How was this done in PP?

[Derek Zoolander]

Anyone feel like attempting to explain how this is produced in post production? He's got a video on how it's shot, but not PP.

Day One Hundred Eighty Six on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

By the way, anyone interested, I got this from strobist and the guy is doing the 365 project except he also shows you how he accomplishes the shot. Pretty sweet.

 

[tsaraleksi]

Looks like he made several different raw conversions with the exposure optimized for various parts of the image and then blended them in photoshop. There's lots of different ways to do something like this, though, so really this is just one possibility.

 

[musicaleCA]

Looks like he made several different raw conversions with the exposure optimized for various parts of the image and then blended them in photoshop. There's lots of different ways to do something like this, though, so really this is just one possibility.

*blinks* Why not just use curves?

 

[Sherman Banks]

Dustin doesn't usually do a ton of PP on these shots so I doubt the process would be very hard. Probably blew out the sky in the shot in order to get the exposure right on the rest of the scene, then took another shot with the sky how he wanted and cloned it in. Wouldn't be difficult since it's all linear edges with the sky anyways. Anywho, that's just my guess.

 

[JamieR]

He exposed for the sky, then used 3 SB900's shot into an umbrella. They aren't separate photos.

 

[tsaraleksi]

Looks like he made several different raw conversions with the exposure optimized for various parts of the image and then blended them in photoshop. There's lots of different ways to do something like this, though, so really this is just one possibility.

*blinks* Why not just use curves?

You could use curves by making masked adjustment layers for each of the areas that you wanted to alter, but just 'using curves' is a global adjustment that would change everything, and in this case you'd want to change individual parts.

Making several raw conversions will do the best job of preserving image quality as the raw will have a lot more latitude to push it around. If you look at the full-res version of the image, you can see a lot of weird artifacting and noise (esp. in the right hand corner and in the sky) that comes from pushing the file too hard.

 

[KmH]

It could be done with dodge and burn very easily.

 

[polvero]

i saw this forum getting a significant amount of refers in my logs so I figured I would register to clear things up.

Sherman & Jamie got it mostly right. I rarely do much post-production on my photos and you'd be surprised how much flash can make a difference in making colors pop. just a quick scroll thru my folio will show you that Portfolio of Dustin Diaz

nevertheless, this particular shot that is being discussed was taken as a TIFF (out of the norm for me (usually JPEG-Fine)).

It would definitely be worth watching the video if you haven't already: strobist info: day 186 on Flickr - Photo Sharing! - I used 3 SB900's at full power into a 60" umbrella to expose the main subject (me).

then onto post-production - which I can't stress enough, do very little of normally and what I did is not part of my usual workflow.

I duplicated the TIFF image twice (now three total). made first one-stop darker and the third one-stop brighter. threw the three photos into Photomatrix and ran the tone mapping tool responsibly (not overdone). this helped recover detail in the shadows in buildings.

In the end, without the flash, I would have been in complete shadow since I was wedged between building shadows at 1/250s @ ƒ/16

Hope this helps clear things up, and feel free to ask any more questions.

cheers,
Dustin

 

[Derek Zoolander]

Wow thanks Dustin. No better answer than the one from the creator. Thanks to the rest of you guys for taking a stab at it as well.

Dustin, I've basically been trucking through all your photos trying my best to replicate your results. It's not so easy, you've just got something extra that makes your photos great.

Now, if only I could figure out how to mess with Photomatrix...Can someone whip up a tutorial on what settings to use??? Mine always come out WAY over done and I don't know what any of the settings even mean, which is exactly why they don't come out nicely. If not a tutorial, how about a screen cap of the settings used and the photo result?

Dustin, you don't happen to have that, do you? Im pushing it now...I kmow.

 

[GeneralBenson]

I was going to say looks like also alot of dodging/burning, but you didn't mention that. was there any of that?

 

[polvero]

no dodge. no burn. just basic tone mapping done to the entire image. i'm too lazy to adjust specific parts of the image.

 

[RONDAL]

and i was just gonna say hit him up on twitter and he'd likely respond but dustin did one better. if you havent been following his 365 its definetly worth checking out (more than the usual 365 stuff that seems to becoming a fad). his setup shots, especially if you are into strobist work at all, is great, because it gives you a snapshot and description of how everything is set up.....and endless ideas of how you can adapt them for your own work.