Help anyone? What is the filter on this photo?

[caseyd1981]

Hi everyone! Can anyone help me to figure out what was used to make these photos look the way they do? Filters, lenses? Forgive me for not knowing correct terminology!

And thank you!

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss296/caseybd1981/Engagement Session/115681803_9d4NOkmQ.jpg

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss296/caseybd1981/Engagement Session/115681804_RyOI1RKg.jpg

 

[Montana]

its done in post processing. Look high contrast and low saturation to me.

 

[musicaleCA]

Little bit of cross-processing look to it. Greens are way up, reds have been desaturated, though you can see that the skin tones are exited-out in quite a few areas. This *might* have been an attempt to salvage over-saturated skin tones, or have been a result of the PP. There's also obvious vignetting, clarity has been punched up, I think, and they've been sharpened quite a bit too. As for actual settings on the camera, my guess is somewhere in the telephoto range, and an aperture of f/4 or thereabouts.

Also, TPF's ToS clearly states that you cannot post images you don't hold the rights too. Post a link instead.

Edit: Also there's luma noise in the shadows. That may have been left behind to try for a film-grain–look, but there are better ways of adding film grain to an image in post, notably SilverEfex Pro. I'm of the opinion that noise is evil and should generally be removed as much as is feasible.

 

[caseyd1981]

Well, these are my photos but I went ahead and posted links anyway. But thanks for all the help!!!

 

[c.cloudwalker]

These are your photos and you don't know how they were created?

 

[musicaleCA]

These are your photos and you don't know how they were created?

My thoughts exactly.

 

[caseyd1981]

Well, was that really necessary? They are my photos because I paid to have them taken of me for my wedding/engagement. Since I don't know much about who-that-means-owns-what, I played it safe and posted a link. No reason to talk to me like I must be an idiot. I just had a genuine interest in the style of the photos.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Sorry if you feel offended but you are on a photo forum where most member will wonder what your statement meant.

FYI, the fact that you paid for them does not necessarily mean you own them. Unless the photographer sold you all rights to the images, you do NOT own them. And very few photogs sell all rights.

 

[ocular]

Sorry if you feel offended but you are on a photo forum where most member will wonder what your statement meant.

FYI, the fact that you paid for them does not necessarily mean you own them. Unless the photographer sold you all rights to the images, you do NOT own them. And very few photogs sell all rights.

Well said.

 

[JamesMason]

Sorry if you feel offended but you are on a photo forum where most member will wonder what your statement meant.

FYI, the fact that you paid for them does not necessarily mean you own them. Unless the photographer sold you all rights to the images, you do NOT own them. And very few photogs sell all rights.

Well said.

Exactly. You have to remember that if you go around telling pro photogs that the photos are yours, simply because you had them taken for you. You are bound to get blunt responses. When i worked in a photolab i cant tell you how many times a day i had douhcebags trying to get copys of pro prints. Its like buying a cd and then telling the artist you own the rights and your gonna upload it on the internet so everyone can havr it for free.

 

[ann]

your feelings may have been saved if you had just asked what techniques were used on these photos taken of my self, etc.

it is strange for someone to say that these are their photos are clueless about the technique, and i must admitt i had the same thought as others about the question.

And, it is very unlikly they are yours, it is very rare for a photographer to sign away the rights