Help dissecting this photographers process?

[Derrel]

I just reread the original post. I think it is fairly clear that the original poster is asking for technical tips about how to get her photographs to look more like those displayed on the website she linked to. I don't think she needs a lecture about artistry or artistic intent or anything like that and she notes that is aware of the fact that she needs to do something technical to make her photographs appear more like these that she references. So in other words she needs technical advice regarding lighting or exposure or software post-processing... her question was about technical considerations and how she might best modify her working methods to achieve the end result kind of like that demonstrated on the website she linked to.

 

[Designer]

Please help me understand what I need to do to achieve this moody tone with lighting either through my metering process or editing process.

The short answer is:

Masterful use of light and dark.

(edit) She set the lighting to highlight what she wanted lighted, and shaped the light to avoid illuminating the darker areas. She then metered for the light areas by using "spot metering".

Some shots appear to have been illuminated with a very narrow beam or multiple beams. You might be interested in searching for "light painting".

Light Painting Part One - the Photography

 

[Derrel]

I have never seen photography that is not judged upon the technical basis. No matter the level of artistic sophistication or achievement, the technical details of photography always come to the Forefront. If an image is out of focus, or appears too dark or too bright, the technical e
valuation is always present. Great artistry combined with crappy technical values equals mediocre work. Great technical values combined with crappy artistry, is equally mediocre. To emulate any artistic photographer, one must first understand the technical details that led to that photographer's demonstration of said artistry.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

@Derrel No, what I'm saying is quite clear.

These images explore the photographer's own emotions and feelings, not their understanding of lighting. I see the photos, they evoke emotion, I feel moody. Do I:

a) Learn everything I can about cameras and how they work?

b) Try to examine why I'm a moody bugger?

c) Pour another belt of scotch and put "Dark Side" on for another play?

You bet I've overthought this, you should see the library at my fingertips, my reference. Lordy. But it always comes back to the same thing, if you want to produce images that evoke a mood then you have to look to understand moods and not camera settings.

The images linked to show such a clear exploration of the photographers feelings and thoughts to the point that she's embraced a purely visual understanding and so let go of the idea that the technical should place any restrains on the outcome. I see it so clearly, that Tania has so put her soul into this that it's almost an insult to think we can learn how to do this by examining the lighting or the PP. I can point to dozens of visual points in the images that make the technical seem irrelevant. It's an odd idea on photo forums, but if you want to project emotion and get it to shine through your work you need to feel and surrender to emotion, not rationalize to logic. That, in the world of art is a *buzzkill*.

It's a simple idea, but an abstract one that's against our nature to accept.



The OP can phrase the question in any way, and even with knowledge of what format the acceptable answer should be in, but it still doesn't change what I think the answer really is or the one I will give. Yes, on a photo forum we try to condense what we see into an understanding we know and are familiar with, it's human nature. But if we always condense what we don't understand into the knowledge we are familiar with then what do we actually learn other than to do the same again and again?

On Tania Franco Klein’s “Our Life in the Shadows”

Tania Franco Klein’s best photograph: lost in the California desert

Now where did I put that CD??

 

[smoke665]

ll I'm saying is that I see a lot more in these images than can ever be explained by a technical assessment. In fact I think such an overview does them a considerable dis-service.

While I don't disagree with some of your rather lengthy discourse, it did bring back memories of the part I hated about art appreciation in college. It took me many years to learn that if I wasn't interested in something more then a few seconds, I really didn't give a rat's patootie as to what the artist was trying to say, because if it was that hidden, chances are the artist didn't know themselves. Painting lipstick on a pig still doesn't change it from being a pig. At my age the last thing I care to do is spend valuable time trying to dissect an image only to find out it's still not worth my time at the end. Unfortunately the naivete of so many who have the money to invest in art are easily swayed by the flowery BS of an art critic. There was a sale not that long ago https://nypost.com/2013/05/15/43-8-million-for-this/ or even better this one Why Pay $15 Million for a White Canvas? that illustrates my point. There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase closely associated with P. T. Barnum, I have to wonder if he wouldn't have made an excellent art critic. In the case of the OP's link the artist spells it out very concisely in her Bio and Overview, even in her title, her direction, which frankly borders on grandiose narcissism,and takes a sophomoric approach to visually explain that direction. However, despite the obvious, I did find a couple of the images interesting, but the rest crap, like the pig in lipstick.

As to the technical process @Derrel mentioned a technique that I also use both in Lr and Ps. I've come to favor lighting in an image more like you might see in real life, where things are not always even or equal. There's another process in Ps that I prefer, sometimes referred to as "Cookie Cutter" lighting in which a curve adjustment layer is used to pull down the exposure of an image either in general or selectively, then adding a white mask, and using a black brush (which you can also vary the opacity on) to punch holes that block out the darkening effect.

 

[Derrel]

I am all for the belts of scotch...

 

[Derrel]

People used to ridicule Andy Warhol. Manet and Monet were regarded as no-talent artists when they were alive.

 

[Derrel]

If you want to be a winning race car driver, you need to know how to drive. If you want to be a decent photographer, you need to know how to do your job. It's that simple. Without technical proficiency you will never get your photos to look the way you want to.

No amount of Scotch whiskey or Pink Floyd or photo reference books can make that basic truth go away.

 

[Overread]

MODERATOR NOTICE - Tim and others - if you want to discuss the inner meanings of art and humanity and whatever please START A NEW THREAD on the topic.

Leave this thread to aiding the OP in their technical and artistic/creative emulation of the photographs that they've linked too in the first post.

BrittneyRose - it might help to show some of your own experiments and detail the settings and setup you used for them. This could help identify where you're not connecting the dots in how to emulate the photos (accepting that there are several ways you can achieve a similar effect). This will help in feedback and advice as it means people can focus in on where you're having problems and address them. It might also be that you're making mistakes or lacking a comprehensive understanding of the subject which means that your making logical conclusions from an incomplete perspective (sending you down the wrong path).

 

[jcdeboever]

Shoot in raw. Covert in camera with velvia and raise shadow and color in camera +1 or 2. Or shoot just raw and add the velvia treatment in post, saturated, vibrant color, specifically on the orange, red, and yellow channel. When shooting the raw image, spot meter bright light on floor or front edge of bed spread, to aid in contrasty dramtic look and feel. This person was very specific in her composition by using the rule of thirds to keep the viewer inside her vision. She took a previous model image and transferred it on 70's TV screen, I assume she edited the raw file and softened it, plus gave it a blue cast and she also dodged the blue shadow of TV on wall. Looks like she also bumped the clarity prior to TV image... Brilliant photo.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Actually I thought I did, it's not my fault that the OP linked to and artist's gallery rather than a wedding photographer's portfolio. Of course my answer would be different if it were a wedding portfolio, and of course it would've been ask somebody with more experience than me.

It's a valid answer and if you don't like it then delete my account. I have nothing more to offer you.

Ciao

 

[Derrel]

You need to shoot in raw so that you have the most editing leeway in post. As was mentioned above, it would be useful if you were to post some more information and a detail or two, as well as a sample photo or two so that we might better be able to judge what it is that you might be able to improve upon.

What are you using to edit your photos with? Affinity photo? Photoshop? Lightroom? Capture One? Are you familiar with masking? Do you have any lighting equipment even as rudimentary as reflectors or silks?

 

[BrittneyRose]

Thank you all for the responses.... even the long ones ha. I have always shot in RAW so I have the most information to edit later on, and I previously used LR to edit photos but am currently switching over to Capture One. I am not familiar with masking or anything like that (have honestly been afraid to since I didn't know what I was doing). I do own a handful of lights but have not been sure what kind of modifiers I needed to buy for the look I was going for.

Now let me upload some of my images...

 

[BrittneyRose]

These are all unedited.

Please critique me as much as possible, I need it. I just dove into photography as more than a little hobby about a year ago and have been trying to improve since then in terms of controlling composition and lighting. ALSO, these pictures were taken on a Nikon f3 so I'm not particularly worried about things like grain and dust.

 

[DanOstergren]

These are all unedited. View attachment 185041 View attachment 185040
Please critique me as much as possible, I need it. I just dove into photography as more than a little hobby about a year ago and have been trying to improve since then in terms of controlling composition and lighting. ALSO, these pictures were taken on a Nikon f3 so I'm not particularly worried about things like grain and dust.

Based on that first shot, I see a ton of potential and you seem to be on the right track. The photographer that you're referencing is someone I would consider a master of their craft, and that takes a lot of time and never happens overnight or after asking for some advice on a forum. It takes years to develop. You have the vision and the inspiration, just keep putting in the time and work so you can learn and develop a more refined vision and refined technical skillset. As far as Tania's editing goes, it appears to me that most of the editing is subtle color toning and not much more. The rest is done in camera, so start paying extra attention to light and shadow and experiment with how you use them in a photograph. I would recommend setting your camera's white balance to "shade", as this will help you get the rich color toning in Tania's photos too.

As for critique, I'll give some on the first image: details are important, so make sure you are manicuring your location, for example: next time consider moving the TV remote from the bed post so it's out of sight, and tidying up the counter space on top of the dresser and the night stand.

I also want to point out how refreshing it is to see noise in your photos; no matter how much other photographers moan and whine over noise, don't listen to them. You will be far better off as a photographer if you aren't afraid of using ISO settings above 1000.