What makes these photos look so good?

Puppy · Feb 10, 2008

I found a gallery of photos that I think look really amazing; especially because most are very spontaneous, candid shots. Here's the link: clicky.

What is so good about them and how could I get my candid shots to look more like them? I notice the obvious [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]vignetting[/FONT] and a shallow FOV (still learning photography terms someone yell at me if I'm using them incorrectly)... But I can't put my finger on what I really appreciate about the pictures. Can anyone help me?

Alpha · Feb 10, 2008

You appreciate the moderately saturated colors, high contrast, and sharpness. The processing is easily do-able, provided you've got a good, sharp shot to begin with.

confucious · Feb 10, 2008

Almost all of the photos have darkened corners/edges (I think this is called Vignetting????). Take a look at them and pay close attention to the edges of each pic...it is not always symetrical either, but almost selective. Either they are using glass which gives this effect (wide open aperture??), or are adding it after in Photoshop.

And they are just good shots

Iron Flatline · Feb 11, 2008

I believe the vignetting is added in Adobe Camera Raw, but then cropped - hence the lopsidedness of it. Kind of a cool effect actually.

It seems to be a fast lens, there's relatively shallow DOF. I'd guess there's also a polarizer filter. There definitely is a color adjustment, probably just done in curves, which can also be done in ACR.

leila · Feb 11, 2008

and they are controversial. always makes a good picture.

Sandspur · Feb 11, 2008

All of the above ...

And - I think shooting from a low angle adds a dramatic effect as well.

A lot of them appear to have been shot from waist level (digital P&S with swiveling LED would be my guess.)

Rhubarb · Feb 11, 2008

Sandspur said:
A lot of them appear to have been shot from waist level (digital P&S with swiveling LED would be my guess.)

My guess would be a Canon 5D with a 50mm prime, and just about all of them appear to be shot at an aperture of f1.8.

That One Guy · Feb 11, 2008

at the bottom of the page it says eos 5d with 50mm f1.8

Happy Hour · Feb 11, 2008

Sandspur said:
All of the above ...

And - I think shooting from a low angle adds a dramatic effect as well.

A lot of them appear to have been shot from waist level (digital P&S with swiveling LED would be my guess.)

Really? a P&S? They way too good to be taken with a P&S! (I'm not arguing with you either.) From all the posts I have read from you. You know what your taking about. It's obvious they have been played with in PS but I can't believe a P&S.

CJL · Feb 11, 2008

at the bottom of the gallery it says shot with a Cannon 5D and 50mm 1.8 II and they are really nice pictures

Puppy · Feb 11, 2008

Thanks for all the replies! I'm glad to know there was significant PP... I was wondering why I couldn't get any of my photos to look remotely similar to that style.

RKW3 · Feb 11, 2008

Happy Hour said:
Really? a P&S? They way too good to be taken with a P&S! (I'm not arguing with you either.) From all the posts I have read from you. You know what your taking about. It's obvious they have been played with in PS but I can't believe a P&S.

I know a P&S could make shots like these if they are photoshopped right.

snaremop · Feb 12, 2008

I had an attempt at this style... ^^

Sandspur · Feb 16, 2008

Just to clarify something I wrote earlier ... which several of you rightly pointed out was absolutely false. It was my reference to a P&S being used for those shots.

1. The correct information was clearly written at the bottom of the page. I didn't see it before shooting off my big mouth.

2. My suggestion about using a P&S at waist level was simply because that's how I would have done it! Being a relatively old person, with an equally old spine, and limited flexibility (Damn! Getting old Sux!). That's my only excuse ... mia culpa, mia culpa ...

Now can I go back to my nap ...?