Yep. You'll never get a single strand of hair with a green screen.
LOL, you can photoshop in single strands for a more authentic look.
People have been adding digital dirt, dust, film grain for 20+ years.
I still believe the people were shot in a studio and the photo composited in Photoshop. A good photographer should be able to remove all traces of the green screen.
Hollywood seems to use green screens on a regular basis and they shoot 60 frames a second (or more) for 120 minute films.
Which is why they can get away with it. You can't scrutinize each frame, but they never use a green screen when there is fly away hair because it will alway look fake.
Absolutely. You could almost see that the people are "pasted" into the background. They would never be foolish enough to shoot this on the real location (Jony's lab). Not because that it is secretive, but shooting in studio is much easier. Just have a table, some pencils and papers and BAM!
Originally Posted by paxman
Disagree. If you look at the jobs site you'll see a much larger version. It is very well lit and probably heavily post produced. The background in particular looks touched up, perhaps to remove reflections, and to soften things nicely. It is totally posed but it looks shot on location to me.
Originally Posted by steveH
The lighting's not very different from a well-designed product design lab space; even, without contrasty lighting and shadows.
"Editing the people in" would leave some telltale green or blue contamination around the edges of the people, and that doesn't appear in the picture (although compression artifacts are evident around high-contrast boundaries).
Another clue that it might be the real things is the mix of lighting evident; the background looks like it's lit by open sky, quite a bit more blue than the room lighting itself. Mixed lighting sources are generally a BadThing(tm) in studio shooting, you want to avoid it if at all possible because it can look very bad. At least they're not working under fluorescent tube lighting.
Man, we are starved for leaked product images, aren’t we?
LOL, you can photoshop in single strands for a more authentic look.
People have been adding digital dirt, dust, film grain for 20+ years.
I still think this was shot in a studio.
Sure but this discussion started with the EASIEST way and good photographers pride themselves in get everything in the shot with NO touch ups. Hours of painstaking retouch is not the easiest way, especially in such a generic shot as this. You simply light it well and shoot.
[RIGHT][/RIGHT]Anyone know who the woman with short blond hair is? I can name the other three (Jody Akana, Daniele De Iuliis and Anthony Ashcroft) but not sure about the blond. Maybe she's new to the team? Another interesting factoid is the female engineer highlighted on Apple's new job site is actually married to one of the industrial designers. Did Jony have a hand in pulling together the new jobs site?
Sure but this discussion started with the EASIEST way and good photographers pride themselves in get everything in the shot with NO touch ups. Hours of painstaking retouch is not the easiest way, especially in such a generic shot as this. You simply light it well and shoot.
And its not a very complex set-up. Its well done, as in highly professional, but it is much like all other Apple 'people' shots. The only way it could be done in the studio, and this would have made the set-up simpler because it is formulaic, would have been to hang a backdrop photograph of the design studio in the photographic studio. The very even-ness of the background soft focus supports this idea. It would also be the simplest and least invasive way of getting the shot. The back ground could have been doctored as much as required and it's final print quality not critical.
The only way it could be done in the studio, and this would have made the set-up simpler because it is formulaic, would have been to hang a backdrop photograph of the design studio in the photographic studio. The very even-ness of the background soft focus supports this idea. It would also be the simplest and least invasive way of getting the shot. The back ground could have been doctored as much as required and it's final print quality not critical.
Possible, however you would need to light the backdrop too and I see no evidence of that. That particular image would be very tricky to light because it is a picture of glass. Light would behave very differently hitting a picture of glass versus real glass. I only know for sure it was not a green screen. I work with some super high end photographers and they would cringe at the thought of faking anything.
Man, we are starved for leaked product images, aren’t we?
Me, not so much. I used to (off and on over a 45-year span) do product and studio photography; if you've never done post processing on film, you have no idea just how much better digital photo production can be.
Possible, however you would need to light the backdrop too and I see no evidence of that. That particular image would be very tricky to light because it is a picture of glass. Light would behave very differently hitting a picture of glass versus real glass. I only know for sure it was not a green screen. I work with some super high end photographers and they would cringe at the thought of faking anything.
I think my option for using a backdrop would only have been a choice if location shooting was overly problematic (and I can easily imagine that being the case). I also don't know what the design studio space is like. If it is large with plenty ceiling height, and with plenty space to step back and use a fairly long lens and avoid too much spill light on the glass, then it is a fairly simple shoot. Lighting behind the glass would pretty simple - just small accent lights for effect. Large natural light surfaces could be problematic, too. There are too many unknowns but I agree that green screen definitely was not used.
I’m trying to tell if you’re being racist, sexist, ableist, mentally defective, or just telling a joke.
Little mix of all.
You obviously have never seen an Apple keynote then if what I wrote doesn't make your truth bone tingle even slightly, what with the dearth of anyone other than white men on the boards and executive ranks of most Silicon Valley companies. If you want to dodge discussing that to attack my "racist, sexist, ableist, mentally defective" post, go for it, and be like the rest of Silicon Valley in ignoring the white male (ooops, I mean female Latina) elephant in the room.
Disagree. If you look at the jobs site you'll see a much larger version. It is very well lit and probably heavily post produced. The background in particular looks touched up, perhaps to remove reflections, and to soften things nicely. It is totally posed but it looks shot on location to me.
Disagree. I didn't say all the photos in the site are shot in the studio. Clearly some are shot on location since the lighting are different. But the main picture was clearly shot in the studio. The lighting on the people is not possible consider the glass background.
Looks at the bigger picture on the site, you can hardly see shadow on people faces.
Comments
Yep. You'll never get a single strand of hair with a green screen.
LOL, you can photoshop in single strands for a more authentic look.
People have been adding digital dirt, dust, film grain for 20+ years.
I still believe the people were shot in a studio and the photo composited in Photoshop. A good photographer should be able to remove all traces of the green screen.
Hollywood seems to use green screens on a regular basis and they shoot 60 frames a second (or more) for 120 minute films.
Which is why they can get away with it. You can't scrutinize each frame, but they never use a green screen when there is fly away hair because it will alway look fake.
Has anyone actually gone through, and you know, read through the site? The from employees quotes are very inspiring and layout is great.
But no, let's just constrain all discussion to the header photo.
"Editing the people in" would leave some telltale green or blue contamination around the edges of the people, and that doesn't appear in the picture (although compression artifacts are evident around high-contrast boundaries).
Another clue that it might be the real things is the mix of lighting evident; the background looks like it's lit by open sky, quite a bit more blue than the room lighting itself. Mixed lighting sources are generally a BadThing(tm) in studio shooting, you want to avoid it if at all possible because it can look very bad. At least they're not working under fluorescent tube lighting.
Man, we are starved for leaked product images, aren’t we?
LOL, you can photoshop in single strands for a more authentic look.
People have been adding digital dirt, dust, film grain for 20+ years.
I still think this was shot in a studio.
Sure but this discussion started with the EASIEST way and good photographers pride themselves in get everything in the shot with NO touch ups. Hours of painstaking retouch is not the easiest way, especially in such a generic shot as this. You simply light it well and shoot.
Obviously shot on Apple's Holodeck...
Has anyone actually gone through, and you know, read through the site? The from employees quotes are very inspiring and layout is great.
But no, let's just constrain all discussion to the header photo.
And yet when you go to the search page to still in the old Apple website design. #facepalm
There's no way they used models as fake design team members.
Those people definitely work at Apple at least in some way related to design.
So would the pencils be colored, versus normal?
They are colored pencils. In the larger shot you can see the colors.
And its not a very complex set-up. Its well done, as in highly professional, but it is much like all other Apple 'people' shots. The only way it could be done in the studio, and this would have made the set-up simpler because it is formulaic, would have been to hang a backdrop photograph of the design studio in the photographic studio. The very even-ness of the background soft focus supports this idea. It would also be the simplest and least invasive way of getting the shot. The back ground could have been doctored as much as required and it's final print quality not critical.
Possible, however you would need to light the backdrop too and I see no evidence of that. That particular image would be very tricky to light because it is a picture of glass. Light would behave very differently hitting a picture of glass versus real glass. I only know for sure it was not a green screen. I work with some super high end photographers and they would cringe at the thought of faking anything.
Man, we are starved for leaked product images, aren’t we?
Me, not so much. I used to (off and on over a 45-year span) do product and studio photography; if you've never done post processing on film, you have no idea just how much better digital photo production can be.
I’m trying to tell if you’re being racist, sexist, ableist, mentally defective, or just telling a joke.
Little mix of all.
You obviously have never seen an Apple keynote then if what I wrote doesn't make your truth bone tingle even slightly, what with the dearth of anyone other than white men on the boards and executive ranks of most Silicon Valley companies. If you want to dodge discussing that to attack my "racist, sexist, ableist, mentally defective" post, go for it, and be like the rest of Silicon Valley in ignoring the white male (ooops, I mean female Latina) elephant in the room.
Has anyone actually gone through, and you know, read through the site? The from employees quotes are very inspiring and layout is great.
Reading through the employment opportunities was very interesting. It provides some insight into what they are working on.
Disagree. If you look at the jobs site you'll see a much larger version. It is very well lit and probably heavily post produced. The background in particular looks touched up, perhaps to remove reflections, and to soften things nicely. It is totally posed but it looks shot on location to me.
Disagree. I didn't say all the photos in the site are shot in the studio. Clearly some are shot on location since the lighting are different. But the main picture was clearly shot in the studio. The lighting on the people is not possible consider the glass background.
Looks at the bigger picture on the site, you can hardly see shadow on people faces.