Is this Actions or SOC?

[digabella]

I stumbled across this photographer today and just wondering if the "vibrancy" of her pics is post processing or if this is straight out of camera. Any idea?
Her blog is here
Thanks

 

[o hey tyler]

Done in post.

Not necessarily an action though. The colors look nuked and unnatural in some of them however.

 

[rateeg]

I think it's both the lens and the post process.

 

[cgipson1]

I would say primarily post. Some of the kids eyes are so tweaked, they look like they are seriously on drugs! lol! Lots of PS in those shots... fairly popular style though.

 

[digabella]

Thanks for the answers guys. That's what I thought, but I have to admit I like the punched up colors:blushing:
Rateeg, you said it is a mixture of the lens and PP. I'm still new but understand a bit more but I am sooooo technically challenged, it's just a shame. (I chose the perfect business huh? lol!) Anyway, how does the lens effect the colors and such?

Also, on a side note, I see you use a 50 mm lens. I am trying to set up an in home studio. I have an 85 mm, which would be great for singles, couples and such but it doesn't catch enough of the background for more than that. I backed out my 55-200mm all the way, and it appears a 50mm would be perfect to get the entire background for larger groups. Would you suggest that lens for an in studio situation like that?

 

[Big Mike]

Wow, those are some intense levels of color. Not my preference, but if it works for her...I won't tell her (or you) it's wrong.

As mentioned, that is largely don't in post...but there is a lot more to it than that. It probably starts by choosing the colors that are there in the first place...so what the subject are wearing, the backgrounds etc. Another factor (the most important factor in all types of photography) is the lighting. Whether it's creating your own lighting, or knowing how to best use natural light...you can't create great photos without great lighting. In other words, you can't just take any photo and punch up the colors...you still need to have good lighting techniques.

As for the lens...it may be a factor. High quality lenses tend to produce higher quality images (provided the photographer knows what they're doing). Using your 55-200mm lens at 55mm, is not the going to be the same as using a 50mm lens (or your 85mm lens). That is lower quality zoom lens, especially if you use it at the maximum aperture. Prime (non zoom) lenses will typically give you better quality for the price, because they designers didn't have to compromise the quality for the sake of zooming.

The specific lens(s) that you choose to use, will depend on many factors. How much room you have to work, is usually one of them. It's usually better to shoot people with longer lenses, provided that you have room to back up.

 

[Mrgiggls]

Yep there's no denying that color grabs the eye and makes an image "pop". It's a fine line you walk though when doing your PP. When too much is too much....it's really too much.

As far as the 50mm: It's not too big a stretch to move up to the 50mm f/1.4D price wise. The 1.8 is a fantastic walking around lens that's easy on the wallet and your neck, but for portrait work the 1.4 is going to give you much better bokeh (blurred-out of focus background).

 

[Derrel]

"Holy over-saturation Batman!"

"We want a Photoshop where the saturation sliders go up to eleven."

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."--H.L. Mencken

 

[analog.universe]

"Holy over-saturation Batman!"

"We want a Photoshop where the saturation sliders go up to eleven."

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."--H.L. Mencken

So to summarize, any saturation more than what you like is too much? And anyone who does like it can be classified as the unintelligent American public?

IT'S ART. Some people like it. If you don't, go make different art.

 

[Derrel]

It's called a sense of humor. You obviously have none.

This is not art--it's merely commissioned family photography done at a pretty good level. The boy with the YELLOW, backlighted ear was amusingly bad. (Her work is kitsch, not art. Oh, and another thing, "art" doesn't have a huge, cutesy logo stamped across the field of every image...)

 

[analog.universe]

It's called a sense of humor. You obviously have none.

This is not art--it's merely commissioned family photography done at a pretty good level. The boy with the YELLOW, backlighted ear was amusingly bad. (Her work is kitsch, not art. Oh, and another thing, "art" doesn't have a huge, cutesy logo stamped across the field of every image...)

Whoops, guess I missed the joke, sorry


Really though, a lot of people go for dramatic color and oversaturation, who are we to say they're wrong... I've got no problem with recognizing the technical flaws, I didn't notice that ear you mentioned but it sounds bad. At a certain point you're criticizing taste though, no?

 

[Robin Usagani]

Not my style but she produces good work. The saturation is pretty crazy BUT she does it well. The skin still looks good. If I have to guess she probably shoot them with 50 1.2 or with some brenizer method.

 

[cguron]

Composition is good but standard in the industry. colors are unnatural; pause.

 

[gsgary]

Wow holly blues eyes, more like overdone in post never seen eyes like that before

 

[digabella]

The colors are definitely not natural looking. I don't particularly like them this punched up, but I do like where the color stands out a bit. I just wondered if it was all pp or if you're supposed to be able to punch up your colors in camera. After it was pointed out though...I did look at the yellow ear and yep it is definitely a yellow ear. lol!
Thanks Big Mike for the input on the 50mm lens. I have to say, the quality on my 85mm is in a whole different league than any of the zooms that I have, so I do understand what you mean about the pictures being completely different on the primes versus the zooms. I suppose it may be different if you get into high dollar zooms, which I am so not there yet.
Thanks for the input guys.