# Fully Involved



## Mark_McCall (Nov 8, 2011)

Shot entirely in studio.


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 8, 2011)

There must be a lot of rock, trees & fire in your studio.  :er:


----------



## Trever1t (Nov 8, 2011)

amazing!


----------



## Mark_McCall (Nov 8, 2011)

Big Mike said:


> There must be a lot of rock, trees & fire in your studio.  :er:


LOL. 
It's a Virtual Background. Crazy stuff you can do with it.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 8, 2011)

I like it...I think this is probably one of my more favorite of your images.  About the only one that I might enjoy more is the soldier/coffin shot, but it's one I have mixed feelings about because of the emotion that comes with it and the fact that I know it's fake.

Basically, I think you are great at what you do... I'm just not sure I care for it on a personal level. 

For instance, you won a wedding award on your guy in a tux with the church behind him.  The lighting was superb.  The shot was really stellar, except it was a model in a tux in front of a digital background at a studio...Honestly, it bugs me a bit that you entered it into a wedding competition and won.

This shot is similar...everything about the shot is fake.  Guys dressed up in costumes in front of a digital background with a good photographer with an extensive lighting set up.  I can appreciate the technical merit of it, but any feelings that are brought up by the image are ruined because I know it's not real.

Honestly, I'm just not really a fan of this type of work, but then again, you know that from the 'other' forum.


----------



## tevo (Nov 8, 2011)

Wow, great shot!


----------



## Mark_McCall (Nov 8, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> I like it...I think this is probably one of my more favorite of your images.  About the only one that I might enjoy more is the soldier/coffin shot, but it's one I have mixed feelings about because of the emotion that comes with it and the fact that I know it's fake.
> 
> Basically, I think you are great at what you do... I'm just not sure I care for it on a personal level.
> 
> ...



No offense taken. 
As for any awards or accolades  I've received, all I can say is that the means of which an image comes about matters none. 
What matters is the *end result. *

You can't spray perfume on crap and expect gold. 
It takes forethought, time, planning, execution, design and presentation to create art. 
 If you feel images that only images that are politically correct should be considered for any type of award, I've done that too. But that's not what satisfies me artistically. 

I create these images to satisfy the inherent need I have to make real the image I see in my head. 

The image you mention, "Never say Never" took almost a year to create. 
I had the image in my head for several years before that. 
I approached a complete stranger I met at a dept. store and asked to photograph him. He was not a professional model, but rather, a character study I found in public quite by accident. He was the perfect face I saw in the image in my mind's eye. 
I shared my idea with him. We was open to the idea and agreed to be a part of the project. 
I had the perfect setting in mind and put it all together using a very precise lighting pattern, with just enough background blur and kicker lights to get the image as perfect as it can be. I didn't just "spray perfume on it". 
Fuji has awarded it their Masterpiece Award, but I didn't create it for any other reason but to satisfy me artistically.

Someday, when that artist light goes off in your head, you'll see what I'm talking about.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 8, 2011)

Mark_McCall said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > I like it...I think this is probably one of my more favorite of your images.  About the only one that I might enjoy more is the soldier/coffin shot, but it's one I have mixed feelings about because of the emotion that comes with it and the fact that I know it's fake.
> ...


No offense taken.  

I know what you are talking about.  I also know the history of that, and this, and every other image you have posted to this forum.  I saw them when you posted them to the photocamel...I saw them when you posted about your Fuji Masterpiece Award.

They are good...very good.  I know that you planned out every aspect of the image and you executed it perfectly.

All that aside, that still doesn't make this a firefighting image(or Fully Involved)  It makes it guys in costume standing in front of a digital background.  A guy in a tux in front of a digital backdrop at a studio does not make it a wedding image...or the people dressed up as soldiers in front of an empty coffin in a studio...well, you get the picture.

You do a great job of putting your ideas onto print.  Your images also can invoke a lot of emotion in people.  In every way, your images are powerful...but to me, all I can think about when I see your work is the Wizard of Oz asking people not to look behind the curtain.


----------



## HeyMeester (Nov 8, 2011)

Soooooooooo coooool!


----------



## penfolderoldo (Nov 9, 2011)

First thought when I saw this was 'wow! - talk about being in the right place at the right time...!' which I suppose is all that counts for you (not having a go, honest). I can totally appreciate the concept, the composition, the lighting of the subject - I get all of that...

but i'm kinda with Kerbs here, it feels like - and this may well not be the right choice of words, but it's the best I can come up with - a bit of a cheat, like my senses have just been pick-pocketed... 

With 'never say never' - again, excellently executed - if you were upfront with the competition organisers then no probs, however, is the background someone else's picture? did you personally draw / paint it / create it digitally if it's not a photo? Basically, for me, even if it's your concept, if someone else produced part of the image then it's not 100% your work, and getting an award for that is something that I do have a bit of an issue with, sorry.

All of that said, that's what's fantastic about photography - whilst it might not be my kinda thing, I can appreciate what floats someone else's boat...


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 9, 2011)

penfolderoldo said:


> First thought when I saw this was 'wow! - talk about being in the right place at the right time...!' which I suppose is all that counts for you (not having a go, honest). I can totally appreciate the concept, the composition, the lighting of the subject - I get all of that...
> 
> but i'm kinda with Kerbs here, it feels like - and this may well not be the right choice of words, but it's the best I can come up with - a bit of a cheat, like my senses have just been pick-pocketed...
> 
> With 'never say never' - again, excellently executed - if you were upfront with the competition organisers then no probs, however, is the background someone else's picture? did you personally draw / paint it / create it digitally if it's not a photo? Basically, for me, even if it's your concept, if someone else produced part of the image then it's not 100% your work, and getting an award for that is something that I do have a bit of an issue with, sorry.


To be perfectly clear, the work was 100% Mark's.  I am sorry if I said anything earlier to imply that he was using other people's work for his composites.  That was NOT the intention.  For the 'Never say Never' shot, I believe he took that shot of the Church some years back.


----------



## Blackjack (Nov 9, 2011)

If the "firefighter" pic was entered in a Reportage category, then it would be bogus, but it was not. So, this photo is just art. Art often is controversial and evokes emotions on many levels. I applaud the concept and the product. It's an excellent photograph. Just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## penfolderoldo (Nov 9, 2011)

That's fine Kerb, you didn't imply anything like that, I just wasn't sure so was just checking. It seems like it's basically a montage of multiple images, which has been one of the many many different styles of photography for decades, and as i've already said Mark's produced some stunning images, which is great. My unease is more personal preference rather than anything else.


----------



## Mark_McCall (Nov 9, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> All that aside, that still doesn't make this a firefighting image(or Fully Involved)  It makes it guys in costume standing in front of a digital background.  A guy in a tux in front of a digital backdrop at a studio does not make it a wedding image...or the people dressed up as soldiers in front of an empty coffin in a studio...well, you get the picture.


Apologies George. You may be missing the point. 
You know the background is digitally projected because *I told you. *

That planted a seed in your brain to view it differently than if you knew none of the technical details behind it. 
Everything I display will make you wonder if it's real or not because that seed has already grown. Your looking right past the image itself. 
The brush used to create the painting matters none. What matters is the end result. 

As for an earlier comment about something being fake, I offer this: What do you think posing a subject is? Do people walk around perfectly poised, all the time?
Of course they don't. 
As well, whats more fake than putting a subject in front of a muslin background? 
Why not do just the opposite....put them into real life situations and environments? I'm not the first to pioneer this concept. 





penfolderoldo said:


> It seems like it's basically a montage of multiple images.


It is a single capture. Nothing is edited in or out.




penfolderoldo said:


> With 'never say never' - again, excellently executed - if you were  upfront with the competition organisers then no probs, however, is the  background someone else's picture? did you personally draw /  paint it / create it digitally if it's not a photo? Basically, for me,  even if it's your concept, if someone else produced part of the image  then it's not 100% your work, and getting an award for that is something  that I do have a bit of an issue with, sorry.


The image of the church behind Mr. Jones was captured by me personally. It's a very historic church, and a bit of a tourist attraction. I photographed over two dozen historic churches in four countries so I do not remember exactly where it was. Somewhere in central Europe. 
That was over 8 years ago. The images languished in my files of "someday" projects. 
I sent the image to GammaTech for creation into a background. The rest is history. 

What makes is so beautiful is the ceiling. 
I watched those around me shooting upward which gave them a keystone look, I'm certain. 
I waited until the sanctuary was almost completely empty, then photographed from the back with a wide angle to get as much in as possible. It really is a beautiful church.


----------



## dsquared (Nov 12, 2011)

that is pretty amazing


----------



## photo guy (Dec 21, 2011)

I prefer on location shoots for these types of shots, this way each is original and not reusable time and time again


----------



## Buckster (Dec 22, 2011)

Fantastic work!  I love it!  Well done!  



Mark_McCall said:


> penfolderoldo said:
> 
> 
> > It seems like it's basically a montage of multiple images.
> ...


So, you're using a projection type virtual background system, I take it?  I've been thinking about going that route myself, so I'd love to know a little more about that.  Which system are you using, and what size screen are you using for an image like this?


----------



## BadPictures (Jan 12, 2012)

I'm not a professional and really just looking here to see what inspiration I can draw for my own work, just so you know where my comment is coming from.  That picture is a pretty good illusion.  I'll say it looked a little off to me because the pose of the running guy seemed strange, and the fact that they seem to be trying to save a fully burnt tree instead of running to get in front of the fire to get a fire block set up or something seems illogical to me.  But the photo itself seems technically very good and definitely is cool.  However, that's not what made me want to comment.  I was reading through other comments, specifically those that suggested that this sort of imagery is somehow 'fake' and to me, I don't see it.  The idea is to create a beautiful photo.  I mean, it's really awesome when you capture a perfect moment and all, but there are so few of those.  Very often I have an image in my head, usually because of something I've seen that could have been a perfect shot, except for.. well, whatever.   I applaud you for creating those moments when you can't actually capture them, or have just imagined something interesting.  I agree it's a different sort of art, but I don't think it's inferior.  But that's just my humble opinion.  I do have one question, though.   What do you do with a photo like this?  Is it for sale as art?  Is it meant for an ad or something?  Strictly personal gratification?  

Thanks, and keep up the great work!


----------

