easy to do what Steve said and just pop a couple of people into one or more of the huts. In addition to that I have, as usual, tried to beautify my entry and will give it a political title "All quiet on the Greenland front", a really rough translation of "Nichts neues im Westen", a blood curdling and famous book by Erich Maria Remark, which I have read. I didn't see the film, but I expect you did. |
Posted on 06/01/26 12:46:15 PM |
|
DavidMac
Director of Photoshop Posts: 5979 Reply |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
SMALL CORRECTION Having done the 'sleep on it' test I realise that I should have paid more attention to Nick's remarks about the foreground beam. He is quite correct. I have done some minor adjustments to this and also to the background, particularly on the right hand side. It's very minor but it was one of those 'once seen, can't un-see' things.  _________________ The subtlety and conviction of any Photoshop effect is invariably inversely proportional to the number of knobs on it ....... |
Posted on 06/01/26 12:53:57 PM |
|
DavidMac
Director of Photoshop Posts: 5979 Reply |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
Neither book nor film. I am curious that you give the German title. Can you read and understand German? _________________ The subtlety and conviction of any Photoshop effect is invariably inversely proportional to the number of knobs on it ....... |
Posted on 06/01/26 1:56:41 PM |
|
Mariner
Renaissance Mariner Posts: 3226 Reply |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
I was in the British army from 1966 to 1975 and was posted to W. Germany. I decided to learn the language. Speaking, reading, and writing German was part of that. I finished my army time but there was a shortage of work in England, so I went back to Germany and got a job straight away. After working there for twelve years as a common market worker I decided to come back to England and have been here ever since. Because you are resident in Belgium I guessed you would have no big problem reading German, hence Nichts neues im Westen. |
Posted on 06/01/26 9:37:42 PM |
|
DavidMac
Director of Photoshop Posts: 5979 Reply |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
There is a tiny part of Belgium that is officially German speaking but the vast majority is French speaking in the south and Flemish (a dialect of Dutch) speaking in the north. I worked in Germany a lot in the sixties and seventies. My son lives there and is completely bilingual and I have been married over thirty five years to a Weinerin, but somehow, much to her despair, I have never been able to really connect with the language and speak nothing but a few hundred basic words. Any language that has six different words for the english word "the" and sixteen very specific different rules and contexts for their usage is, in my simple view, discouraging.  _________________ The subtlety and conviction of any Photoshop effect is invariably inversely proportional to the number of knobs on it ....... |
Posted on 07/01/26 04:58:17 AM |
|
Mariner
Renaissance Mariner Posts: 3226 Reply |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
Yes, I had to teach myself the grammar from a book. You get it to stay in your head by talking as much as you are able, and listening. |
Posted on 08/01/26 08:03:53 AM |
|
Mariner
Renaissance Mariner Posts: 3226 Reply |
All Quiet on the Greenland Front
 |
Posted on 08/01/26 10:50:19 AM |
|
DavidMac
Director of Photoshop Posts: 5979 Reply |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
That is quite extraordinarily good Michael! You have managed to respect the odd distortions in Steve's original and extend quite convincingly. It's not correct but it is convincing. Here's the picky stuff: As you read from left to right the perspective causes the huts to stretch horizontally. This should cause the right hand hut to be wider. One effect of this would be to help the right hand wall of this hut converge to a vanishing point consistent with its left which is not currently the case. As you read right to left more of the inside left wall becomes progressively visible. The left hand hut should be showing more of its inside left wall than the hut to it's immediate right. This would also create a more consistent vanishing point with the hut to its right. I'm being picky Michael because I know you are very fastidious and like to get these things as precise as possible. You chose to stay with Steve's original perspective which, if accurately followed, produces extreme distortions when extended. That was very brave of you. Most people would find your image completely acceptable - you've done a really good job. In fact this whole challenge has been about what is literally 'correct' and what subjectively looks 'good'. On this second basis just about everyone has been on the money or very close. I chose to try and be technically correct but, to do so, I had to depart from Steve's original image so I haven't really fulfilled his request. That's kind of cheating on my part. _________________ The subtlety and conviction of any Photoshop effect is invariably inversely proportional to the number of knobs on it ....... |
Posted on 08/01/26 12:26:35 PM |
|
Mariner
Renaissance Mariner Posts: 3226 Reply |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
David, after I had taken the multiple vanishing point route I realized that the results, although theoretically correct, were nonsense when seen through human eyes. The huts could not be identical in build and their vanishing points "proved" that. So it was more important that the huts "looked" right, at least through my eyes, especially the right hand hut which I shortened in width. So, if I have to stretch the rules a little to make something look more natural, then so be it, no regrets. With luck Steve will have some words of wisdom on this subject. |
Posted on 08/01/26 3:04:32 PM |
|
Nick Curtain
Model Master Posts: 1783 Reply  |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
I have found this challenge particularly interesting and to see the different interpretations submitted by other others. At first, the concept seemed daunting to me and I freely admit to jumping in with both feet without really giving it any serious thought. So having watched with interest and pondered on this for a few days, I decided to experiment and started walking around rooms in the house to observe the way different pieces of furniture interacted with each other. For example, walking round the dining room table made other pieces move as well, but at a variety of different speeds depending on the distance between them. Also, the angles and perspective changed constantly, including visibility of objects on different planes, as is the case of the girder and roof apexes in Steves image. Standing in the corner of the room and stepping back at 45 degrees to see how the whole view changes was interesting and you may wish to have a go at this for yourselves, just for fun. Having just looked on the forum again, it is interesting that Michael made the comment, ‘were nonsense when seen through human eyes’ and I think this hits the nail nicely on the head. Normal binocular vision lets us see a field of view of about 130° combined however, the useful field of view referred to as ‘text recognition’ is only about 60°. As such, if you step back as Michael suggested originally, in line with the viewing angle referred to by Steve, then I think that it would be highly unlikely for the human eye to see the right-hand wall of the nearest Nook because this would be way towards the furthest edge of peripheral vision. Conversely, our reconstructions are crystal clear instead of being blurred out of all proportion. As curious humans we would naturally turn our heads to view the item we want to see. By looking around to the right and towards the Nook, the angle of the base and the fence behind would then become horizontal to us thereby changing the whole perspective and therefore the image content entirely. It would seem that what we try to create using theoretical simulation by following perspective lines, outside of our normal field of view, is totally different to what we would see in practice and therefore almost impossible to achieve. That said, this is far more relevant to objects nearest to us than those in the distance and therefore subjects nearer to the vanishing point are easier to manage and re-create. Simple sketch attached assuming a viewing angle of 40 degrees (best I could estimate). This challenge has been exceptionally educational, so many thanks Steve.  |
Posted on 09/01/26 02:33:53 AM |
|
tooquilos
Wizard of Oz Posts: 2945 Reply  |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
This was way too technical for me but I congratulate everyone who completed the task, some with astounding results. No animation from me this week.  _________________ Dorothy: Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore |
Posted on 09/01/26 07:45:09 AM |
|
Mariner
Renaissance Mariner Posts: 3226 Reply |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
Nick, a lot of deep thinking there. |
Posted on 09/01/26 08:31:46 AM |
|
Steve Caplin
Administrator Posts: 7115 Reply  |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
First to extend the nooks this week was Nick Curtain, with a fair stab at the problem.The reimagined angles are excellent, although as you suggest we should be able to see the outside left wall – after all, we can see the inside of the interior wall to its left. The replaced background is the correct location, but needs moving to the right so the vanishing lines match the nooks’ perspective. But for someone who hasn’t used Photoshop in several years… great work! Your explanation of the physical impossibility of extending the view in this way is absolutely correct, but then… that’s why we have Photoshop. I like the extra nook on the left in lwc's entry. The one on the right seems to be a different design altogether – but hey, why not, no one said they all had to be identical. The high-pressure salesman is truly creepy, but how did you distort the background? Some odd bulges on both sides that only seem to be affecting the middle of the objects. The inclusion by GKB of Roger de Courcey (who frankly sounds a lot more chivalrous than his profession suggests) distracts from the fact that this is a remarkably accurate interpretation of the two extra nooks. The outer wall of the right hand one is especially convincing. Somewhat less so is the angle of the bench and table inside; they should of course follow the direction of the outer wall. Still, well down tracking down the only nook-named ursine. I was intrigued by DavidMac's 3D rendering of the scene. Yes, the extreme 3D perspective does make a sort of sense (although I wasn’t using a wide angle lens), but can you explain the bizarre stretching of the pod on the far left? The ”step back” version is far more convincing, although I still don’t understand the elongation of the one at 90° to the rest.The interior of the pod to its right isn’t elongated, despite being in the same plane. The photorealistic entry is outstanding, as I’m sure you’re well aware. I can’t begin to imagine the effort that must have gone into this. The background is perfect, and the light splashes on the floor add life to the scene. I’m still bothered by the elongation of that far left pod, though, even more so in this version. If you imagine we’re looking in that direction, then it’s about 45° off straight ahead. So wouldn’t that pod just be a mirror of the one to its right? I think the issue here may be that you’ve extended the scene beyond the capability of any existing optical lens. I’m not sure the ”small improvement” is really an improvement; perhaps I’m too distracted by the loss of the shadows to notice the change in the background. A fun solution from Ant Snell: don’t fix it if you can break it. Having all the nooks going off the rails means there’s no point my trying to judge the accuracy of their viewing angles. Brilliant! I like the terrified occupants, although the one on the right seems so frightened there isn’t room for her body. I enjoyed Mariner's relocation to Greenland, with its artfully rebuilt nooks – and losing the back walls certainly does enhance the view. The shadows have been well calculated, although the overhanging legs of the woman on the left should still cast some slight shadow behind them. From a photographic standpoint, though, stepping back this far would mean a significant reduction in perspectival distortion, unless you had a particularly weird lens. Perhaps you do. Ah – I see David has explained it in full. He’s right, I’m afraid. A charming woodland conversion fro, tooquilos, and I like the fact that you haven’t simply replicated the design for both cabins (although that’s a remarkably consistent view through the windows). Not sure why the eave of the right cabin is overhanging like that, since they appear to be on the same plane – or indeed why the left cabin is missing half its roof. But hey, it’s a pretty image! _____________ Outstanding work, everyone. This was an incredibly tricky Challenge, and I’m both surprised and delighted at how you all approached it. Happy new year! |
Posted on 09/01/26 08:46:45 AM |
|
Mariner
Renaissance Mariner Posts: 3226 Reply |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
Thanks Steve. Well, I did my best. The shadows were tricky, but the finished picture makes me feel good. Happy New Year to you too. |
Posted on 09/01/26 09:19:00 AM |
|
GKB
Magical Montagist Posts: 4103 Reply  |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
Thanks Steve. An interesting challenge _________________  |
Posted on 09/01/26 12:24:24 PM |
|
DavidMac
Director of Photoshop Posts: 5979 Reply |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
Hi Steve This has been a fascinating and perplexing challenge for everyone, including to some degree I suspect its creator, as it produces some very unexpected results. What I discovered by 3D calculation and simulation and Nick discovered empirically by some very clever and perceptive observation is that your request involved creating a field of view way beyond the normal human field of view and way beyond any wide angle lens in normal use.
With all wide angle lenses 'stretching' increases the closer you get to edge of the picture or, to express it more accurately, the further you get in angular terms from the camera axis. The cabins at both ends get stretched extremely because, even though you weren't using a particularly wide lens. in this instance, by extending your existing perspective, we have created one! Indeed an extreme and completely absurd wide angle field of view. In my step back version I avoided the worst of the extremes but as I stated in my entry was still left with a wide angle field of view - thus elongation at the edges. I think the problem is that most of us do not possess and have never shot with ultra wide angle lenses and are not used to the results. I think this may be causing problems because some of us will be in unfamiliar territory here.
Strangely you answer your own question.
Bingo! Yes. You have arrived at exactly the same conclusion as Nick and I. Your challenge required precisely that extension! To finish here's a tiny example. One set of people who constantly use extreme wide angle photography is estate agents. Look at this I just lifted at random from property ads on the web. It demonstrates perfectly what I have been attempting to explain. We all know the shape and proportions of a TV. They are standard. Look how this one is stretched because it's at the edge of a wide angle view. Look at cubbyholes below. I think we can safely presume they are the same width but see how the nearer one changes as we approach the edge of the picture. 
Forgive me Steve, I am getting perilously close to egg sucking lessons. Not my intention. I am not trying to teach anything here. I am sharing what, for me has been has been a voyage of discovery and in some cases surprises. I know it's not for everyone, but I have found this a very educational week. Thank you Steve! _________________ The subtlety and conviction of any Photoshop effect is invariably inversely proportional to the number of knobs on it ....... |
Posted on 09/01/26 12:36:32 PM |
|
Steve Caplin
Administrator Posts: 7115 Reply |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
Thanks David. That last photo does make it clear. But it still looks weird, despite the “estate agents’ lens”. |
Posted on 09/01/26 12:38:45 PM |
|
Nick Curtain
Model Master Posts: 1783 Reply |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
Thanks Steve. The background was pure laziness on my part and not a mistake re perspective. Fool to think I could get away with it!! Nick |
Posted on 09/01/26 3:03:35 PM |
|
DavidMac
Director of Photoshop Posts: 5979 Reply |
Re: Challenge 1086: A bit of nookie
Yes it does It's horrid! But that's what extreme wide angle does. Never liked it myself. _________________ The subtlety and conviction of any Photoshop effect is invariably inversely proportional to the number of knobs on it ....... |
| page: 1 2 3 last |