HOME | DD

Published: 2007-11-13 06:31:06 +0000 UTC; Views: 20824; Favourites: 1208; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
The Making of The Giving Tree [link]********THIS IS NOT A DIGITAL MANIPULATION********
Took easily over a year to produce the finished result.
Location was about an hour and a half away from where I live. Made I don't know how many trips down there to hopefully arrive on nights with thick enough fog to capture this. Did have nights with plenty of fog but by the time I had everything setup and model in place it had faded too much to get what I wanted, so in those situations I would continue the concept and think about how to try to take it further. I would like to stress that I do NOT feel that this is the finished result, but rather as finished as it will ever get. The conditions that existed in this place to produce this result have since changed and can not be entirely repeated, at least not in the same spirit of the image. Therefor this is my completed result. I am happy with it, but what I had in mind would have blown your mind, well maybe just my mind, but it would have at some point blown somebodies mind. Would have been infinitesimally better than what it is now.
Especially on that final shot my model (Heath, always my model, haha) had to hold DAMN still. You can tell he moved slightly, but you can only tell much on my 30x40 print that I donated to the place dear to my heart, the camp I work at during the summers, which is where I took this shot.
*sigh* My series always tend to forcefully end by no choice of my own. This is the second series I've had that ended even though I didn't want it to. The other one ended due to about 1.3 billion gallons of water rushing down a mountain/hill side
***SPOILER(ish)***
The light is not the sun or anything. It was an old school lamp post with an old OLD school lightbulb that actually produced the colors you are seeing. PS me NOT! One because I hate photoshop, two there are other programs that are much cheaper that will focus more on the actual tools that I need and use as a photographer instead of a digital manipulator. I only used the burning tool for like 3 seconds on this shot, would have been easier to do in an actual dark room if you ask me, but thats just cause I love real darkrooms very much (yes even though I almost entirely shoot in digital). The fadeout effect of all the other trees and background was no work at all! Physics did that for me! Didn't have to spend hours in photoshop creating this baby, lol, just 10x as much time making sure I got the ACTUAL shot I wanted, think what you want
Related content
Comments: 352
gildeneye In reply to ??? [2008-10-17 05:12:21 +0000 UTC]
With a new verion, you'll amaze us again!!! I'm sure of it!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
gokuyert In reply to gildeneye [2008-10-17 14:17:05 +0000 UTC]
can never happen, they changed the color of the light post down there, entirely different feel, would never be a new version of the photo, just an entirely new photo (plus its not as pretty down there now)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
gokuyert In reply to Anjaloo [2008-09-03 00:50:20 +0000 UTC]
lol, no longer are you the 1000th, somebody else removed it from their favorites, lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Anjaloo In reply to gokuyert [2008-09-03 23:02:08 +0000 UTC]
gah damn!
how can someone un-add it srly?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
gokuyert In reply to Anjaloo [2008-08-30 22:02:24 +0000 UTC]
ahh, 1000th fav, i've been watching that approaching for some time now
thank ya much
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
SylverEyes In reply to ??? [2008-08-30 18:05:49 +0000 UTC]
It's gorgeous! Glowy and golden and... and... I don't even have the words to describe how absolutely breathtaking this is.
I ask how you do this in awe. -falls over-
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
gokuyert In reply to SylverEyes [2008-08-30 22:01:34 +0000 UTC]
its all there in the description and there is a link to the making of it
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
SylverEyes In reply to gokuyert [2008-08-30 23:22:03 +0000 UTC]
Haha, I know. I just meant it as a statement of 'Woahmygod I can't believe this!' sort of awe-inspiring thing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
tee-pee In reply to ??? [2008-08-27 08:43:02 +0000 UTC]
Your work has been featured here: [link]
Thank You
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
KrAzY-ReD-FuZzZy In reply to ??? [2008-08-03 18:49:48 +0000 UTC]
I hope you don't mind, I featured this in my journal.
It's a truly amazing shot!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
gokuyert In reply to KrAzY-ReD-FuZzZy [2008-08-07 19:14:25 +0000 UTC]
dont mind at all, and glad you like
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
gokuyert In reply to waterspirirtjess [2008-05-06 16:39:42 +0000 UTC]
ha, my old art, if only I had the will to continue to make more new stuff like it
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
waterspirirtjess In reply to gokuyert [2008-05-06 22:59:00 +0000 UTC]
Oh come on! You need to get back up in the saddle..(?...i'm swedish...) you have amazing talent, don't waste it mister!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
starrysurrealism In reply to ??? [2008-04-10 06:13:45 +0000 UTC]
Nice work! I love the color and contrast!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
gokuyert In reply to starrysurrealism [2008-04-10 07:56:59 +0000 UTC]
lol, well thank you kindly ma'am
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
MoodePots In reply to ??? [2008-03-22 13:45:16 +0000 UTC]
Just to add my two cents worth....
I love the image. I also love the fact that your reference was taken from something outside of photograph, weather that be a literary reference because you enjoyed the book or a play on the title. I think this is what makes interesting art. That cross-over. Personally, though not being very religous, I see more biblical references. But isn't that what a great image does? Makes us think....!
As for copyright, I wouldn't even begin to comment... but how many times have we seen that over used image of the lone tree standing in the open field with a lone person standing/sitting under it... we can't give Silverstein credit for all of them, can we?
dm
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
gokuyert In reply to MoodePots [2008-03-22 17:10:04 +0000 UTC]
ya, how often this kind of idea of an image has been used is actually my main problem with it, just because I don't feel it is as creative as it could have been, with how overused the idea might be. And ha, ya, if I had to give silverstein credit for this photograph because of his book, I have to wonder how many hundreds of painters he would have to give credit to, that beat him to the idea years and years ahead of his book.
And thank you for your input very much Photography really is much more of my 'bag' so to kinda quote austin powers
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
gokuyert In reply to aeravi [2008-03-17 17:22:57 +0000 UTC]
thank you
I browsed some of your other selections, beautiful
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
tuelumi In reply to ??? [2008-03-13 18:53:54 +0000 UTC]
clearly i'm not going to be able to gush any more than everybody else already has. though i wish i could.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
gokuyert In reply to tuelumi [2008-03-13 19:43:48 +0000 UTC]
this the first time you've seen this thing?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
tuelumi In reply to gokuyert [2008-03-13 20:30:22 +0000 UTC]
no, but i still love it
(plus, now it's finished.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
gokuyert In reply to tuelumi [2008-03-13 20:51:49 +0000 UTC]
plus now this image is finished?
ha, i'm confuzzled
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
tuelumi In reply to gokuyert [2008-03-14 00:28:13 +0000 UTC]
the image is finished, and complete, so it seemed like a perfectly good excuse to say again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
tuelumi In reply to tuelumi [2008-03-13 18:55:28 +0000 UTC]
...I should have said, "as eloquently"
i think we can call this a case in point
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
MultifacetedMage In reply to ??? [2008-03-12 20:13:28 +0000 UTC]
The Title is From a Shel Silverstein Book as is the Image
minus the Colorful Sunset.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
gokuyert In reply to MultifacetedMage [2008-03-12 21:17:03 +0000 UTC]
there is no sunset here, this was taken probably around 10 or 11 at night, no sun for quite some time, and yes the title is from that wonderful book
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MultifacetedMage In reply to gokuyert [2008-03-12 21:20:45 +0000 UTC]
I recall it was done with false light yet still the title and, image belong to shel silverstein and, his family.
Plus i agree it is a wonderful book ass are all his books
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
gokuyert In reply to MultifacetedMage [2008-03-12 22:08:31 +0000 UTC]
um, the image does not in any way belong to shel silverstein, its mine, he didnt take the photo
i cant even begin to fathom how you might possibly think that the image is his
and the book was initially published in 1964, the title is no longer copyrighted, at least not in other mediums such as photography.
do a google search on the term, there are tons of foundations, band songs, other photos, all named the giving tree
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
gokuyert In reply to gokuyert [2008-03-13 22:20:31 +0000 UTC]
in response to myself above, i was totally wrong and happy to admit it
I was wrong in saying the title is no longer copyrighted because it was never copyrighted, the book is copyrighted, whereas titles need to be trademarked
I was mistaken in my understanding of copyright and trademark law, not anymore though
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
MultifacetedMage In reply to gokuyert [2008-03-12 23:48:20 +0000 UTC]
The Cover Artwork,The Illustrations,the Stories and, The Poems on and, in his Book are hand done.
True it was CopyWritten in 64 but then recopywritten numerous years afterward.
I would know as I have copies of his books and, in all of them they say:
"All rights are reserved and that no part of this book may be used or, reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critcal articles and, reviews"
this by the way is the say so of Harper Collins (Formerly Harper&Row)
Now this is just me guessing here but, i would assume that the family of Shel Silverstein
is not about to let their family members copywrite just run out especially since they are making revinew off that
. so if i were u i'd look into your claim.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
gokuyert In reply to MultifacetedMage [2008-03-13 02:31:54 +0000 UTC]
Even if they have it still copyrighted, which is pretty likely I guess, they don't have the title trademarked, I can use it however I want
and you still havent told me how the hell you think that they own this image
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MultifacetedMage In reply to gokuyert [2008-03-13 21:45:55 +0000 UTC]
duh can u say "the title and, "The Hand-Drawn Image" and yes both are trademarked as well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
gokuyert In reply to MultifacetedMage [2008-03-13 22:15:55 +0000 UTC]
More evidence you are wrong, you don't trademark art, you have it copyrighted, you dont know what you are talking about quite obviously
furthermore I challenge you to show any lick of evidence that the Title is trademarked. When something is trademarked you show such by including that little 'T' symbol after it, that is not on the cover of the book after the title, nor inside. As well as there is no trademark page or information inside the book, though there is a copyright page which reads as follows:
"THE GIVING TREE
Copyright 1964 by Shel Silverstein
Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved.
Library of Congress catalog card number: 64-11840"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MultifacetedMage In reply to gokuyert [2008-03-14 00:53:56 +0000 UTC]
could it be possible that u just got an edition that didn't have the trademark "T" properly put in place i mean such printing errors do occur your royal uppityness. Look u do copywrite art but, u can trademark it as well, no matter what you think.
all the books have a library of congress catalog number which is as good as a trademark in and, of itself if not better.
in other-words this book is federally recognized.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
gokuyert In reply to MultifacetedMage [2008-03-14 01:44:34 +0000 UTC]
no, I looked up many official copies on line with information on the copyright held by the actual book. To trademark something you have to go through a long legal process, nothing is automatically trademarked like your art is automatically copyrighted.
and no, a congress catalog number has NOTHING to do with trademark, how do you not get this? A Trademark is something else entirely, stop acting like a child and listen to some logic
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
gokuyert In reply to MultifacetedMage [2008-03-13 22:08:32 +0000 UTC]
and also, before you claim to know the law
from copyright .gov
"A trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others."
"Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture."
The book is copyrighted, the title of The Giving Tree is not Trademarked, they do not own the title in any way, shape, or form under US law, which is where it was published and printed
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MultifacetedMage In reply to gokuyert [2008-03-14 00:56:10 +0000 UTC]
your still screwed as long as, they have kept up on that copyright and, as long as its federally recognized.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
gokuyert In reply to MultifacetedMage [2008-03-14 01:42:40 +0000 UTC]
i'm not screwed in any way, i did not plagiarize any part of their book, and the title is not trademarked, you aren't using any facts to argue your point here, use some facts, perhaps even some logic
i've shown you the official US standpoint on this issue and it sides with me and you ignore the point
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
gokuyert In reply to MultifacetedMage [2008-03-13 22:03:31 +0000 UTC]
this isnt hand drawn
this is a tree, like one of those big wooden things he talks about in the book
and it was taken with one of those camera things
I didnt like, take a picture of the book
I even included a 'making of' link in the description that shows the tree photographed during the day too
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>