/ Climbing on the Ribblehead viaduct
Don't remember it being quite that sunny last time I was there...
I wonder how they did on the roof?!?
Actually I don't think the scale is far off even if it is photoshopped.
Have a look at this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9OirN1e9W0
At about 09:14s the chap is stood on the ground about 6 inches below the bottom stone and is roughly the same height as 3 stones. A fully stretched climbing pose doesn't look unreasonable at 4 stones in height.
Agree that is does seem an odd place to be. Surely a 'real' climber would just be traversing low to the ground?
They certainly look like they've been processed. If there's been no jiggery pokery then i'd be very interested to learn his techniques.
At 6 foot for 3 stones in video, the climber in photo covers 4 stones from base of left heal to top of head so that would make them 8 foot
> Agree that is does seem an odd place to be. Surely a 'real' climber would just be traversing low to the ground?
I love the irony!!!!
That is all.
Rubbish sequence. There's a huge jug on the left she's missing.
Ah, but you use smaller stones as you get higher.
I wouldn't assume it's photo shopped, I saw some divers on TV diving down a cliff face into a pool of water from high up on a ledge, and the distances were similar to those in the pic you linked to.
In this picture judging by his body angle, the guy needs to be moving at a horizontal speed of 40mph* or he's going to get splatted :)
*completely made up speed
?? There's a very long shadow right where you'd expect it from the low angle of the sun, along her left leg and extending down from her left foot; which makes her look a lot longer than she is. Compare the figure to the stone wall.
This is not photoshopped.
The shadow of the head is in the wrong place, it's too high up given the angle of the shadows from the corbles(sticky out bits of stone), The shadow of the left arm isn't right either, too narrow for the position of the arm. The right foot is way too high for there to be a foothold, as is the left hand. There is also no strong shadow of the chalkbag.
There are also a few other things I've seen, such as pixel size difference between the climber and the rest of the photo to suggest photoshop.
> In this picture judging by his body angle, the guy needs to be moving at a horizontal speed of 40mph* or he's going to get splatted :)
> *completely made up speed
I'm not sure, on TV I saw people diving down a diagonal into a pool at the bottom of the cliff, they'd climb up the side and stand on a ledge, and make the sign of the cross before diving off again.
It looked nuts to me but they landed into the water alright after diving down what was a slab, it was a steepish slab but still a slab all the same. Was somewhere in South America I think.
I'm not sure it did any good, but i'm not surprised they made the sign of the cross, there was a lot to go wrong.
Just to clarify my original comment - I have no interest in whether or not the climbing has been faked. I just really hate these over-processed photos where all the colours look oversaturated.
I suppose this isn't photoshopped, either:
Looks like HDR (High Dynamic Range)You can tell because you would expect the stonework to be in more shadow, but it's very clear.
Usually three pictures are over laid on top of each other with varying exposure levels to give you and naturally exposed images
look at his site, of course it's not a real climber actually climbing the viaduct, it's his style. geez
>The practicalities of climbing this make it unrealistic.
Aye, I guess that because it was for a centre page spread they probably weren't that bothered about its integrity, and more bothered whether it was a good image or not.
I'll let them off this once....
In fairness though, some of the images are quite good, and it appears he gets his fair share of commissions out of it, so who are we to criticise..... (?!!!)
Speaking personally as both a climber and photographer, 'photoshoping' to improve contrast, colour fidelity etc. is acceptable.
To use the same techniques in order to place a climber in a position he or she is not actually in (if this is indeed the case with this picture) is totally unacceptable to me as a climber.
> Speaking personally as both a climber and photographer, 'photoshoping' to improve contrast, colour fidelity etc. is acceptable.
> To use the same techniques in order to place a climber in a position he or she is not actually in (if this is indeed the case with this picture) is totally unacceptable to me as a climber.
I was actually referring to the non-climbing related stuff. The Ribblehead one that triggered the thread (and that hurdling one) is actually really crap compared to his other work.
Elsewhere on the site
On Saturday 13th December Greg Boswell and Guy Robertson kicked off their Scottish winter season early by making the... Read more
This years ROCfest will be slightly different. We've decided to run a Climbing Festival, not just a competition! Over... Read more
The Epicentre Mega Winter Sale starts in store 9am Christmas Eve. We have a great selection of in store only deals from... Read more
The release of Peter Jackson's new film The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies on 12th December may not appear to link to... Read more
F ounded in 1993, Mountain Hardwear are a pretty young mountaineering clothing and equipment manufacturer but are also one of... Read more