Photographer Greg Florent has made images that capture Budapest in a new light. The images are made by taking them at the transition of daylight into sunset and then nighttime until the lights come on and the city's evening starts. He spends around four hours at a location taking one shot, making sure he gets the whole transition and changes of light to produce the images in post.
Florent starts two hours before sunset, and shoots until two hours after. He mentions that this means you can only take one shot per day per camera, but due to his two month stay in Budapest, it made it all possible. He had enough time to scout for great locations and to actually shoot the images. He used a Canon 6D with a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens to create these images. He recently upgraded to the Canon 5DS R and also got a 16-35mm lens.
He does it by shooting time-lapses. He first captures the time-lapses and makes the video. Due to the light changing so much, it's not easy to do and takes a lot of time and effort getting the light to flow seamlessly into nighttime.
While watching the time-lapses, Florent chooses a few defining moments, and chooses five or six images from that shot and time. He then mixes the consecutive photos in order to focus more on architecture and light, rather that the people in the city and human activity. He blends these together trying to get the smoothest transition possible from day to night while keeping the beautiful illuminations of the city.
I've written about stacking time-lapse images a while back, and this isn't very far off from the same process. It can be done with using gradient masks to blend it as smoothly as he did, or he could've split the frame into five or six parts and faded each "exposure" into the the parts beside it.
I liked this because it gives you the feeling of what Budapest is like during the day as well as night, all in one image. During the time you look at these images your eyes browse from left to right, like you see the progression of the day. You read it like a word or sentence.
When it comes to the commercial aspect of these images, it is different than photos shot in the day or night, so it draws attention and we as viewers have to think about what is happening here. These are images that require deeper thought than a regular cityscape that only gives you the "oh wow that's beautiful, let's go there" emotion. These images are an extended moment in time, a total four hours of it, and for me, a moment of beauty.
You can see more of Florent's work on YouTube, his website, and you can follow him on Facebook.
VERY cool idea. Love the creativeness that I find in so many people.
Really nice but shooting earlier in the day to get warmer contrast might make the effect pops even better like the pics of Stephen Wilkes http://twistedsifter.com/2012/04/blending-day-and-night-into-single-phot...
Beautifully done.
Great images of my hometown Wouter! Nicely done!
Nice pictures but I "feel" this day and night idea more from the "day to night" serie from Stephen Wilkes. http://www.stephenwilkes.com/fine-art/day-to-night
Very creative.
Sorry but this is a very unoriginal photographer who is stealing a body of work fine arts photographer Stephen Wilkes has been producing since 2009 called "Night and Day." Greg Florent is neither original nor creative. His DayNight images are not even executed as well as Wilkes who has been exhibited in galleries nationwide for the past 8 years.
http://www.stephenwilkes.com/fine-art/day-to-night/5669b817-ba0c-4937-a5...
Hi Jon, I had a look at the link you shared and Stephen Wilkes uses the same concept with his images, and I gather that he's been doing it for longer. I must say that this is not stealing a body of work, as stealing would mean Greg Florent has literally used images taken by Stephen Wilkes and declared it as his own. Which isn't the case. With the images in this article, he uses the same ideas, and it can be said that he maybe copies the style of Stephen's work, but it's not stealing? I've been to Budapest, but I have never seen images of the beautiful city in this way, so from my perspective it is original and our perspectives differ. What makes this great is the discussion between passionate photographers who take the art-form seriously, so thank you for sharing Stephen's work too. I wouldn't have known of him and his photography otherwise.
Wouter: David LaChappelle successfully sued a commercial photographer and company that recreated one of his editorial images for copyright violation. Currently there are multiple lawsuits against Tyler Shields and his gallery, Gagosian, for Shield's images that recreate without attribution or permission original images from Sally Mann, Guy Bourdin, Terry Richardson, Henry Leutwyler, Irving Penn and other photographers. Copyright covers INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY not just the physical light captured by a camera. The attached article about Shields goes into this legal argument that the intellectual property behind an image is also covered by copyright. I do not think there would be a legal case against Florent as he shot different locations. However a widely read outlet such as Stoppers should give credit to Wilkes and not let readers think Florent is anything but a cheap rip off of an original artist.
http://www.vice.com/read/has-celebrity-photographer-tyler-shields-ripped...
I am all for crediting the right people and for not stealing IP. I am however a little curious how a technique could be copyrighted. Does that mean that I can't exhibit any HDR, or ND filtered images, because someone else "invented" those processes? How about stitched pano or sepia, or high-key or low-key photos? You get my drift? Where do you draw the line?
Paul: the technique which cannot be copyrighted is photo compositing. However the original idea of a landscape image where the time of day gradually changes across the photo is not a technique but an original concept.
If an advertiser hired someone such as Florent to recreate Wilkes original intellectual property, the concept of the image for an ad campaign, Wilke and his lawyers would have a good case against the advertiser and the photographer.
Jon, the time spent on creating these images of Greg Florent is anything but cheap. Please, in future try not to call out names like 'cheap rip-off'. Fstoppers is a community where work from all over the world is shared. We try inspire and learn from others. Name-calling is anything but that.
Wouter: David LaChappelle successfully sued a commercial photographer and company that recreated one of his editorial images for copyright violation. Currently there are multiple lawsuits against Tyler Shields and his gallery, Gagosian, for Shield's images that recreate without attribution or permission original images from Sally Mann, Guy Bourdin, Terry Richardson, Henry Leutwyler, Irving Penn and other photographers. Copyright covers INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY not just the physical light captured by a camera. The attached article about Shields goes into this legal argument that the intellectual property behind an image is also covered by copyright. I do not think there would be a legal case against Florent as he shot different locations. However a widely read outlet such as Stoppers should give credit to Wilkes and not let readers think Florent is anything but a cheap rip off of an original artist.
http://www.vice.com/read/has-celebrity-photographer-tyler-shields-ripped...
Hi Jon, Wouter, Paul and everyone,
I've read carefully the comment thread, there are many valid points made here, but I felt it may be interesting to give my own point of view. After all, I'm the "Greg Florent" we're talking about.
So first of all, I want you to know that I genuinely didn't know about Stephen Wilkes' works until the end of post-processing and when I did, I was speechless. But really, I wasn't looking to "copy" anything (by the way, I must say I'm quite flattered to be even mentioned in the same sentence with such a great artist!)
So of course, it's obvious that there are similarities, but to me, the intent is different. That was even some source of relief when I discovered Stephen Wilkes series. Because to me, his concept focuses on activity. On most of his photographs, you can spend hours just getting all the details, for example you can spot the same person in different locations, doing different stuff, or there are even sunset and sunrise. There's one in Africa where you can see all the animals gathering around a water point during 24 hours or so... It's all about fuzzing activity. On the contrary, I tried to minimize human presence and activity. I focused on architecture and lighting.
So is it the same concept? Some may say yes and I hope this little clarification would at least bring some light about it. Like Paul, I care about credits and intellectual property but as he said, where do you draw the line? Does every photographer taking black and white pictures of U.S National Parks should ask for copyrights to Ansel Adams? Does every photographer taking pictures from an helicopter should ask for copyrights to Yann Arthus-Bertrand? Technique, concept, intent, sensibility, inspiration... are interlinked and personal at the same time, so it's a vast topic.
Anyway, thank you for sharing and/or reacting!
Greg- I'm glad that you saw this and added your perspective. I'm also glad to hear that you were unfamiliar with Wilkes' work when you came up with the concept. When I saw this article and your images, the first thing that came to my mind was "Stephen Wilkes ripoff!" Unfortunately, whether you came up with the concept on your own or not, that will be many people's first reaction!
I hope that you will take the insights gained form this experience, and push yourself to take this process further, do something more with it, and make it truly your own! I commend you for the effort that it must have taken to develop this body of work, and the images are worth the effort. If I were in your shoes, I would not want to have to defend myself every time I showed my work, or put up a disclaimer that you are not a copycat!
There was a young English photographer who intentionally copied Michael Kenna's work when he was first starting out about ten years ago. The level of detail that he went to- even retracing Kenna's footsteps halfway around the world, brought the wrath of the internet down upon him. He managed to overcome the shaming, and has truly found his own voice in the last couple of years- but he took quite a beating. I realize that you were not copying Wilkes, but I thought that the example might have some relevance anyway. You don't want your name or work going viral for the wrong reason...
I tried something pretty similar some time ago - but these pictures are of course much better processed!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/53950834@N08/17275623842/in/dateposted/