How to get a tarmac effect like this?

[Buck]

blimey - got a lot of posts to catch up on

i disagree that its because of the lighting, because in real life that surface is light grey. Although I called it tarmac (because i want a tarmac effect) the surface in the original photo is concrete.

I wonder whether he has used layers in PP to desaturated the road surface, add contrast and structure?

I think the original lighting has given him the starting point for this but there does look to be quite a bit of processing in his shots that give this look to his shots.

 

[Pookeyhead]

blimey - got a lot of posts to catch up on

i disagree that its because of the lighting, because in real life that surface is light grey. Although I called it tarmac (because i want a tarmac effect) the surface in the original photo is concrete.

If you're so sure... why are you asking?


LOL


Believe whatever makes you feel better though.

 

[stumac]

LOL


Shadows don't lie dude.

LOL

Your not gonna like this...............your wrong ..............FACT

 

[Pookeyhead]

LOL

Your not gonna like this...............your wrong ..............FACT

Is that why you've removed the image then? If it's a fact.. why remove the image?

 

[The23rdman]

I can't believe I've just read all that when the answer is so obvious, and has been presented so clearly and effectively by Pookeyhead.

You guys can argue all you like and defend your positions, but he's right. Dead right. Sorry, but that's it. I'm not saying that you other posters have nothing to add, but he has nailed it.

Oh, and I have no vested interest in any opinions here - just lots of experience in reverse engineering lighting.

 

[stumac]

Is that why you've removed the image then? If it's a fact.. why remove the image?

I removed the image because I was getting hits on flickr with it , it was only a snap with the sliders pushed, wasn't quite matching the rest of the stuff Ive on on their plus I thought I was done with this thread but you keep quoting me I just just have to keep coming back, purely for the entertainment of it all.

So it has moved on from the op now to where the main light source was in my picture? Would you mind if I call you smokeyhead cause your on something "dude"

I have no reason to lie about where the main light source was, that wasnt even the point of me putting the image up anyway.

Your calling me a liar so what I can do Is put the image up again along with another wide angle shot taken at the same time of day so you can see the direction of the main light source, will you trust me that Ill take the shot at the same time when you find out im right?
Or will I be accused of taking it at a different time of day?

your own words to Gary "Believe whatever makes you feel better though"

BRILLIANT LOL

 

[stumac]

I can't believe I've just read all that when the answer is so obvious, and has been presented so clearly and effectively by Pookeyhead.

You guys can argue all you like and defend your positions, but he's right. Dead right. Sorry, but that's it. I'm not saying that you other posters have nothing to add, but he has nailed it.

Oh, and I have no vested interest in any opinions here - just lots of experience in reverse engineering lighting.

Hes said you need light to photograph texture and I think we all agree , I discovered that straight after I learned how to put a battery in a camera. He said if the light is at an angle you can photograph the texture even better, yip we all agree there aswell.

All Ive said is that PP can bring it out more and Im accused of being a liar and that Im wrong on it all LOL

 

[The23rdman]

Hes said you need light to photograph texture and I think we all agree , I discovered that straight after I learned how to put a battery in a camera. He said if the light is at an angle you can photograph the texture even better, yip we all agree there aswell.

All Ive said is that PP can bring it out more and Im accused of being a liar and that Im wrong on it all LOL

I don't think that's true at all, Stu. What he said is that you can only enhance what is already there.

 

[stumac]

I really am going to have to to leave it at that as I cant add anymore unless smokeyhead want me to take the wide shot of my street to prove im not a liar . But then we are heading in the on and on and on thing I predicted.
In my test shot there is a small amount of sky in the image(approx .00001% of the entire sky) so cluedo has worked out and and is going to argue to his grave that this is where the main light source is even though he wasnt in the same country never mind the same street LOL

I have said what I would do if it was me and of course that doesnt make it the best way, just makes it my way and it works(for me),

Ive even tried to meet in the middle by saying Id try it his way next time with no PP and just using or adding light but thats not enough........its all one way unfortunately
and the best of it is I agree on 95% of what hes saying the difference is Im pulling extra detail out in PP aswell, thats all. I do similar types of shots all the time using OCF with wedding cars , the flash(or 2) for the car,another for the couple and ambient for the rest of the image and pull detail in PP for desired effect.....surely theres nothing wrong with that.

 

[stumac]

I don't think that's true at all, Stu. What he said is that you can only enhance what is already there.

Im struggling to understand that as it so obvious or am I missing something,
Im hardly going to try and pull detail from a marble wall thinking I can get for example a tarmac effect in PP
Is that what you guys think Im saying you can do? serious question

 

[The23rdman]

Im struggling to understand that as it so obvious or am I missing something,
Im hardly going to try and pull detail from a marble wall thinking I can get for example a tarmac effect in PP
Is that what you guys think Im saying you can do? serious question

Stu, you're being so defensive yet nobody is attacking you. I don't think anyone can make you see what is clear to us with more words. Perhaps go back and read the thread again without any emotional attachment to a position (which is what I have done). It seems so clear to me that David has stated the obvious truth that the effect is largely down to the lighting, but that, yes, it's possible to enhance that in post IF this kind of lighting is used to bring out the texture.

I think that you're agreeing on enough of this that it makes very little difference. What is important, and what is being lost in all this noise, is that the OP is now even more confused than before and clearly wants to believe that this is almost entirely a PP effect. It is not. OP, please understand that it is not true.

1) You only get texture in a surface like this tarmac by raking light across it at a lowish angle.
2) You can enhance that effect with judicious pp.
3) You can only ever so slightly approximate the effect with very heavy handed pp that will introduce artifacts.
4) The picture posted used light to achieve the effect.

That should really be the end of it.

 

[stumac]

Stu, you're being so defensive yet nobody is attacking you. I don't think anyone can make you see what is clear to us with more words. Perhaps go back and read the thread again without any emotional attachment to a position (which is what I have done). It seems so clear to me that David has stated the obvious truth that the effect is largely down to the lighting, but that, yes, it's possible to enhance that in post IF this kind of lighting is used to bring out the texture.

I think that you're agreeing on enough of this that it makes very little difference. What is important, and what is being lost in all this noise, is that the OP is now even more confused than before and clearly wants to believe that this is almost entirely a PP effect. It is not. OP, please understand that it is not true.

1) You only get texture in a surface like this tarmac by raking light across it at a lowish angle.
2) You can enhance that effect with judicious pp.
3) You can only ever so slightly approximate the effect with very heavy handed pp that will introduce artifacts.
4) The picture posted used light to achieve the effect.

That should really be the end of it.

I go with that to get this put to bed
That is the end of it
I did after all say at the very start that you can light an image with the PP in mind and that in its self can require more skill and agrees with your 1) & 2)

 

[The23rdman]

I go with that to get this put to bed
That is the end of it
I did after all say at the very start that you can light an image with the PP in mind and that in its self can require more skill and agrees with your 1) & 2)

All good.