|
I mean this kind of portraits:
www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/5042494278/
www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/5039845496/in/photostream/
www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/5033308071/in/photostream/
www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/5030117189/in/photostream/
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It might be a slight high pass sharpening, as you suggestion (HIGH PASS SHARPENING SEARCH ), but what strikes me is how cool the photos are. Although you can set the White Balance in camera, a cooling PHOTO FILTER ADJUSTMENT LAYER, can also do it.
Also there may be a slight desaturation, but I'm not sure.
AND I noticed the very subtle fill light where there should be shadows. there may be some judicious use of Highlight/shadow on a smart object, giving a layer mask. It's very well done and not heavy handed at all.
At any rate a very fast lens (f1.4) and a 21 megapixel Canon 5D Mark II can hardly be duplicated in Photoshop.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Most are wonderful images to begin with, but I notice that in the ones linked above, the eye color closely matches colors in other parts of the image, so I'm guessing that there is some serious but subtle color work going on.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
www.flickr.com/photos/benoitpaille/
they are very close in style and post!
only benoit seems to be doing better on both...
still trying to figure out his pp...
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thank you Felix, for asking about how these portraits are done. I had never seen his work before and I LOVE them! I would like so much to one day be so talented.
I am still trying to find 'my style' and seeing what others do, and learning how they may achieve their look is very helpful.
Not looking to copy, just obtain knowledge.
Thanks to you all for your help and advice!
Regina
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Amazing portraits. Most of those are shot in f2.0
The colour treatment reminds me somewhat of Quicksi7ver's:
www.flickr.com/photos/26700938@N05/
awesome in other words.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I hope someone could tell us the secret...
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hi Felix. A lot of times the photog will explain the pp process they use, if you ask.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hi Madison,
I have ansked the photographer for long time ago but he dind't tell me the postprocessing that he uses. It's a secret...
:(
Greetings
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Have you ever tryed to shoot film
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
These are not taken on film
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
"O62" [deleted] says:
I've taken a long hard look at these portraits.. I'm no Photoshop expert, but a lot of it has to do with basic WB and a kick ass "L" prime lens..
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think that those go a long way, but the skin tones and sharpening are really well done. It looks ultra life-like. I'm not quite sure how he took it the extra mile past the nice lens at a low f stop. I like the look.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
To me, it looks like great glass, and great lighting. I wouldnt say that there was much PP done here. Obviously some sharpening, but then just some tones/curves maybe.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Not much PP done? Purlease!!!
These are processed to within an inch of their life.Done very well though I might add.Do you really think they come straight out of the camera like that???Perhaps oversharpened in some of the photos,but a nice job!
Oh and ( ! - ::::::::::::: O :::::::::::::: - ! )thanks for making me aware of benoitpaille's work.It's f*****g awesome!!!
Originally posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
petesky edited this topic 20 months ago.
|
|
The last two of the four you posted look like HDRs. The others maybe some micro contrast adjustments.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
No HDR, as has been discussed this is a result of good glass. With respect to Benoit P's work which I agree with an earlier poster, is much better, I susepct that fine tonal corrections are being carried out using the individual curve channels.
I've had a play at producing similar results and will post later.
Originally posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
Matthew Halstead edited this topic 20 months ago.
|
|
Rob Simeon (away working) [deleted] says:
Had a crack at this, to see if I could get close to this type of effect.
Once I am happy with the end result I will post a "How I did this"
Originally posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
RastaRicanStudio edited this topic 19 months ago.
|
|
One thing's for sure, it looks like a cloudy/bright day induced diffusion. The first one confuses me though. The first one in your second post I mean. I know it's vignetted, but it looks as though it's starting to get dark on that day, as the bokeh suggests lights on for evening - unless they leave those lights on all day, so to get that great light on her face naturally on a darkening day is a mystery. Wide open aperture, fast lens, high iso could do it I suppose...
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
: If you take a peek at the exif info for that one, it will confirm your suspicion that the lighting was different than the other shots (i.e., there was less light). He seems to shoot in aperture priority mode, which allows us to see how the camera metered light by checking out the shutter speed. For all of these shots, he is shooting wide open (probably for the depth of field). This forced very high shutter speeds in most of the shots. For the one that you mentioned, you will notice that it was taken at f/1.6, ISO 200, 1/40 sec. That is a mightly slow shutter speed (at least for my shaky hands). I'm amazed at the clarity of the shot given the slow shutter speed. But, that slow shutter speed does make nice bokeh out the background lights.
I still don't quite know what is being done in post. I suspect that it is some major sharpening on the subject and then some nice color curve work to nail the skin tones.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hello,
I've been having a play. This shot was taken using a Nikon D300 with a 50mm prime lens:
In terms of post processing, the workflow was quite complicated, in fact more so than I originally anticipated. Anyway, the key steps were:
- RAW exposure blending;
- Colour toning;
- selective sharpening.
Cheers.
Originally posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
RastaRicanStudio edited this topic 19 months ago.
|
|
Not sure about Effects, but my goodness that is one heck of a photostream. It's good to be humbled by true tallent now and again.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
: I really like the second shot. Care to share more details about your processing? Nice work!
Originally posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
lighthack edited this topic 20 months ago.
|
|
|
Yeah I agree.You've really managed to get that 'realer than life look'
Please share!!!!!!!!!!?????
And if you could post the original we could see the difference?
Pete
Originally posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
petesky edited this topic 20 months ago.
|
|
photos have been deleted :(
Loved to know how!!!
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm going for "lighting" as the main reason these look good, a few of them at least appear to have been lit artificially (strobe/reflector).
As mentioned the fast glass at wide aperture would have been a very big contributing factor as well as PP work. PP wise to me looks like selective sharpening (overly done at times IMO, which is good as it means he's pushing the boundaries) along with selective local contrast adjustments (D&B or curves).
I don't think they have been PP'd that much, properly takes longer to break the process down and to type it then actually do the process.
That's 2c worth.
Originally posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
Ashley Daws edited this topic 19 months ago.
|
|
Ashley I agree with overly done at times. I am interested to know how this was done ( I would imagine an ND filter was part of the package on the camera ) but there are times where the treatment of the skin is too harsh also. The very first example in the op s post i like.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
That first shot is at f1.8 and at 1/1000th sec I don't think (be very surprised) if he needed to use an ND filter for that. I think that shot is good lighting and DOF, and pretty much that s it. Could be wrong though LOL
It is a lovely shot, whatever he did.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
lighthack, that's an excellent explanation and completely makes sense. Thank you! (I forgot to revisit this thread until it came up again.)
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
A 5Dmk2 + a fast lens help a lot when you want pics like these.
In my opinion - for this photo- the gear contributed for 55%.
The remaining 45% is a well done PP in lightroom and a selective/local contrast enhancement in PS.
Originally posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
MA_MO edited this topic 19 months ago.
|
|
|
Ashley F1.8 during the day at ISO 100 will give you 1/2500th of a second in shade.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
These are certainly nice but not like those in question. Cant say in the short time I have been thinking about it I figured it out though.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The thing to remember is that it is practically impossible to copy a photographic style verbatim as there are too many variables.
The shots that the OP originally posted appear to have been taken on a sunny day, and this light is going to have a marked impact on the final tone of the image.
The ones I took above were taken on a wet and overcast day in the UK, thus the cooler tones.
Thanks,
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think at least 3 high pass layers blended on hard light, cool WB (at least 15% below auto) off camera fill flash, and guassian blur adjustment layer. I don't think all that bokeh is the result of fast glass frankly, it's too uniform both in the depth of field and across the series. I'd go so far to say as he's created an action for this series. There is also selective desaturation and the eyes made to pop with selective boost on that particular colour.
But god I want that action!
Originally posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
8thAndGoes.com edited this topic 19 months ago.
|
|
www.christyschuler.com/retouching.html
Some tutorials here are great. The effect of brightening the irises, which I'm sure this photog has done, is covered in one of them.
not positive, but if he is using a blurring filter it's not gaussian, but lens blur or even a plug-in like Alien Skin's Bokeh.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Matthew Halstead
Thanks for posting those images, they convinced me to use my Canon 50 x1.8 more often - the kit zoom is just so easy to use but I can't get the effects you manage with your lens!
I note you use a 1.2 lens but have it set at 2.0
Is that because it is at is best at 2.0?
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hi Harry,
Happy to be of inspiration! There was no real reason for shooting 2.0, probably a combination of conditions on the day (it was overcast) and also a desire for shallow depth of field (i wanted a nice bokeh).
As a tip, I never use a lens at it's full parameters, i.e. in this case fully open as image quality can detriorate slightly, and also when operating wide open it can be a bugger to get the eyes in focus!
HTHs
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
fpajonk [deleted] says:
I emailed him and unfortunately he didn't reply. His web page says he's not using flash. Just available light. And as for the sun: That's Hamburg. Since this a daily project clouds and rain might be the default condition.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
TB2012 4mat [deleted] says:
Hey Felix - great job. I think aside from your framing being a little tighter than Marcus's and the fact that you shot from above her eye level slightly, the effect is pretty similar. I imagine if you had a greater distance behind the subject and some street lighting it would have a similar blurring/bokeh warmth that Marcus achieves.
I've enjoyed watching this conversation develop and so far so good!
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hi Felix, I think you have a good look there.
On this basis, i would advise stop trying to emulate Markus Schwarze, and just continue what your are doing, you are on teh right track!
P.S. thanks for stopping round my stranger project, I'm now looking forward to viewing yours!
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Felix Casals | AWAY 1 MONTH | wrote I hope you like my try:
Yes I do! I have found this thread quite inspiring photographically, unfortunately dropped my 40D today and it is now in intensive care!!
Only one foot onto a carpeted floor too!
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Nice shot Felix. In the spirit of this group and purpose of this thread, please list some detail about your Photoshop workflow/strategy. Nice job!
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
These look great!
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hello Felix, if I had to guess I would venture to say he processes his shots about the same way I process mine. Here is what I do.
Shadows/Highlights to bring out the details
Empty Levels layer with the blending mode set to Screen at 10% to lighten the image
Selective Color set on Black at 3%, in order to bring back some shape after extending the dynamic range with the Shadows/Highlights adjustment
Empty Levels layer with the blending mode set to Soft Light at 10% which just darkens all pixels less-than a value of 128 (which is just middle grey in the scale from 0-255) and lightens pixel values greater than 128
Curves with the Blending mode set to Saturation @ 10% to bring back the quarter tones
Final Touches
Highpass Filter (Discription)
Here are a few examples: Still Life with Unique Meditation, Lucky To Have A Friend Like You, and Ultimate Love.
Originally posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
Dave Berryman edited this topic 19 months ago.
|
|
fpajonk [deleted] says:
@Dave Berryman: I had a hard time finding corresponding portraits in your stream. However, starting with a decent picture your approach is a nice subtle effect!
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ashley: That's fine work. I guess you're showing it off, but it doesn't seem to match the OP's original examples.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've been trying to learn how to do that dark moody cinematic look for ages now. I love the one in the 3rd link and the stream linked to by Electric Spam.
I think Matthew Halstead is on the money and that's a great attempt by Felix too.
I'm convinced this look must have a solid colour overlay with soft light maybe and opacity adjusted and it's all about getting the colour right. Also High Pass, some dodging and burning for the eyes
and a vignette.
As Matthew says the high quality fast glass and good lighting conditions are definately the main factor. Matthews images are very close and very cool images if I may say so
There's a free package you can download called PhotoScape that has inbuilt filters that can get some similar effects but not as good as this. Just Google it and have a play
If anyone nails it completely please let us know :)
PS Just saw Malcolms post above mine. I like it man. Not quite the style the OP links to but a good look none the less.
Originally posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
Jay PH edited this topic 19 months ago.
|
|
|
Yeah, I was. I'm still sticking to the fast glass theory with a touch of selective contrast adjustments and sharpening LOL
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Robert Jewett [deleted] says:
For movies, but principles work for photoshop.
library.creativecow.net/articles/maschwitz_stu/red-giant-...
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Felix, I can't find any reference to "Marku's Schwarzes" in the thread?
Can you explain what method you used to get your effects?
I'm not sure if it's just because I like the model better! or what!
But, good as this image is, I still prefer your earlier image of the smiling young woman! it looks somehow crisper!
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
larger: farm2.static.flickr.com/1245/5169168563_7ff6aabaf8_o.jpg
This might fit into this thread
I saw this on the Wild And Crazy Photoshoptv as Scott Kelby demonstrated between his sarcasm and Razzing of Matt (it gets kind of old after awhile, but it's still funny).
1. Dupe your perfectly good color shot twice.
2. Middle layer do this a) hit the "v" key choosing the move tool.... b) do command/control + shift + u desaturating layer ..... c) hit the "8" key on the keyboard setting it at 80% opacity (I might try hitting "7" then quickly "5").
3. Go tot he top layer and put it in SOFTLIGHT blending mode.
I even wrote a simple action called "Desaturated stylized portrait effect" and you can get it here ( allangengler.com/my_actions/ ) and it's at the bottom for now.
Originally posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
Tennessee_Gator (a group admin) edited this topic 19 months ago.
|
|
|
Cool tip T_G! That's definitely one to add to the bag of tricks.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The images look great, and I would even love them if it was not for the color work. It is just more of Hollywood's orange and teal. It is so over used in the industry that I'm getting sick of seeing it. For those of you wanting to emulate it, use gels and then color grad the foreground and background to "taste"... yuck!
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Felix Casals Felix your technique looks cool. Would you like to share the process?
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Here's a photo that I did using Tennessee_Gator's action from above:
It isn't really in the style of this thread, but I figured that I would chime in with it because T_G was generous enough to share the tip and action.
In addition to the action, I just did a little cross processing, a crop and a vignette.
Originally posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
lighthack edited this topic 19 months ago.
|
|
it just doesnt make sense to open up a post with a question ... to figure out the question somehow but not explaining how you achieved it
@felix
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I agree. It seems a bit rude.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
hi Felix could you tell us how you achive this this any one plz???????
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Dave Berryman posted the following suggestion some days ago:
Shadows/Highlights to bring out the details
Empty Levels layer with the blending mode set to Screen at 10% to lighten the image
Selective Color set on Black at 3%, in order to bring back some shape after extending the dynamic range with the Shadows/Highlights adjustment
Empty Levels layer with the blending mode set to Soft Light at 10% which just darkens all pixels less-than a value of 128 (which is just middle grey in the scale from 0-255) and lightens pixel values greater than 128
Curves with the Blending mode set to Saturation @ 10% to bring back the quarter tones
Can anyone clarify some of the steps to me.
Selective colour: Do I select Black from the drop down menu, then set the black slider %, or do I set Black % for each colour?
Curves with Saturation blending mode: This doesn't appear to do anything regards of what I try with the curves dialog.
Thanks
Bruce
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Markus is very good at this composition.. no doubt. I've looked across his photostream and have to believe there's not a lot of post processing. It seems to me the common denominator is the overcast and/or late afternoon.. to evening timeframe with a fast lens. Maybe in post, he's bumping up the vibrance and adding some sharpening. Plus his action to add the black boarder.
It's a great effect with very consistant results.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I guess Felix has left the building!! :-(
Felix, if you start a thread and then answer your own question, it would be nice if you would share the answer.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
You'll also notice that he shoots @ 1.4 and only of shoulders and head, in order to maximize the effect of the shallow DOF and leave a very blurred background. His subjects are all people walking on the streets, which gives an infinity long backdrop that furthers the blur.
Aside from that, its just a matter of sharpening, increasing contrast, lots of dodging and burning to equalize the scene as well as bring attention to eyes and such. The dodging process seems very important to that effect.
Some of them have catchlights that look like flash was used, so that could be how he is getting such nice even exposures on the subject. I'd say its butterfly lighting. While other shots are just natural light and the look is entirely different yet similar.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
Kuwazome edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
No one has totally nailed it yet.
I know someone that can do this effect almost 100% perfectly like this. And hell, for the sake of this conversation I'm going to go to his place this weekend and see just how perfect it really is compared to these.
It has a lot to do with color balance in the luminance adjustments. That and DOF, selective sharpening, and so on.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm sorry friends,
I've received lots of messages but actually I've no time. I'm busy all day but in three weeks more or less I'll come back and I'll answer your questions and explain how I get my portrait effect, ok?
Sorry again, have a good time.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
Felix Casals edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Thanks for the update Felix. I look forward to your explanation of your processing.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
TB2012 4mat [deleted] says:
come on guys and gals - anyone who posts a solution really should put the steps in too otherwise this is just about showing off!
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Looked back through some of Markus Schwarze's older stuff on Flickr and found one where he listed his post processing details. Granted his technique has improved dramatically from then to now but its a hint into what he is doing.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yeah, just like I thought, the face looks very illuminant because he dodged it at least 1 stop brighter, and the eyes even more.
From his description: ""dodge and burn" the Face, Curve (tonality), and sharpen. Colors: A light Cyan-touch."
I also figured out his "trick" by accident. I don't think its even what he intended, at least it doesnt look that way. Have a look at the original size photo: www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/5205019328/sizes/l/
It's not even that sharp, so why does the smaller ones look sharp? This is just flickr downsizing a 800px sharpened image to 640px and it will add an additional level of "sharpening." I actually had this problem on my own images and was angry that they were too sharp. Although its of different style, have a look at my image here: www.flickr.com/photos/kuwazome/5194446650/ ... now look at the large version here ... www.flickr.com/photos/kuwazome/5194446650/sizes/l/
You'll now notice the preview image was way sharper than the actual photo.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
Kuwazome edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
|
I am intrigued by Markus' portraits so I gave it a go. After having owned photoshop for a total of 3 days I am pleased with the outcome. I took this picture of my girlfriend a few days ago while we were having dinner. My D90 and 50mm f1.8 just doesn't quite compare to the equipment Markus uses though. BTW, I am by no means pimping my photo here. I welcome all suggestions on how to improve it not only to the standards that Markus has set but by anyone with portrait experience or knowledge of post processing in general. If anyone actually wants to know the steps I took to achieve this image, I will be glad to supply them.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Stefan 1981, can you possibly share your technique? That looks great
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hi all,
Ok, in the spirit of the thread I'll try and recall what I did to get the photo I posted above. I'm a big fan of Markus Schwarze's photstream and I think there is a lot to be said for his camera/lens, not to mention his skill at photography. Nevertheless, here's what I tried.
1. Quick retouch of the person using this excellent video tutorial for face/eyes (www.christyschuler.com/retouching.html)
2. Radial gradient adjustment layer to give a hint of lightness around the subjects face then darkening slightly to give a vignette at the edges. Good example of this in this you tube video tutorial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9omJfEs-WY)
3. Big cheat 1 - Fake bokeh. Markus's photos have excellent bokeh thanks to a great camera and the lights behind the subjects. I simply copied a suitable bokeh texture into the light areas (shop windows) and erased the edges with a soft, low opacity eraser!
4. Select the outline of the person and sharpen a touch with unsharp mask. This, combined with the next two steps was an attempt at making the person stand right out from the background (which he achieves really well)
5. Select the remaining background (inverse select) and:
(a) Add a touch of Gaussian blur (nothing too dramatic)
(b) Desaturate a touch
6. Finally crop the image and add your black borders.
I hope this helps. Like I said, Markus's photos are excellent and mine don't come close but as the question was asked - that's how I did it.
Regards,
Stefan
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Awesome Stefan. Thanks heaps for posting that!!
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm actually going to shoot a shot for this thread since I have all the equipment he uses and would be easy to find a similar location. The only reason I haven't done so, is because I've been too busy to shoot (any photos at all), and won't be able to do it till two weeks later when my thesis is done for the semester. But I thought I'd post to keep the thread alive till then.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
Kuwazome edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Robert Jewett [deleted] says:
Shot this yesterday. Changed the coloring quite a bit...but you can see the shallow depth of field, etc.
Ugh. Trying to get the image to work.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
Robert Jewett edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
|
Robert - Great portrait. Your 50mm, f1.8 does give the correct effect.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Kuwazome: Great, look forward to seeing what you come up with.
Beautiful shot Robert.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I just read through this thread and it dawned on me... This look was referred to in the original question as "natural portrait". As fantastic as they may be, they do not look natural.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well Markus Schwarze's portraits don't look "natural", just based off the fact that the contrast is much greater than a "natural" scene. The sharpness is a lot more than the RAWs that come straight from the camera - I know this for a fact since I have the same equip.
The only lenses that can shoot pictures that sharp without sharpening on the Canon side are 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8, 400 f/2.8 and nothing else. He is not using any of those. Check the ISO12233 charts at the-digital-picture for some references.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
Kuwazome edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Ivan_Hristov (away) [deleted] says:
Perhaps the OP used "natural" as opposed to "studio" portraits as these are all taken on the street. Yet, I also don't find them natural, even though I like them. The sharpness of the skin, its harsh texture throughout the entire stream, the similarity of skin tones and general tones are both nice and a little artificial and unsettling. I am very new to photography, I have no post-processing skills and I've only taken about a dozen street portraits with Sigma f/1.4 but I think I prefer to capture the uniqueness of each face, lighting conditions, colors and so on. I would still like to learn how to achieve some of the cinematic effects and to get better at PP but I think I would try to keep things as real, unique and contextual as possible.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
Ivan_Hristov (away) edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
felix, hurry and come back :D
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Robert Jewett [deleted] says:
Why would he do that? It's not especially difficult...
1) Use a very shallow depth of field. FF is best, but in any case, use a "wide open" aperture.
2) Photograph interesting people on an overcast day (my shadows are wrong, but I am in AZ) : ) A scrim or diffuser could help, but who is carrying one of these around? If it is a sunny day, a reflector could soften the shadows a bit...shoot in a shadow of a building or tree.
3) Cross process (curves layer, blue channel, pull down upper right, lift lower left).
4) Add vignette (lens correction filter).
5) Add a border with "Extend Canvas"
6) Add a text layer and lower opacity for effect.
7) Dupe base layer and run high pass filter at a low level. Dup this layer/play with opacity until you get the effect you want.
8) Levels layer. Play with the middle slider of the blue and green channel.
9) Add a contrast adjustment layer. Increase contrast.
This is by no means exact, but all of the elements are there where someone could pull it together with their own style, etc.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
Robert Jewett edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Robert Jewett [deleted] says:
Mine is a crop frame camera (7D) and the 50mm 1.8 ($80). I can barely see the difference, and I wonder if most viewers would even notice the subtle differences between FF and APS-C?
edited for clarity.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
Robert Jewett edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Rob Simeon (away working) [deleted] says:
@ Downtown
"A FF beats the socks out of anything beneath it"
Out of interest... how ? and in what way does a FF beat anything beneath it?
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I did some Googling and found this by Bob Atkins. Lots of tec stuff.
www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/full_frame_vs_aps-c...
Bigger has always been better in terms of resolution. You have to admire those 8x10 photographers climbing mountains with all that equipment. If I had 29,499 USD this 40MP would be very cool.
www.hasselbladusa.com/promotions/h4d-40-ferrari-edition.aspx
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Robert Jewett [deleted] says:
This one is a little more affordable.
www.pentaxwebstore.com/product_detail.asp?T1=PTX+17971&am...|SEO|GB|
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think one of the main ingredients here was the lens... if you notice, all fast primes has been used + FF .. makes everything a lot sweeter.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Wow... that Hasselblad is remarkable. I think I'd go broke just buying storage drives to archieve my images... not to mention the initial camera purchase.
Thanks for sending the link. That was very interesting.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
It is entirely irrelevant how good IQ is in MF and LF. What good is a 1fps camera to me when I need to be shooting sports? What good is it when every lens made for it is essentially wide in comparison and I need telephoto? What about zoom and autofocus?
You can't compare formats that are not even meant for the same purpose.
People call the 35mm a FF just because its is the standard and most commonly used size. Well, WAS before the coming of digital cameras.
---
For example, the DOF of 85mm @ 1.2 on FF, in order to achieve the same shot with same perspective you would need a 59mm @ 0.8 on APS-C. For 200mm @ 2 on FF, you would need 139mm @ 1.4 on APS-C. As you can see, there aren't any existing AF lenses that would be sufficient.
The closest you will get to that "FF look" on an APS-C is by using a super telephoto and shooting portraits with it... but again the perspective of where you need to stand in order to frame it the same way might not play in your favor.
Just a note though... FF is not the absolute. Its very hard to tell the difference between APS-H and FF...
---
I'm also very tempted to call FLASH on most of his images... I mean D&B goes a long way, but the way the light hits the face, especially the gloss on the lips and the way the eyes light up just scream flash lighting to me...
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
Kuwazome edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Rob Simeon (away working) [deleted] says:
I understand the perspective is different, but that will not make it better, just different. Always interests me the reasons, when people state that a FF is better than a cropped sensor. I think for most, it is because it cost more so it must be better.
Looking at Markus Schwarze's stream the last few images of children (last page of stream)give a big hint towards how he is producing the street portrait images, they are not nearly as good as the street one's, but you can see he was already using sharpening around the eyes etc to emphasise facial features. He has stated in an interview that he first uses lightroom to processes his image then moves to photoshop to work on eyes/beards/hair etc etc. Taking around 30 mins per image.
So I believe these excellent portraits are a combination, Very good lens, typically using around F2 and a fair amount of post processing. plus of course a heap of good photography skills.
As for using flash, I'm with looking through the photostream there are just way to many portraits with catchlights in the eyes and most of the catchlights are the same shape and same position in the eye.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Which is why I'm thinking flash, the lighting and catchlights just don't look natural to me, especially the glass eyes. Just try dodging an eye to look like that... it doesn't look the same. The size of the catchlights also don't make much sense, the Sun is very very tiny from our perspective, so it should be a tiny circle in the cathclight, not that huge thing you see in his shots.
And even he said: "EQ: 5D, 135L, Beauty Dish". It wouldn't be surprising if he carries around a fill flash and a speedlight softbox or something. His NIGHT shots are also a huge hint at flash... you don't get that kind of even lighting at night, doesn't matter what kind of light is nearby.
By look at this also tells me he uses USM for sharpening, just selective:
www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/4241156017/in/photostream/
---
But yeah, the FF was not the big part of his portraits, I was just stating the differences between the formats. If you don't care as perspective and only want the same framing, the closest you can get to 50mm @ 1.4 on FF is with a 85 @ 1.2 on APS-C, even then the DOF is 140% of the FF. But keeping in mind that the background blur is changed also with perspective and not only DOF, using a 200 f/2 will probably take a similar shot with the same framing.
Yeah I agree with you, people tend to think lower DOF is better, thats not true. It's only useful for its purpose, isolating subjects. Just like how MF shooters have tons of trouble trying to achieve the greater DOF for landscapes, but APS-C has no problems.
Its ironic how the two should be reversed.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
Kuwazome edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
|
Getting closer to glass eyes... with reflector
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
Kuwazome edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Robert Jewett [deleted] says:
You know, I've spent a lot of time today looking over his photostream. It looks to me like he is taking the images in the shade between a double row of tall buildings. I am not certain any flash is involved...I am nearly certain of this.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I've never been able to take eyes with catchlights like that in pure natural lighting conditions, nor achieve that with D&B. However, with fill flash and reflector, its easy.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
Kuwazome edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Robert Jewett [deleted] says:
Zoom way in on this one:
www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/4982811819/
You can see it is long rows of buildings with the opening of the sky between them. Once you recognize the shape, you can see its the same as here:
www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/4435641367/
Here:
www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/4990913442/sizes/o/in/photos...
Here:
www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/4905069767/
Etc.
This is confirmed by the lack of flash in ALL of the glasses. Like here:
www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/4970917109/
Here:
www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/4363577376/
You can also see that they are asymmetrical and blue:
www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/5234321178/
www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/5252130272/
Now, I could be wrong. If so, I'll buy you a Starbucks. :)
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Robert Jewett [deleted] says:
BTW, the catchlights all look pretty similar to this one:
www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/4266320937/
Where he mentions it is made with available light only.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
After reading this thread I feel like chime in my humble opinion.
No doubt Markus's photos are amazing. They are impactful and pleasing to look at.
I think it's the lighting. He made good choice of subject and available light. Of course there are some PP going on but I think not much. I guess PP mainly includes dodge and burn, sharpen, vignette.
This is an example of mine (mine is nothing compared to his but somewhat similar)
www.flickr.com/photos/13273404@N06/5251120453/
Another thing is he puts emphasis on the model's skin texture. Freckles, pimples, poles are magnified but still look natural (Excellent PP here). This gives big impact to viewer. However, I wonder what the models would think if they see the photos. The skin texture looks impressive but does not look right aesthetically to me.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
DayDreamerz edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Robert Jewett [deleted] says:
What were the lighting conditions when you took this?
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Robert Jewett : It was on an overcast day. I think Markus uses shades too. His model's face looks evenly lit (as if taken with flash but I'm sure a lot of dodge and burn work here).
The lens I used is 50mm F1.8. No chance to use flash since shot taken @F1.8 and maximum flash sync speed is 1/200s
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
DayDreamerz edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Robert Jewett [deleted] says:
Thanks, that's what I figured. I did a little experimentation, and that's what I came up with this weekend.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Robert Jewett [deleted] says:
Thanks, BTW.
Posted 18 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Photoshop Support Group /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Photoshop Support Group discussion threads