On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 23:43:07 -0800 (PST), Oculus Lights
wrote:

Have you tried to contact B&M to ask where they took
the pictures? Ask if they have a daytime picture of
the same scene? First hand info would be most accurate
to explain what (the company says) Photoshop was used for.

No, I haven't. I probably should, but it will need to wait a few
weeks. I've been very busy lately and expect to remain busy until
next year. I don't think I'll get an answer from B&M but might get
something from the photographer.

Same problem with looking at your Taz vs Oculus photos. No time and
I'm not sure I could do anything with them anyway. It's the same
problem I have with using pseudo color to represent light intensity on
every photo. Without two different light level (lux) reference levels
on the photo, I can't do much. The B&M photos are unique in that the
hot spot (highest intensity) in the photo is probably the advertised
light level at some unspecified distance. Anyway, I'll play with your
stuff if I can find some time.

You were right about the long exposure and small lens aperture needed
to get a decent depth of field in the dark. Everything from zero to
about 7 meters is out of focus in the original B&M 80 Lux photo.

More from the EXIF metadata:
Filename - 80 Lux - Ausleuchtung IQ-Premium.jpg
Software - Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
DateTime - 2017-08-25T15:13:11+02:00
Artist - Thomas von der Heiden
Copyright - musikfotografie.de
ExposureTime - 15 seconds
FNumber - 16
ISOSpeedRatings - 100
ShutterSpeedValue - 15 seconds
ApertureValue - F 16.00
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MaxApertureValue - F 2.83
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
LightSource - Auto
Flash - Flash not fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 26 mm
DigitalZoomRatio - 1 x
FocalLengthIn35mmFilm - 26 mm

Photoshopping could be simple cropping or basic preparation
that anyone preparing graphics for publication wout do.

Sure. The distance markers were probably added with Photoshop. My
questions are how much additional editing and enhancements were done
with Photoshop and was the entire garage added to the lighting
footprint on the ground? There are just too many inconsistencies in
the columns, overhead, sprinklers, lane lines, asphalt roadway, etc.

The lighting pattern looks right, but everything else looks faked. The
CYO web page says "We show real light fields of all of our
headlights", which says it correctly. The lighting is real, but what
about the rest?

Here's another photo of an underground car garage:
http://www.infinitessol.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/parking-and-trasnportation.jpg
Notice the ducting, wires, lighting, concrete roadway, stained
columns, signage, and fire sprinkler spacing, all of which are either
missing or very different in the original photo.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558