Monday, August 03, 2009

Frozen milk

[Thanks to Ian.]

Anybody figure out how they do this?
At first I thought it was time-frozen picture of thrown white liquid, but now I'm leaning towards a latex-substance which is then dried. But how they get it in the splash formations, I can't figure.
... No, some of it is drops in the air, so part of it must be time-freeze. But I don't think all of it, you couldn't control it.


Pat McGee said...

I haven't gone to SIGGRAPH in years, but this looks like a mixture of live and CG synthetic. I'd guess the CG part is from a derivative of the program that generated the special effects in ... what was that movie's name? Waterworld? Anyway, the special effect I'm thinking of is when the water creature extends a tentacle into the cabin and forms a face on it. Then someone slams a hatch on it, and the water-tentacle-face turns into just water and splashes to the deck.


Eolake Stobblehouse said...

I considered it, but most photographers would take special pride in doing something like this all in-camera.

Pat McGee said...

I looked at most of the other pictures on this site also. When I got to the ones with the strawberry in the air above a glass and still in a swirl of liquid, and especially the one of the DJ spinning liquid onto a girl, well, I'm convinced it must be CG.

I figure in another 5-10 years, we'll see capabilities like this in Photoshop or GIMP. But right now, this is just plain astonishing. If I could write Russian, I'd send congratulations.

Michael said...

These have been showing up for a couple of years. Most people are claiming he is using RealFLow and other high end water effects packages. The artist gives a bit of a hint when he says they take many shots to find the right one.

If you look at "649" you can see the "edges" on the leg of the one women. They are composites if many milk splashes. If they images were any bigger my guess is you could find the joints and slight miss matches any comp this complicated will have.

Robb said...

Very possible that it was done with Liquid Latex - with some black retouching to create separation between the torn segments and the solid piece still on the model.

That's how I'd do it.

Done in camera entirely? No.

anurag said...

Wow! What wonderful shots. You seem to have great taste, Eolake.

Anonymous said...

The film Pat refers to is The Abyss.

I agree: these are composites and extremely good CG.


David Wolhuter said...

It could be composites, it could be CG... but I think it could also be done in camera. The 'trick' would be taking MANY shots until the desired result is achieved. Also - I think the model could possibly have some sort of thin white fabric on her that goes partially translucent when wet. It could blend with the liquid quite well and help with the creation of the 'drapery' effect. Good lighting and fast shutter speeds would also be a must. Realistically there would be many ways of getting a similar end result. Getting it 'in camera' would be very satisfying though...

howard hawks said...

I can't help thinking that people who try to explain it away by saying it's CG or composite are doing the usual thing people do - trying to tear someone down.

Pascal [P-04referent] said...

I confirm, the movie is definitely Abyss. Those were excellent SFX, even by today's standards.

My guess here would be, some latex stuff [especially that high neck collar], and the splashing droplets in mid-air added with CG (or, like Robb said, some black retouching). Either that, or it's all CG. Composite is also plausible.
There's just no way to time-freeze this just right to make it look like fancy dresses made out of flowing milk, all "in camera". Just imagine the shower time needed between every try!

BTW, Howard, I for one am absolutely not trying to tear anybody down. Modern art uses different techniques, new from traditional, but it's still art that can be extremely talented or not at all, like all art.
In present case, DEFINITELY talented. :-)

If you want to tear someone down for using amateurish CG, try this. ;-)