Help me achieve this fabulous look

[Casey615]

Hi all- newbie (..still..) here, anxious to learn how to edit pictures to a specific style. These 2 particular photographers are my all time favorite (links posted below)- I absolutely love how soft and creamy their photography is. Question is- how is this look achievable with editing? I'm aware I do not possess the equipment that is half as good as theirs, and understand that they are most likely using film, whereas I have digital and am no professional. I have Lightroom 5 and am still learning the endless possibilities that come with the program, but I would love any direction that would help me get this soft/creamy/lovely look (with indoor and outdoor lighting!). Also- how imperative is it to have great natural light to get this look?? I have attached 2 untouched photos (one outdoors, one indoors) to play with:


megan thiele studios » Just another WordPress weblog
Clary Pfeiffer ? Fine Art Photographer

Thanks in advance!

 

[Ysarex]

Your photos have problems with exposure/tone response and color. The photo of the blonde-haired boy is too dark. The shadows in his eye sockets are way too dark. The entire photo is pretty green (white balance).

I looked at the EXIF data and you had the camera in manual exposure mode using evaluative metering and auto white balance and you processed a JPEG original in LightRoom.

If I were taking that photo I would have moved myself and/or the boy so that the patch of bright background behind his right ear wasn't there.

I would have used either center-weighted or spot metering, not evaluative and I would have left the camera in P mode. I would have set a custom white balance if I was shooting JPEGs but I would never shoot JPEGs so I would have saved a CR2 file and possibly shot a white balance reference if I considered it important.

I would have processed the CR2 file in LightRoom.

I adjusted the color and did what I could to lighten it up some.

As for the photos in the links you provided, my grandma said keep my mouth shut.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

If you want to be able to reallllly "tweak" a digital image, you reallllly will be miles and miles ahead if you begin the editing process with a full bit-depth, 12-bit or 14-bit (from a d-slr) raw image file that has been shot with a decent lens and which was properly exposed in the field or studio. Right there is the best way to start: with a well-exposed raw file.

Most cameras create JPEG files that are of somewhat limited "malleability", meaning making significant corrections in editing software is challenging. Making more-than-significant changes, like say extreme changes, from a first generation JPEG file, is often a recipe for disappointment. If one starts with an underexposed, and improperly white balanced JPEG file, wellllll....it's a big task that lies ahead. if one starts with a well-exposed raw image file, it can be as simple as sliding a few sliders and clicking a check-box here and there, and BOOM! A MAJOR editing change can be performed pretty quickly and with good quality results at the end.

One of the things about digital imaging is that one often tries to start by creating good SOURCE material for LATER editing, so the capture process is improved by having lighting that is at the mimimum, decent, and generous. Really dark, un-lighted areas, on critical things such as the eyes, is not a good way to start. If YOU can literally SEE a little sparkle in the eyes of a subject in the field, as you are taking photos, THAT is a good start. Look for catchlights on the surface of the eyeballs when you are taking the photos. That makes a big difference.

 

[KmH]

Megan Thiele is very good at using available light to make her photographs and IMO they do not have a "soft and creamy" look, but a bright and airy look.
Clary Pfeiffer also uses available light though somewhat less skillfully, but is also relying on post processing.
She is reducing the mid-tone contrast and she is reducing the vibrance to somewhat mute the colors giving that "soft and creamy" look.
In many of her photos she has used a Curves adjustment to add a slight haze to the photo by moving the lower left end of the curve up a bit.

I've used Joe's edit, reduced the mid-tone contrast, reduded the vibrance of the colors and added a layer of 'haze' using a Curves adjustment.

 

[bianni]

Cropped the boy on sofa. Added a layer filled with white and reduced opacity.

 

[sudodrew]

Pretty sure Clary Pfeiffer is still using film for the look you find so appealing. Not so much post processing.

It's rare to see film these days so people tend to forget what it looks like. The again so many people go for that "film" look with their pp it's sometimes difficult to tell.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[RoyalCaptures]

#1 seems to have missed the focus for me, but here is my edit for #2

 

[Casey615]

Derrel- Thanks for the info, very helpful! I'm still a little intimidated by shooting in RAW, but it sounds like that's the best way I'll be able to post edit to achieve the look I'm going for. I went out and tried again a couple days ago at a much better time of day, and it made a world of difference in regard to exposure, white balance...everything! I knew it would, it was just a matter of getting it out of my head that LR5 was going to be my miraculous magic wand.. (which, it really kind of is!)

 

[Derrel]

There you go Casey! I just gave you your first TPF "Like"! Yes, RAW image shooting does seem to intimidate many people at the start, but it becomes normal after a while. But you are totally correct: a raw capture as the starting point allows pretty easy, wide-ranging shifts to white balance, shadow brightness, overall level of exposure, and so on. It truly is the best way to wind up with a good shot when the conditions are the toughest.

Lightroom is actually a FABULOUS RAW converter for most raw files; the ability Lightroom gives is far,far above what most people, including me, could achieve using old-fashioned, more-limited raw conversion software that was available years ago. Lightroom has really improved the ability to bring the shadows up, and also to recover over-exposed highlights. JUST last year, I revisited some Fuji S2 PRO camera's .RAF raw image files; when that camera was new, a little over a decade ago, raw conversion software was still in its infancy/toddler period. I was able to get MUCH better images that I EVER was able to get with the old Fuji software or Photoshop 5 or 6 and the very early,early version of ACR.

But yeah--shooting when the LIGHT is good is a huuuuuuuuuge help in getting nice pictures.

 

[e.rose]

I didn't read any of the followup questions, but all those images are on the site you linked to, are well-lit natural light images.

There's no real editing involved in that. Maybe a little tweaking here and there in Lightroom, but seriously nothing special, editing-wise.

You just need to learn the difference between good light and bad light... and then how to expose the good light properly.

 

[Derrel]

I didn't read any of the followup questions, but all those images are on the site you linked to, are well-lit natural light images.

There's no real editing involved in that. Maybe a little tweaking here and there in Lightroom, but seriously nothing special, editing-wise.

You just need to learn the difference between good light and bad light... and then how to expose the good light properly.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/362577-i-used-suck-hard-you-guys.html

There is a LOT to learn for a newbie who is just starting to use Lightroom or other raw conversion software, and has never shot raw images before. Please don;t try and minimize the entire process by saying, "There's no real editing involved in that." Uh...no, I beg to differ...And your thread of your own above shows that yes, there is something called 'real editing' needed even for mundane situations...What is that, like three years' worth of improvement that you demonstrated in your thread last week between your early efforts and your current work?

 

[e.rose]

I didn't read any of the followup questions, but all those images are on the site you linked to, are well-lit natural light images.

There's no real editing involved in that. Maybe a little tweaking here and there in Lightroom, but seriously nothing special, editing-wise.

You just need to learn the difference between good light and bad light... and then how to expose the good light properly.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/362577-i-used-suck-hard-you-guys.html

There is a LOT to learn for a newbie who is just starting to use Lightroom or other raw conversion software, and has never shot raw images before. Please don;t try and minimize the entire process by saying, "There's no real editing involved in that." Uh...no, I beg to differ...And your thread of your own above shows that yes, there is something called 'real editing' needed even for mundane situations...What is that, like three years' worth of improvement that you demonstrated in your thread last week between your early efforts and your current work?

My POINT... Dear Derrel... is that what is making those images is *light*.

I didn't discount there isn't any editing at all. I mentioned tweaking in Lightroom. I have friends whose work looks exactly like the above linked stuff above, and I've watched them edit hundreds of images in the matter of an hour or 2 at a coffee shop, because they started with good light, adjusted a few sliders in LR on the first photo and then batch applied the rest, making small adjustments as they go.

So when I say there's "no real editing" involved, I mean to say, "There's no heavy editing", "There's no intense editing", "There's no heavy retouching"... or whatever other phrase you want to sub in for that.

Achieving that look is not about editing. Achieving that look is about light and exposure, and THEN... yes... you bring those images into Lightroom, mess with the RAW images, pull a couple sliders, and voila! You're done.

I'm not minimizing sh*t. It's not an intense editing process. It's just not. The hardest part is learning what looks good, lighting-wise in camera and slider-wise in Lightroom... and THAT'S the part that can take 3 years.

Casey - I had to learn that the hard way that light is what matters in those situations. Rather than emphasizing the stupid sliders in Lightroom... my point is, if you can find good light, and learn to expose well, the rest will come to you fairly quickly. :sillysmi:

 

[e.rose]

Also, Casey, if you have any questions about what I said, or need any clarification on what I said, feel free to PM me, so we can have a conversation without the forced "pissing" contest to distract from conversation.

 

[paigew]

Like I always say...it's all about the light. The photos you posted have very bad lighting quality/direction. In addition the wb and exposures are off. IMO it is important to master use of light before delving into any heavy post processing.

You will never get smooth creamy skin if you have to make drastic exposure + wb adjustments.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

I didn't read any of the followup questions, but all those images are on the site you linked to, are well-lit natural light images.

There's no real editing involved in that. Maybe a little tweaking here and there in Lightroom, but seriously nothing special, editing-wise.

You just need to learn the difference between good light and bad light... and then how to expose the good light properly.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/362577-i-used-suck-hard-you-guys.html

There is a LOT to learn for a newbie who is just starting to use Lightroom or other raw conversion software, and has never shot raw images before. Please don;t try and minimize the entire process by saying, "There's no real editing involved in that." Uh...no, I beg to differ...And your thread of your own above shows that yes, there is something called 'real editing' needed even for mundane situations...What is that, like three years' worth of improvement that you demonstrated in your thread last week between your early efforts and your current work?

My POINT... Dear Derrel... is that what is making those images is *light*.

I didn't discount there isn't any editing at all. I mentioned tweaking in Lightroom. I have friends whose work looks exactly like the above linked stuff above, and I've watched them edit hundreds of images in the matter of an hour or 2 at a coffee shop, because they started with good light, adjusted a few sliders in LR on the first photo and then batch applied the rest, making small adjustments as they go.

So when I say there's "no real editing" involved, I mean to say, "There's no heavy editing", "There's no intense editing", "There's no heavy retouching"... or whatever other phrase you want to sub in for that.

Achieving that look is not about editing. Achieving that look is about light and exposure, and THEN... yes... you bring those images into Lightroom, mess with the RAW images, pull a couple sliders, and voila! You're done.

I'm not minimizing sh*t. It's not an intense editing process. It's just not. The hardest part is learning what looks good, lighting-wise in camera and slider-wise in Lightroom... and THAT'S the part that can take 3 years.

Casey - I had to learn that the hard way that light is what matters in those situations. Rather than emphasizing the stupid sliders in Lightroom... my point is, if you can find good light, and learn to expose well, the rest will come to you fairly quickly. :sillysmi:

My point is, we're trying to offer encouragement to beginners. Maybe you should have actually "read some of the replies" above before posting and acting as if, "there's no real editing involved in that." when it took you three years to get where you're at. As you wrote ,"There's no real editing involved in that." and referred to images from two pros that do A TON OF editing, at least from the point of view of a guy who learned how to shoot before photoshop.

THe two pro's pages you blew off process the **** out of their photos. The do PLENTY of "real editing". You are minimizing plenty of "sh*t", as you said. And the work of two pros. And you seem to be minimizing the worries and the efforts of the original poster here. And seemingly you are forgetting it took you three full years to get to where you are now.

Try shooting some film.See what "no real editing" actually means. And stop using the phrase, "There's no real editing involved in that." when referring to entire pro web sites from people who process the crap out of EVERY single image. EVERY single photographic image is made with "light". And digital images are mostly made by software adjustments, which is something the OP mentioned being kind of nervous about. But of course, you admit you didn't read any of the OP's follow-ups so, I forgive you. I'm providing a point of view that's wayyyy different than your, as to how much or how little those two pro web site shooters use software. THey use it as a huge crutch.