« GameCamp | Main | R2D2 iPod speakers »
Joshuadamon's Halotography flickrset is just jawdropping.
How did he take these, I wonder? And wouldn't it make a fantastic set of framed prints for the gaming room? I wonder what the legal stance would be on selling photographs (technically screenprints? Or are they?) of games like this. Inquiring minds want to know.
Lovely work, Joshuadamon!
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/6994/28564942
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Halotography:
» Halo, So Pretty from Kotaku
Purdy! These heavily PhotoShopped Halo pictures are the handiwork of flickr user joshuadamon. Not sure if they're just in-game screen grabs that have been reworked or pics of Halo toys that have been PS'ed or a combination of both.... [Read More]
» Halo, So Pretty [Coolness] from Gaming news
Purdy! These heavily PhotoShopped Halo pictures are the handiwork of flickr user joshuadamon . Not sure [Read More]
Nice. Looking at the photoset, it appears to be a combination of photography of action figures, and judicious photoshop on top of the in-game social screengrab tool... eg, this one is easily doable in game (and then uploaded to bungie.net).
This is classic in-game screengrabbing, processed through a pseudo tilt-shift filter.
It doesn't make it less interesting, though - if anything, the process of grabbing in game, pushing to bungie.net, and then processing is quite convoluted, and requires you to pre-visualise the final result well. They're lovely pictures - nice find.
(interestingly, bungie.net and Project Gotham don't watermark your pictures in the same way GT5 and Forza2 do...)
Posted by: Tom Armitage | April 28, 2008 at 15:33
MS has been relatively progressive on fan use of game assets. They were (to my knowledge) one of the first pubs to actually publish a policy on it. More detail here:
http://www.kimpallister.com/2007/08/microsoft-go-ahead-party-on-our-game-ip.html
Of course, that's for non-commercial use. If someone wanted to sell prints, they have to get MS's OK. At least I think that's the case, since you aren't "taking a picture" so much as composing assets from an MS property.
Posted by: Kim Pallister | April 28, 2008 at 15:37
Wow, those pictures make that link to the 3D screenshots of Halo look rubbish :-(
Posted by: Mr Tom | April 28, 2008 at 19:45
please dot get to fascinated, all he did was add false focus by using differing ammounts of bur and he changed the contrast to tone down the colors a bit. these are not action-figures and they take only minor knowledge of photo shop to be executed.
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 04:25
They look beautiful, but the bottom one shows it's done with heavy use of the blur tool. He's reproducing Depth of Field effects, but rather than blurring everything at a certain depth from the lens, he's using it more indiscriminately.
In the bottom pic, both spartans are in focus, but the side of the warthog that would be in between them is blurred - lenses don't work like that... for a narrow DOF shot, you get one band of focus that may only be a few inches 'deep' http://www.pictureline.com/newsletter/article.php?id=12
The diorama shot has a similar problem http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuadamon/2442396944/in/set-72157604730806200/ - two focus areas at different depths from the camera (or one running 'diagonally' from the plane of the lens)
Nice work, nonetheless! The desaturation is nice.
Posted by: Kim | May 02, 2008 at 12:05
Looks like the popular "new layer/desaturate the image to Black and White/make the image a bit brighter and contrastier/apply a mild blur/set layer to blending mode Overlay and opacity 50%" -effect.... and lots of blur. Very nice result!
Posted by: cb | May 03, 2008 at 14:04