• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Manipulations by Hammers

Go to CruxDreams.com
bobinder said:
Hi Hammers, you have correctly identified the direction of sunlight as overhead and slightly behind the viewer. This is confirmed by the shadow of overhead foliage falling on the road in the foreground, the highlights on the stones at the sides of the road and their corresponding shadows on either side plus the statue, which is illuminated on its upper surfaces, with shadows beneath the armpits, groin and knee.

The existing foreground shadow is quite soft, indicating soft lighting, in my opinion.
It also tells us about the colour, density and general appearance of shadows on the road.

Overhead lighting casts shadows downwards, and since other members are trying out this exercise on your picture, my own suggested interpretation looks like this. I hope this is helpful, and not becoming too confusing. ;)

View attachment 684805
Click to expand...
Well noted: I will keep record of these details because, untill I will get better practice, I meet sometimes difficulty in individuating the
correct positioning of shadows. I have tried hard in this case to individuate the origin of the light: I was apparently correct but, lacking experience, it was hard for me understanding if shadow must be put at the left or the right side. I thought in first place that marked shadow
should be put on the right where light had more intensity and figures more lit. It was a calculated choice but not quite correct.
Thanks for assistance
 
hammers said:
Well noted: I will keep record of these details because, untill I will get better practice, I meet sometimes difficulty in individuating the
correct positioning of shadows. I have tried hard in this case to individuate the origin of the light: I was apparently correct but, lacking experience, it was hard for me understanding if shadow must be put at the left or the right side. I thought in first place that marked shadow
should be put on the right where light had more intensity and figures more lit. It was a calculated choice but not quite correct.
Thanks for assistance
Click to expand...
Hi Hammers, you're welcome.

The clue to the lighting is in the stones lining either side of the road.
Those on the left have shadow on their right sides; those on the right have shadow on their left sides.
The only way to explain this apparent inconsistency is to conclude that sunlight is striking the stones from directly above, in order to create shadows below the top surfaces on both sides. ;)

hammers xImage4-200pc-lighting demo.jpg
 
hammers said:
685780-3fc3c713fd48f8f9430863962765a661.jpg
Click to expand...
Well done Hammers - the forced perspective in that background scene makes this a very challenging manipulation. ;)
Jollyrei said:
Nice one, hammers. What's the background picture for this manip? Is it a screen cap from a movie?
Shouldn't someone be on that cross? Barb's late again. ;):D
Click to expand...
I believe it is from HBO's 'Rome'. The original character being raised on the cross was previously deleted and replaced by Jedakk -

Jedakk Rome crux scene.jpg

He gave us an explanation of how he created his manipulation, using a 3D figure, here -
http://www.cruxforums.com/xf/threads/jedakks-masterpiece.4731/post-202268
 
Waooooo ! What a mass'crucifixions ! :very_hot::clapping:
In my opinion, the cross on the right is not welcome into your manips now : it is not well linked with them ( texture, colors ...)...
 

Attachments

  • You're late with your work, but may be we can help you to speed it up! (1).jpg
    You're late with your work, but may be we can help you to speed it up! (1).jpg
    208.2 KB · Views: 240
  • You're late with your work, but may be we can help you to speed it up!.jpg
    You're late with your work, but may be we can help you to speed it up!.jpg
    157.5 KB · Views: 263
hammers said:
686464-0414d0f1fac667257a8283fa9e53944b.jpg
Click to expand...
messaline said:
Waooooo ! What a mass'crucifixions ! :very_hot::clapping:
In my opinion, the cross on the right is not welcome into your manips now : it is not well linked with them ( texture, colors ...)...
Click to expand...
Hi Hammers,
I like this one - and its explanatory title. Well done! :)

This is another very ambitious manipulation - a dramatic, multi-figure composition!
The distant crux figures look good in terms of contrast and scale.
There is no bright sunlight in the background, so shadow directions are not a problem here.
The only significant light source is the fire on the right, which is providing correct illumination on the nearest inserted crux figure.

Messa refers to this right hand, foreground crux figure, which blends less successfully because it requires higher contrast, of a value consistent with the existing foreground figures.
I have made some contrast and colour adjustments to demonstrate our meaning ;) -

Hammers You're late with your work, but may be we can help you to speed it up! 2.jpg
 
bobinder said:
Hi Hammers,
I like this one - and its explanatory title. Well done! :)

This is another very ambitious manipulation - a dramatic, multi-figure composition!
The distant crux figures look good in terms of contrast and scale.
There is no bright sunlight in the background, so shadow directions are not a problem here.
The only significant light source is the fire on the right, which is providing correct illumination on the nearest inserted crux figure.

Messa refers to this right hand, foreground crux figure, which blends less successfully because it requires higher contrast, of a value consistent with the existing foreground figures.
I have made some contrast and colour adjustments to demonstrate our meaning ;) -

View attachment 686978
Click to expand...
It appears quite fascinating after your corrections. Thank you also for punctual and clear explanations.
best regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom