Falling without a parachute

[bratha]

Hi all,

I was just looking for some feedback on the believability of this shot.

I kind of feel like I still look a bit cut out and stuck on... despite the fact that I didn't cut and paste.

This is a composite of three images. Me in the scene, The scene without me, and a third of the sky, as the original sky was blown out.

How believable is the shot, and what are the main giveaways (apart from, of course, the fact that I would be very flat if it was real).

You probably need to see it bigger to get the necessary detail.

Feel free to be extra critical. I am really keen on getting better at digital enhancement/composite images. Thanks!



Exposure: 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture: f/11.0
Focal Length: 18 mm
ISO Speed: 200

[Sterling]

Fell from a plane? Or just tripped during a stroll through the garden? I think the shot is missing the context of where you've come from. Maybe adding a plane and a successful parachutist in the sky? Although you're not really dressed to be jumping from a plane. Unless you were pushed. Or even the edge of a building or cliff to indicate you've fallen from it. Maybe something more dramatic than the shrubbery background would help tell the story better? Either way, it looks like you done a great job blending the elements together.

[bratha]

Thank for the feedback.

Definitely agree about the telling the story thing. I actually tried dropping in a few different planes in the top right hand corner, but couldn't find anything that I liked/that worked.

I'll give it another go, thanks again!

[Mike367]

The shadow doesn't look quite right to me.

[chrean]

I like the blend but maybe some motion blur could add some value to the picture. Don't know whether the blur should be applied on the subject or on the background, maybe the latter.

[bratha]

Thanks guys.

I agree mike, it's not totally convincing. It is the real shadow, from the chair I was lying on that I later removed. With no chair there, it does look like my bodies shadow... but then the shadow is missing from my hands and feet.

Chrean there is a little bit of motion blur on the subject, I had tried it with more but was losing too much detail.

Thanks for your comments, really appreciate them!

[PomND]

I think you should be positioned at the top of the frame. Rather than at the bottom. I think (having never fallen from the sky I don't know) that if I was that close to the ground, I would have my arms outstretched in front of me to break the fall, like instinct reaction when you trip you put your arms out.

If you were positioned higher it would also improve the composition and tell the story more successfully because there is some distance being shown.

Hope that helps.

[chrean]

Originally Posted by bratha

Chrean there is a little bit of motion blur on the subject, I had tried it with more but was losing too much detail.

Yup, there is, but it might look almost like you're doing some sort of breakdance. :P

[thePike]

I agree with most of whats been posted above.

You need a sense of motion to be added to the falling body. You've got a lot of unused space in a vertical panoramic like that, you could always add in a dragged effect like the shutter was left open a little longer than needed, thereby showing the progression of the fall.

The human body falls at a terminal velocity of about 120mph, so I imagine there certainly would be some sort of deviation unless you were shooting for high-speed.

Hope this helps!