15,000 layer photoshop file...
polycounter lvl 19
http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/9293/15_000_Layer_Photoshop_File
The image size is 40 inches by 120 inches.
The flattened file weighs in at 1.7 Gigabytes.
It took eleven months (close to 2,000 hours) to create.
The painting is comprised of close to fifty individual Photoshop files.
Taking a cumulative total of all the files, the overall image contains over 15,000 layers.
Over 500 alpha channels were used for various effects.
Over 250,000 paths make up the multitude of shapes throughout the scene.
The end result isn't all that impressive.
The image size is 40 inches by 120 inches.
The flattened file weighs in at 1.7 Gigabytes.
It took eleven months (close to 2,000 hours) to create.
The painting is comprised of close to fifty individual Photoshop files.
Taking a cumulative total of all the files, the overall image contains over 15,000 layers.
Over 500 alpha channels were used for various effects.
Over 250,000 paths make up the multitude of shapes throughout the scene.
The end result isn't all that impressive.
Replies
The end result isn't all that impressive.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. Somebody sent me this the other day touting it as 'the most amazing piece of photoreal Art eVar'. A claim that I begged to differ on.
I see no practical need or purpose in a 1.7 gig Photoshop file. To me it shows a distinct lack of commitment and confidence on the part of the Artist. To label yourself as a 'digital photo realist artist' is an odd monicker in this day and age. Particularly since his other works are even less impressive than this, and far from photo real. They feel *very* 'airbrushy'. It all smacks a little of a publicity stunt.
I still think it looks dull, though.
Suppose he likely did do it just to make the biggest file possible, seems a bit pointless, but I suppose that'd be the most likely reason reason.
Hey, here's a tip: CTRL+E
Also it smells fishy, 15k layers, 50 files, thats like 300 layer per file at 40"x120"? Can you actually work with file like that?
I used to be into that whole 5zillion layers of tons of overlapping gradients, layer effects, and stuff like that, but then I realized it's a big waste of time and it was really just me being a wuss. -Painting- on a minimal amount of layers and merging down turned out to be much more productive and looks better.
I just realized this is the guy that used to go on ZD TV and Tech TV to do Photoshop Tips. Ha! I do like some of his stuff on the last page of the Fine Art section. There's some pretty neat images from 1990 or so. He was definitely pushing the limits of digital painting back then.
Bet he can't do that.
Seriously, unless you have a specific reason for not collapsing layers, you are just being a panzy. Commit to your art, and have confidence in the decisions you make. What's the worse thing that can happen? You might have to re-paint something a little bit. Oooohhh, scary.... To me this is a much more acceptable option than having to deal with some ridiculously large and unmanageable file.
Agreed with Daz, in fact I'd say a lot of areas look like Photoshop filter and layer effects.
I remember having to work with a 275-layer Photoshop file (NOT created by myself, I stress!) ... it was near impossible to understand, and hardly any of the layers were named ... I managed to merge it down to 20 layers, made it much easier to work with and much smaller file size.
Seems kinda pointless, like he's adding a new layer for every single change he makes.
I love the close ups.... and that when you look at the entire image you have to nearly squint to find where they are. where's waldo!?!? meh, it probably would have come out much more cohesive if it was merged and worked all at once. He's probably cheating and having one layer for each colored light + bevel + shadow.
//edit
he has some pretty good paintings on the rest of his site, but they all seem traced, or made with an eye dropper. very lifelike, but very lifeless.
sorry, but why spend 2000 hours making a picture of something so insanely DULL?
There's the money right there - it's a Photoshop headline-stealer, and not a very good one at that.
I'm sure a image that huge would take a very long time to render that's if the system can do it at all. This was probably a contract he got commissioned to do hence the dull nature of it. I do like the realistic lightning he has going on. I knew a professor once that made his students of his 3d class render out images at 640x480 at 720 dpi. The software used would croak after awhile and make rendering errors caused by bugs found in the 3d software. Part of it was the Macs used didn't have enough ram 96 megs. This was back in 1999 and the software used was crappy. I explained to him that the system and the software could not deal with his expectation. He didn't like it but listened since I was the TA and Lab tech and all his students had the same problem rendering out their work.
Does anyone knows what kind of specs a system would need to render and image like this, the train scene, for print at say 2048 dpi at 40 inches by 120 inches say using Mays, Max, XSI or Lightwave and about how long it would take? I'm just curious about it.
I thought this statement was silly.
"Taking a cumulative total of all the files, the overall image contains over 15,000 layers." It really doesn't mean anything except the process was tedious. I did like the work itself but the bragging is what is really bringing it down.
I have made images at 720 dpi 11 by 17 for print( for Graphic Design coursework) and it's a pain after all the layers start to build up. If it's for a client there really is no commiting because many clients want things changed several times, oh and they usually don't know what they want.
Alex
Making your working process 10 times longer and much much harder by working in 15,000 layers in anticipation of 'potential client changes' is a pretty ridiculous notion sorry.
640x480 defines that the image is 640 pixels wide and 480 high, the dpi will change according to the paper size its printed on...
HAHAHAHA.
Daz I guess I sort of wanted to point out the possiblity that that the artist made this for print. All his other work seemed to be created for that media. It's actually very easy to make a file with nothing in it be over a gig. Took me a minute when I looked up the numbers I stated for Toomas. If anyone makes a blank photoshop file 8.889 x 6.667 inches at 720 dpi photoshop claims it is 87 megs. Also doing that image with more than 20 layers is just lame. What's even more funny is that he really didn't use 15,000 layers, maybe in his mind he did, but whatever, to each their own. I do agree with you Daz that his workflow sucks.
Sinistergfx I can only imagine he wanted to add a big Gargoyle with a a huge cock and scream I did this with 15,000 layers, I'm sooo freaking cool!
Alex