How to get these airy bright photos?

[limr29 2]

I think her pictures are nice, but honestly, they're not really distinctive. It seems very very familiar to me. The folks who are commenting in this thread are probably not reading Vogue or In Style, but a flip through any fashion mag of substance (I'm not talking Cosmo or anything) will show that this kind of processing is fairly common. You'll see it a lot in design magazines as well, and it's also showing up in magazines like Food and Wine.

I remember this style being around even before digital photography.

Yeah, it's not really a new style.

 

[Derrel]

I think her pictures are nice, but honestly, they're not really distinctive. It seems very very familiar to me. The folks who are commenting in this thread are probably not reading Vogue or In Style, but a flip through any fashion mag of substance (I'm not talking Cosmo or anything) will show that this kind of processing is fairly common. You'll see it a lot in design magazines as well, and it's also showing up in magazines like Food and Wine.

I remember this style being around even before digital photography.

Yeah, it's not really a new style.

Indeed, this is not a new style of working. But the way the actual results look **is new** compared to what we've seen for the prior 140 years. The HUGE, and major differene is the way high key and bright imags are rendered on FILM as opposed to the way digital sensors render highlight and bright tones. When done with B&W negative film, or color negative film, the highlights have a glorious, delicious transition from the upper mid-tones and into the highlights, all through the highlight value range, and even the just-below-paper-white highlights can show some differentiation of close tonal or color values. With almost all digital sensors, there is a sudden, abrupt, UGLY transition to the brightest tones, and then there is a lot of nothingness...like the huge wall of orchids...that looks like crap on digital. It might have looked fabulous if it had been shot on a color negative film stock.

The exceptions to the abrupt, ugly highlight cut-off were from the Fuji S3 and S5 cameras with their special "dual-pixel design" sensor technology invented and made by FujiFilm, with their separate, small, hard-to-saturate "S-pixel" wells that ONLY register very bright tones).

Yes, light, bright, airy images have been around a long,long time, and when shot on FILM, like B&W neg or color negative, they can look fabulous. Even on color transparency film, there is still a very nice,long "shoulder area" which makes these kinds of pictures look very beautiful. In the digital era, the look is not very pretty, compared to the way it can be accomplished using film. I really LOVE delicate, high-key work done by somebody who knows the best way to do it--on film or with a Fuji S3 or S5. This isn't it, but it's the kind of stuff we're seeing now that most people are shooting digitally. I "get where" she's headed, but I've seen this done better before, many,many times. This is exactly the kind of work that looks pretty harsh when shot on digital. The lure is the smooooth, gradual transition from the light tones to the very brightest tones to the paper-white (255) values...this stuff is just "clipped". A lot. Over big areas. It's not the ideal way, or even a good way, to render this kind of a look. But it does command attention. It gets noticed.

 

[Derrel]

I'm trying imitate the effect achieved in the photos found on this site: Paris in Four Months |Paris in Four Months

I've been playing with the exposure on my camera and get pretty bright photos through that, but not as bright as I'd like them to be like that photographer's photos. Any photo editing suggestions?

Buy yourself a used FujiFilm S5 Pro digital SLR camera. Not kidding. I just took mine out of storage after five years...I am anxious to use it more for high-key, really BRIGHT, airy looks.

 

[limr29 2]

I remember this style being around even before digital photography.

Yeah, it's not really a new style.

Indeed, this is not a new style of working. But the way the actual results look **is new** compared to what we've seen for the prior 140 years. The HUGE, and major differene is the way high key and bright imags are rendered on FILM as opposed to the way digital sensors render highlight and bright tones. When done with B&W negative film, or color negative film, the highlights have a glorious, delicious transition from the upper mid-tones and into the highlights, all through the highlight value range, and even the just-below-paper-white highlights can show some differentiation of close tonal or color values. With almost all digital sensors, there is a sudden, abrupt, UGLY transition to the brightest tones, and then there is a lot of nothingness...like the huge wall of orchids...that looks like crap on digital. It might have looked fabulous if it had been shot on a color negative film stock.

The exceptions to the abrupt, ugly highlight cut-off were from the Fuji S3 and S5 cameras with their special "dual-pixel design" sensor technology invented and made by FujiFilm, with their separate, small, hard-to-saturate "S-pixel" wells that ONLY register very bright tones).

Yes, light, bright, airy images have been around a long,long time, and when shot on FILM, like B&W neg or color negative, they can look fabulous. Even on color transparency film, there is still a very nice,long "shoulder area" which makes these kinds of pictures look very beautiful. In the digital era, the look is not very pretty, compared to the way it can be accomplished using film. I really LOVE delicate, high-key work done by somebody who knows the best way to do it--on film or with a Fuji S3 or S5. This isn't it, but it's the kind of stuff we're seeing now that most people are shooting digitally. I "get where" she's headed, but I've seen this done better before, many,many times. This is exactly the kind of work that looks pretty harsh when shot on digital. The lure is the smooooth, gradual transition from the light tones to the very brightest tones to the paper-white (255) values...this stuff is just "clipped". A lot. Over big areas. It's not the ideal way, or even a good way, to render this kind of a look. But it does command attention. It gets noticed.

I was hoping you'd weigh in on this. I knew this was the kind of thing that film generally does better, but you explain the reasons a lot better than I can Interesting about the Fuji digital system, too.

 

[Braineack]

I looked it up, interesting indeed.

 

[keyseddie]

I remember this style being around even before digital photography.

Yeah, it's not really a new style.

Indeed, this is not a new style of working. But the way the actual results look **is new** compared to what we've seen for the prior 140 years. The HUGE, and major differene is the way high key and bright imags are rendered on FILM as opposed to the way digital sensors render highlight and bright tones. When done with B&W negative film, or color negative film, the highlights have a glorious, delicious transition from the upper mid-tones and into the highlights, all through the highlight value range, and even the just-below-paper-white highlights can show some differentiation of close tonal or color values. With almost all digital sensors, there is a sudden, abrupt, UGLY transition to the brightest tones, and then there is a lot of nothingness...like the huge wall of orchids...that looks like crap on digital. It might have looked fabulous if it had been shot on a color negative film stock.

The exceptions to the abrupt, ugly highlight cut-off were from the Fuji S3 and S5 cameras with their special "dual-pixel design" sensor technology invented and made by FujiFilm, with their separate, small, hard-to-saturate "S-pixel" wells that ONLY register very bright tones).

Yes, light, bright, airy images have been around a long,long time, and when shot on FILM, like B&W neg or color negative, they can look fabulous. Even on color transparency film, there is still a very nice,long "shoulder area" which makes these kinds of pictures look very beautiful. In the digital era, the look is not very pretty, compared to the way it can be accomplished using film. I really LOVE delicate, high-key work done by somebody who knows the best way to do it--on film or with a Fuji S3 or S5. This isn't it, but it's the kind of stuff we're seeing now that most people are shooting digitally. I "get where" she's headed, but I've seen this done better before, many,many times. This is exactly the kind of work that looks pretty harsh when shot on digital. The lure is the smooooth, gradual transition from the light tones to the very brightest tones to the paper-white (255) values...this stuff is just "clipped". A lot. Over big areas. It's not the ideal way, or even a good way, to render this kind of a look. But it does command attention. It gets noticed.

I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for the info. I used to shoot bridal portraits in the 80s and early 90s with a Mamiya 645 and a filter holder with different clear and white filters with the center cut out. VPS 100 I think. Very in demand back then. Nevertheless, high key has never been my style. I do love the femininity that she brings to this style and she seems to have found a niche for her work.

 

[Derrel]

Here's an example of the way the Fuji S5 Pro can hold the highlights while still holding some shadow detail...and this is at a less-than-optimal ISO of 320. This was the very first day I took this five-year-old, stored camera out of my equipment closet and tried it out. I'm NOT used to seeing the sun rendered as a round object like this on a digital capture...this is with only 300% extended Dynamic Range setting dialed into the camera's menu...it goes up to 400%!

[ DSCF0152_Fuji S5 Pro.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

[ DSCF0156_Fuji S5 Pro.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

 

[Braineack]

and an f-mount... interesting.

 

[korreman]

Sorry for brawling in to the discussion after it's dead. You're all missing the colors and the temperature.
Aside from the high key or increased mids (choose whichever), she modifies the temperature to exaggerate pinkish/orangish colors. Most of her photos contain pastel reds and warmer temperatures. Notice how she mainly photographs things that are black or yellow to red, with white backgrounds. And when greens and blues show up, they're quite suppressed, as not to pop out. The greys are also a bit orange or pink in general. She shows some skill in her awareness of color, and increasing the mids definitely has a purpose for the dreamy, white, pinkish effect she's trying to achieve. Her white background compliments this as well. The brightness is just overdone.

 

[Derrel]

Some of the stuff is just tedious...as I wrote earlier, she's using this fake high-key as a bludgeon. Over and over and over. We get it. Apparently she's enamored of it. The way early HDR and extreme tone-mapping people were utterly fascinated by their creations in Photomatix.
14342015451_25b7c24921_o.jpg
14342015161_cd669c8c3a_o.jpg
14412554814_97fd486b78_o.jpg
14258821570_3024108373_o.jpg
14079013939_59cee162a4_o.jpg
14190564094_88359ce612_o.jpg
13888736700_52636587ff_o.jpg
13901041708_d2174b0749_o.jpg
13930343302_e089e5e2f7_o.jpg
13953896914_a3cdc1fe6f_o.jpg
13953489913_f4d52fc2e2_o.jpg
13930334862_24bbee1f51_o.jpg
13953499603_9dd2d7292a_o.jpg

 

[dennybeall]

A rose by any other name is still a rose and overexposed by any other name is still just overexposed.

 

[korreman]

Not saying they're good photos because of the colors, just pointing out a factor that plays into the "airy bright" feel that the original poster was asking for. If one tried to achieve something similar with a less overdone brightness/high mids, the colors would be pretty essential to getting that feel.

 

[AimeeLynC]

I remember "way back when" I used automatic instead of manual exposure all my photos looked like that... mmmmm :er:

 

[keyseddie]

Tried my hand on these flowers growing through my pool fence. From my chaise.

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[bp4life71]

I'm trying imitate the effect achieved in the photos found on this site: Paris in Four Months |Paris in Four Months

I've been playing with the exposure on my camera and get pretty bright photos through that, but not as bright as I'd like them to be like that photographer's photos. Any photo editing suggestions?

My first impression when looking at those photos was.....WHY? They look like crap.