How is this style of shot done?

[Alex_B]

In order to be able to adjust the contrast on an image like that you need a very good base.

You also need to get close to get that detail, very close I think.

Did any of you, who think this is easy, actually look at his photo stream?

Yes

Yes / or a very good lens

Yes

and none of us said this was a bad image.. actually that person probably knows well how to take technically very good images! We are not saying his photography is not good! Just, his postprocessing seems to be not magic .

Keep in mind, that some of the people who answered have been pros for a long time (even decades) and others (like me) have seen a lot of pro work at least (not saying that this did have an effect on my own work though ) ... so you get somehow used to technically good photography and don't cheer that loudly anymore

In terms of his models ... apparently people on the street ... they appear to have been quite willing to be models as they seem totally aware of the camera and joined in the game.... my respects go out for the photographer for this, and for the composition of some of his images ... but all this was not the centre of this debate

 

[Hair Bear]

Yes

Yes / or a very good lens

Yes

and none of us said this was a bad image.. actually that person probably knows well how to take technically very good images! We are not saying his photography is not good! Just, his postprocessing seems to be not magic .

Keep in mind, that some of the people who answered have been pros for a long time (even decades) and others (like me) have seen a lot of pro work at least (not saying that this did have an effect on my own work though ) ... so you get somehow used to technically good photography and don't cheer that loudly anymore

In terms of his models ... apparently people on the street ... they appear to have been quite willing to be models as they seem totally aware of the camera and joined in the game.... my respects go out for the photographer for this, and for the composition of some of his images ... but all this was not the centre of this debate

Thanks for the feed back Alex

I felt the indirect, its just a shot of a guy with a dirty face, and in one case direct, There's nothing worth praising in that photo, inferance was that the image wasn't really that good, hence why I have asked to see a good sample from anybody that cares to post one.

Its because some of the people on here have worked for decades and are or have seen pro work that I posted the question, looking for help from people who know etc.

And I agree his work in general was not the point of the thread, more to gain an clear understanding of how it might be done. Although I still feel his work is very good on a lot of levels but would agree it is highly processed.

And I still don't think it has been explained that well either. Its a little like the lens question I asked a while ago, people quote standard answers but never really back them up.

I would have thought, given the number of semi pros and worked in the industry for decaes types, that it would be a simple thing to explain how that type of shot happens.

1 get close to subject, whils controlling light even if out side
2 I don't know thats why I'm asking
3 If its a PS job then refere to 2 because I still don't know
etc etc etc

 

[Hair Bear]

I'm pretty sure this is digital, and not film here, so I think it's safe to end the discussion of graded paper and burning. It's just natural light. Look into his eyes. It's a very simple vignette added to darken the edges and draw your eyes to the center. You don't need to be very close to get detail in skin. You just need to have a good lens, and sharpen the photo very well in photoshop. Also, yes, the contrast was maximized. By low key, Fred meant that the image overall, contains a lot of contrast and shadow tones, as opposed to high key, in which the photograph would have a lower contrast and contain mostly highlights.

So the lens thing might be an example of the difference between my older Nikon slr Kit and the moderen day D80 or D200 for example.

Like cars they get better/more advanced? And therefore capture more detail?

 

[Digital Matt]

I don't think it's fair to say that any modern lens is better than any older lens. A good prime lens is going to be sharper than a cheap zoom, and any lens is sharper when stopped down a few stops from wide open. Knowing how to get the most out of your lenses is important. Lighting is crucial to bringing out detail as well.

 

[Hair Bear]

I don't think it's fair to say that any modern lens is better than any older lens. A good prime lens is going to be sharper than a cheap zoom, and any lens is sharper when stopped down a few stops from wide open. Knowing how to get the most out of your lenses is important. Lighting is crucial to bringing out detail as well.

thanks Matt, I just learned something about lenses.

So rather rather than having it on max aperture to get light its always better to stop it down to keep quality in the pic. That might explain a few problems I have had recently!

I have a 35-70 on my nikon and a fixed 45 on the Yashica but you have to get in very close with both to fill the frame on a portrait shot! A fixed 50mm would be the same but with better F stop.

So I may be better investing in a 150mm for these types of full frame shots?

 

[Digital Matt]

thanks Matt, I just learned something about lenses.

So rather rather than having it on max aperture to get light its always better to stop it down to keep quality in the pic. That might explain a few problems I have had recently!

I have a 35-70 on my nikon and a fixed 45 on the Yashica but you have to get in very close with both to fill the frame on a portrait shot! A fixed 50mm would be the same but with better F stop.

So I may be better investing in a 150mm for these types of full frame shots?

I wouldn't say "always" for anything art related. There are no rules. If you want shallow depth of field, then you gotta open up the aperture. Better lenses are sharp all the way through. I don't know about the quality of your lenses, but they might not be very sharp wide open. Also, generally you shouldn't be using something less than 80mm, (50mm on a digital aps sensor) for portraits, because you are distorting the face. For head and shoulder portraits, a focal length of 135mm or around there is preferrable.

 

[Hair Bear]

Your a star Matt.

In two simple posts I've learnt two things I didn't know - thank you.

I just had a scan on Ebay for a 150mm and there not cheap, may have to start putting pennies in a jar for it.

 

[Digital Matt]

Lenses are usually the most expensive, and most important part of your setup.

 

[sigmuh]

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?

 

[Digital Matt]

Hair Bair:
Therefore, where did I conclude that their photography was ****?

There's nothing worth praising in that photo.

Anyway. It's over. No need to get upset.

 

[Hair Bear]

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?

I read your post Sigmuh - There's nothing worth praising in that photo - that’s what you said.

Then you went on to give a vague, IMO, HINT on how it might be done.

This part of the forum is called beyond the basics and I was expecting a more detailed description of a technique to gain that result.

I'm willing to concede that reading posts on a forum can be open to interpretation and therefore I may have taken it too literal when you said things like, 'There's nothing worth praising in that photo, we are just talking about a man with a broken nose'. Although that seems fairly clear to me and I don't remember asking for description of the image content.

However, if I have read into your post too much then please could you expand on how you think your 'HINTS' would result in a picture like that and what sort of base photo you think would be needed?

I don't think it’s as easy as your making out, hence why I have asked for more details. I have images I can try your 'hints' on and see what comes out.

I think the base shot is well composed, well focused and well balanced. I have no real idea how that gets processed into that look and that’s why I posted the question.

Post up a picture with a before and after for me to look at and marvel at your magic.

 

[newrmdmike]

heres how i got similar results.

lab sharpening, curves, mask out around the eye so i can still see it, bw conversion near green channel. resize, resharpen. the sharpening is a bit much here, but i wasn't sure how much to oversharpen to accomadate picturetrails quality loss.

also i could have made his skin a little lighter, but what the heck

and this is my uncle, not some homeless dude with an uber rough face.

 

[ANDS!]

I think its a fabulous image - or is to someone who is new to Hobby Photography - and is probably the source of amazement. Cant imagine if you showed a child an airplane, they wouldnt be amazed the first time.

 

[Hair Bear]

heres how i got similar results.

lab sharpening, curves, mask out around the eye so i can still see it, bw conversion near green channel. resize, resharpen. the sharpening is a bit much here, but i wasn't sure how much to oversharpen to accomadate picturetrails quality loss.

also i could have made his skin a little lighter, but what the heck

and this is my uncle, not some homeless dude with an uber rough face.

Good post thanks, thats getting really close to it.

Do you mind me asking what the original was like.

I didn't think on the image I posted there was much sharpening as the hair was still OK and no signs between the dark and light transistions

 

[fmw]

I think you folks are mistaking me. I didn't say the image didn't deserve praise. In fact I said it was a good image. My original answer was genuine. The photographer took an photo of a man with a dirty face. It speaks about hard work and even possibly exhaustion. I have no problem with the image at all. But there is nothing unusual technically with the image.

Nobody would imagine that it was a surreptitious shot. Im sure the photographer asked for the shot and the subject agreed to it. I don't know how close the photographer was. I would guess ( just a guess) based on the perspective that it was shot with a medium telephoto from about 6 or 8 feet or so. Yes, the photographer used a good lens and made a sharp image. That is one of the reasons it is successful. Assuming it is digital, the contrast was raised and the overall image darkened to produce the low key presentation. If it was printed in a darkroom it would be underexposed some and printed on hard paper to produce a similar thing.

This shot is no different than a snapshot you might take of your child except that the subject has a more weatherbeaten (and dirty) face that is interesting for that reason. You could produce the same presentation with one of your family snapshots and without any real difficulty.

Sorry, I didn't mean to seem condescending. I was just trying to figure out why it seemed mysterious to some. Successful images evoke thought on the part of viewers. Obviously this was a successful image.