In camera or post procees (contains a link)

[BananaRepublic]

Im not sure if this will be viewable by others but if you can have a look briefly and describe the technique used, is it mainly in post or just ability in the field. I have been taking farm machinery for a while now and can never get the same finish. I think he does this full time.

Adrian Leech Photography

 

[tirediron]

I very much doubt that's in-camera; my guess would be an LR (or similar) preset that tweaks the black point and highlights a bit.

 

[smoke665]

describe the technique used, is it mainly in post o

Post, clarity, highlights, white, and black. The dehaze slider works great to get rid of the haze. Lazy S tone curve with limits on the blacks and highlights. Then into PS to finish. I suspect he probably has some custom actions similar to mine that enhance the color without oversaturating, and kick up the details.

 

[Jeff15]

My eldest son says it should all be done in camera, me ? Thank you Photoshop.....

 

[smoke665]

@BananaRepublic here's a little trick to fill out your images so they pop like your example. In the LR Develop panel > tone curve. Go up to the very end of the tone curve click on the end and drag it left along the top line. Watch your histogram, see it move move the highlights right? Now move it down? See the change? If you click and drag it down along the left side it decrease the contrast giving it a matte look. Down at the other end it works the same. You can do the same in the R,G,B channels, to enrich your colors. I couldn't find the link I was looking for, but here's some reading Lightroom Color Curves: Unlimited Creative Effects

And an example of how it works. Here is an image SOOC without any adjustments.

Here's the histogram, and the tone curve.


Now here is what happens when you drag the ends of the tone curve

And check out the histogram now.


The only thing touched were the end points, on the RGB. Obviously it needs more work, but it illustrates how effective this can be. Especially if you're looking to boost the individual color channels.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Looks at a glance like the photos are getting the crap edited out of them and I wouldn't do whatever's being done to them. Find good photos by famous photographers to get your eyes used to looking at good quality, not all the overedited instagrammed images online.

If you can nail the exposure that should be a big help. I'm a longtime film photographer and I learned to as much as possible get a proper exposure. It sure makes a difference in the darkroom to have negatives that aren't too dense or definitely not too thin (so there's not enough to even get a decent print). I find the same shooting digitally, that if I get a proper exposure shooting Raw I may not have to do any editing, or not much most of the time.

The other thing, realistically look at the tones and think about how much can it pop? A nice red tractor against the background should; but if you have a subject that's more neutral and a background that's all tan, green, and sky blue, most likely there may not be much contrast there. If you Remove Color that should show you how much gray and similarity in tone you have, and how much or how little black or white you have. (And that's what I use to do B&W, not the preprogrammed setting to Convert that's in Photoshop.)

I think with nature, something can only pop so much before editing blasts it into the psychedelic '60s. I'd think about the time of day; I find evenings can be much better to get some nice light instead of bright sun if I want to shoot some scenery.

 

[smoke665]

I'm a longtime film photographer and I learned to as much as possible get a proper exposure. It sure makes a difference in the darkroom to have negatives that aren't too dense or definitely not too thin (so there's not enough to even get a decent print). I find the same shooting digitally, that if I get a proper exposure shooting Raw I may not have to do any editing, or not much most of the time.

I started shooting film in the 60's, back then the only time I remember atmospheric haze creating problems was when we were shooting aerial photos. Now I never catch a ground level shot that doesn't have some level of haze. I'm not going all environmental here, but the data bears this out, we are living in an increasingly polluted world. Add to that the fact that UV radiation has steadily increased over the last 30 years from 5-10 %. So, I'd have to argue that we're dealing with a different set of variables now, then back then, our playing field has changed and the concept of the perfect shot SOOC outside isn't always possible, even with a good exposure

 

[Derrel]

Looks at a glance like the photos are getting the crap edited out of them and I wouldn't do whatever's being done to them. >>SNIP.

Yes. Look at the red rims on those tractors. Ouch!

I agree, this is over-the-top editing.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Yes I do agree a lot of the ones there look like they've been hit with a romulan disrupter. It makes me wonder about what makes him more successful at marketing himself then any other machinery guy, and there are tons out there in Ireland anyway. I would say the current link doesn't give good examples of the best of images taken. Would consistently mentioning John Deere Inc or other manufactures/dealers in posts etc equate to making money.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Looks at a glance like the photos are getting the crap edited out of them and I wouldn't do whatever's being done to them. Find good photos by famous photographers to get your eyes used to looking at good quality, not all the overedited instagrammed images online.

If you can nail the exposure that should be a big help. I'm a longtime film photographer and I learned to as much as possible get a proper exposure. It sure makes a difference in the darkroom to have negatives that aren't too dense or definitely not too thin (so there's not enough to even get a decent print). I find the same shooting digitally, that if I get a proper exposure shooting Raw I may not have to do any editing, or not much most of the time.

The other thing, realistically look at the tones and think about how much can it pop? A nice red tractor against the background should; but if you have a subject that's more neutral and a background that's all tan, green, and sky blue, most likely there may not be much contrast there. If you Remove Color that should show you how much gray and similarity in tone you have, and how much or how little black or white you have. (And that's what I use to do B&W, not the preprogrammed setting to Convert that's in Photoshop.)

I think with nature, something can only pop so much before editing blasts it into the psychedelic '60s. I'd think about the time of day; I find evenings can be much better to get some nice light instead of bright sun if I want to shoot some scenery.

Yes theses ones are but there what people, ie the public apparently like seeing because you tend to see these in trade magazines and such.

 

[smoke665]

Yes theses ones are but there what people, ie the public apparently like seeing because you tend to see these in trade magazines and such.

In advertising it's not what you like, it's what they like. I see the same thing in the farm magazines that hit my desk here. They don't want a soft, delicate image of a piece of equipment costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, it doesn't attract their buyer. There are those who put this style down, but look at food photography they do the same thing. They enhance the image to attract the buyer.

The question no one has asked, and the one I'd really like to know, is how they are keeping the equipment that CLEAN! That's an impossible feat on a piece of working equipment.