how is this done?

[ICED OUT!]

does anyone know what technique was used to get the results of this photo?
Matte painting? It looks amazing and I would love to duoliate it-

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c190/brasco1975/x_fiero8in.jpg


Thanks,

Adam

[Ralph Oshiro]

Looks like just a model was placed in that location and photographed using standard techique. I would guess that the model was lit with a strobe, while the background was exposed using the camera's slow-sync function to expose for the (probably) lower light-level incandescent or sodium-vapor practicals seen in the building's exterior lighting.

[Digigenic]

Well, it looks like it could have been composited, not to say green/blue screen compositing, but that the same shot was taken two or three times, one to focus/expose for the environment, and the other for the subject and later blended/recomposited to create the final image. Kind of like what landscape/architecture photographers tend to do.
My initial observations are based primarily on the focus/exposure of the subject compared the focus/exposure of the environment. Certain parts of the subject, like the back parts of the her hair appear to slightly go out of focus, might have been resharpened, but the kicker is how the environment unaturally pops back into focus - consisistently sharp all the way through to the skyline- like landscape or architecture photography. It just appears to me that this isn't the simple result from one shot, it's two or more photos used to forge one.
3 shots - one for subject, one for the immediate invironment/building, and one for the skyline backdrop. All composited in Photoshop, naturally.

[ICED OUT!]

hmmmm, interesting. any books that teach this that anyone point me to?

thanks

[Asa]

Digigenic....I agree, it's definitely a composite. Notice how there's not a solid roofline on the building? Also, the lighting on the model doesn't look quite like a fill flash. Besides, fill flash would have been a different white balance than the sodium vapors (not impossible to overcome in photoshop, but a pain in the neck nonetheless). I'm willing to bet that the model was shot in a studio and composited with the building and sky.

ICED: It's all in the editing...get yourself a copy of Photoshop and read the manual cover to cover a few times. Or get an aftermarket book that's a bit easier to read. The PS manual can get pretty thick.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Also, the lighting on the model doesn't look quite like a fill flash. Besides, fill flash would have been a different white balance than the sodium vapors (not impossible to overcome in photoshop, but a pain in the neck nonetheless).Not sure why you say that. It looks like a soft strobe source from a softbox or similar lighting tool standing just to the left of the camera position. If this camera was white balanced to 5600K (the color temperature of an uncorrected flash), then those incandescent downlights (if that's what they are) would go about that color--very warm.

Then again, this very well could be a composite. My point was, is that this shot would be easily achievable in "one shot" using the technique I described, and the resulting image would have the same color temperature characteristics.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Also, the reason I first thought this was NOT a composite was because I thought I observed the same, warm-hued, uncorrected incandescent (or whatever that ambient source is) falling on the model's left cheek and left shoulder.

[Asa]

Ya know, I think you're right. I was originally thinking of flash lighting and the resulting color difference, but there's no reason the model couldn't have been lit with hot lights at the same color temp as the building...

[Caution]

Looks like Color reversal, I could be wrong now days everyone is using digital.

[Rick Meyer]

Personally, I'm not convinced that building and background is even real. To me, it looks like it was 3D modeled and was rendered out using Raytracing. There is just something unnatural about the look of the material of the sidewalk behind her. Hell, I've even seen 3D human models (STILL only) that are not real but look VERY VERY real. She might not even be real...look at her hair...something funky about it....

[scharky]

It would be easier to tell if the photo was larger, at this size it is impossible, but I would be willing to bet as well, that there is nothing real about this photo. The model personally looks, well, not alive to me, for lack of better terms, and the background, especially the roof top and the blue cloudy looking haze looks very CG to me, again, at this size, it is tough to tell, so I would say it is a very well done CG, or personally, a very poorly shot photograph, as I see absolutly no life in the photo whatsoever.

[David Jimerson]

Looks totally CG to me -- especially the background.