How is this style of shot done?

Just finished this one a few minutes ago. Converted to B&W with Channel Mixer, turned down the red channel and bumped the green and blue, added a curves layer and sharpened.

PICT0133-1.jpg
 
thebeginning, thats quite a transformation and I think about there
 
i gave it another go, and this is what i've got . . .

_DSC0115asml.jpg
 
Sorry only just came back to this after taking a street shot that could be used

great shot above
 
Thanks for sharing that flickr link. Some powerful shots in there.
The 'face' is an exciting subject. The more aged and rough, the better. It's a personal project that I plan to start someday.

There is another photographer that you might want to check out for inspiration. Chuck Close.
PDN covered him in the January 2007 issue if you can get it. That cover shot alone is worth the subscription! Here is the link to the article if you have a subscription.
 
One more thing: let me be the most cynical I can for a moment: not all homeless people are sage-like gentle folk who've had nothing but bad luck and need to be treated gently and sensitively. I am NOT about to get into a conversation about how someone ended up homeless, I will NOT blame the victim, and I KNOW for SURE that I don't envy their life. Having said that, I know guys (me included at college in NY 20 years ago) that would ask these guys to take their pictures in return for $5 or a six-pack of beer. A lot of these guys don't want to be treated like charity cases that need to be cradled in strong defending arms, they would rather be dealt with like grown-ups, or better even would prefer it if you just gave them a bottle of something decent, take your pictures, and then go away. If you REALLY want to take expressive pictures of poor people, think about compensating them for their modeling work. And if they prefer booze over money than don't be moralistic or condescending - either give them what they want or go find a different model.

...and have some sense about you. Some WILL beat you and sell your camera.


well said. my husband was homeless for 5 years before we met. over the years that we have been together i have had the chance to get to know several 'street' people. and i can say this, that is just what they are, people. some are there of their own actions and some are there due to holes in the government. no matter what their reason, they are still people, and people worthy of respect. if you met my husband now, you would never believe he used to eat out of dumpsters and sleep in allies.

a great example of how none of us are immune to anything.

okay, back to your thread...sorry.
 
Hair Bair:
Clearly, you cannot get an image like that straight-out-of-the-camera. Therefore, where did I conclude that their photography was ****? What I meant was, as somebody already mentioned, there's nothing AWESOME about the post-processing that was involved. DID YOU READ MY HINTS ON HOW TO POST-PROCESS THAT IN PHOTOSHOP?

Jericho effect on fine grain B&W would result in high contrast.
 
Seen that effect a million times before. It's so terribly played out by now, though a number of people become intent upon their images looking like that after discovering it. It's a mix of high pass, sharpening, and contrast adjustment layers.
 
Seen that effect a million times before. It's so terribly played out by now, though a number of people become intent upon their images looking like that after discovering it. It's a mix of high pass, sharpening, and contrast adjustment layers.
There's nothing wrong with adapting a style that's been around for a while. Not everyhting needs to be dead original every time out. I like a lot of new alternative bands, but I'll listen to the Blues or a lot of Jazz as well, even if it's being played by a younger musician.
 
I didn't say there was anything wrong with adapting anything. Emulating others' work is simply part of the artistic process to a great extent. Most people do not adapt that style, however. They copy.
 
Seen that effect a million times before. It's so terribly played out by now, though a number of people become intent upon their images looking like that after discovering it.

Max's stock answer "It's all cliche." I'd love to see some of your innovative photography, Max, but you seem reluctant to share it: very few posted photos, no website link, etc..., just a lot of hot air about how lame everyone else's photos are. Let's see what amazing things you are doing.

Anyway, my opinion as to why it looks the way it does is local contrast effects. There are a lot of ways to go about tweaking local contrast: lens choice, developer choice, lighting, split contrast printing, burning/dodging, numerous ways in digital processing.... An easy way to tweak local contrast in a similar manner as the example posted would be to use unsharp mask with a low amount percentage, and a high radius: something like 15%-20% amount, and 20+ radius.
 
Max's stock answer "It's all cliche." I'd love to see some of your innovative photography, Max, but you seem reluctant to share it: very few posted photos, no website link, etc..., just a lot of hot air about how lame everyone else's photos are. Let's see what amazing things you are doing.

It should be painfully obvious to anyone who follows digital post processing trends that the draganizing effect has been around for quite some time, and has been copied by everyone and their mother, including a million people who have made PS actions emulating it. Just because some people haven't been exposed to it yet doesn't make it any less overdone, and it doesn't take a brilliant photographer or post-processor to see that. So go to your medicine cabinet, get out the Preparation-H, and come back when you're ready to stop acting macho.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top