<<< o >>>... as they appear 25 comments + add yours

While I often produce images like this one, well, every once in a while, I rarely post them as I'm frequently dissatisfied with the results. It's rarely a technical problem – I understand the techniques well enough – but more to do with the fact that I lack any clear aesthetic goal(s) when producing them. As such my attempts often end up looking like I layered a random collection of images just for the sake of it ... which never looks good.

Anyway, on this occasion I did have a good idea about what I wanted to say, and how to put the images together, and I'm pleased with how it turned out.

You may have noticed that the 'show the original' link is missing for this one. This isn't because I used multiple images, but because I thought it would be interesting to ask you how many originals you think I used to create it. So feel free to speculate, both about the number of originals, and their content, and let me know.

Finally, if you're interested in learning more about working with textures, take a look at my Working With Textures tutorials (details about part one here and part two here). Both were co-written with Mike Regnier and, if you take a look at either of his websites, you'll see that he's a whole lot better at this than me. Well, most of the time at least ;-)


Update: I've now enabled the 'show the original' and, as you can see, I only used two images to create the final version :)

3x2 + people [portraiture] + digital art + show the original
comment by Tony at 12:06 PM (GMT) on 27 January, 2011

Nice one, I reckon around 4 images.
-Hand/forearm and metalwork
-corridor shadow
-model portait

and maybe another for some texture.

comment by Carlos Garcia at 12:43 PM (GMT) on 27 January, 2011

Very cool image David. 7 originals. Love it!

comment by Tony at 02:29 PM (GMT) on 27 January, 2011

Can I have another guess lol?

comment by djn1 at 02:33 PM (GMT) on 27 January, 2011

Tony: as I've already emailed you the answer that would be a bit unfair ;)

comment by Tony at 03:20 PM (GMT) on 27 January, 2011

Darn it.

comment by Carlos Garcia at 04:21 PM (GMT) on 27 January, 2011

Was I close?

comment by Dan Kaufman at 04:29 PM (GMT) on 27 January, 2011

Obviously the answer is: (a + b) − (c − d − e) − (f + g)
everyone can see that, right?

comment by djn1 at 04:34 PM (GMT) on 27 January, 2011

Carlos: considerably closer than Dan :-)

comment by Alexis at 07:10 PM (GMT) on 27 January, 2011

Bravo David!

comment by machei at 07:50 PM (GMT) on 27 January, 2011

Given your predilection for simplicity in processing and my knowledge of photoshop, I'd say two. It looks to me like the base image contains the original shot, complete with arms and hand (hand looks too masculine to be hers), and has been angled for effect. The second image is the woman's portrait, well processed with textures. I hope I've not made a fool of myself with that guess. :)

comment by Kevin P. at 09:24 PM (GMT) on 27 January, 2011

Great job and capture ! Superb !

comment by Jimmy at 11:32 PM (GMT) on 27 January, 2011

I think it's a trick question - just one original image.

comment by Cristian Tibirna at 11:57 PM (GMT) on 27 January, 2011

Original (in this blog's context) and excellently executed. I like it very much.

comment by djn1 at 08:16 AM (GMT) on 28 January, 2011

machei: you were nearly right, but didn't quite identify which bits of the image come from which original. You were definitely close though :)

comment by Cursuri Franceza at 01:56 PM (GMT) on 28 January, 2011

Hi you have some very beautiful pictures, please tell me what lens you used on this photo? And if you used a tripod for it? Thanks for your answer.

comment by djn1 at 02:07 PM (GMT) on 28 January, 2011

Cursuri: both shots that were used to construct the final image were taken with a Canon 24-70 f2.8 L and both were hand-held.

comment by machei at 03:17 PM (GMT) on 28 January, 2011

Well, don't I feel silly. It WAS her hand! :)

comment by djn1 at 03:23 PM (GMT) on 28 January, 2011

machei: I wouldn't feel too bad about it as I deliberately processed her hand in a different way to the rest of the image, so it wasn't as obvious as it might have been :)

comment by Peter at 05:22 PM (GMT) on 28 January, 2011

This treatment is actually done quite nicely. I've done double exposures like this, with interesting outcomes. Achieving the optimal result may not always happen, but this practice sometimes brings unexpected surprises.

comment by Kellee at 04:32 AM (GMT) on 1 February, 2011

This is really fascinating. I love the textures, and seeing the originals is a rare and interesting behind the scenes look. :)

comment by djib at 09:54 AM (GMT) on 1 February, 2011

Strange shot with a great mood. Very nice processing and idea.

comment by Miles Wolstenholme at 11:42 AM (GMT) on 2 February, 2011

Very creative - thanks for the "behind the scenes" information which really helps to appreciate the lengths taken to achieve this effect.

comment by Anthony at 11:04 PM (GMT) on 2 February, 2011

Very creative shot, great black and white photo.

comment by djn1 at 04:27 PM (GMT) on 3 February, 2011

Thanks everyone :)

comment by loyam at 02:34 PM (GMT) on 4 February, 2011

Love the image! Very creative. Love the expression, light, postprocess.. the best of the day.