Post Production Q: How do I getting that bleach bypass look?

kveldalf · 11-19-2008, 02:22 PM

Ref: Amber Katrina Photography

I found this photog's blog and site, and like the way the coloring is done (high contrast, low saturation). I like how the white balance produces crisp whites (especially the whites of eyes and teeth), and how the bleach bypass is applied. I haven't tried a ColorRight or ExpoDisc or similar for white balance, but am thinking this would greatly improve my WB issues.

Crispness: Can my Pentax K100D product shots this crisp? I don't find my camera snapping things anywhere near this crisp. I have a FA-50mm f/1.4, and a Tamron 28-75mm/2.8. My first though was "do I need a Canon 40D if I want shots like this?," but then thought perhaps my camera is just fine. Perhaps I need to change the saturation, contrast, and sharpness settings. Would a K10D be any better?

I thought I was taking some good shots until I discovered sites like this one. I'm inspired on the one end, but see that I have so much more to learn, and need a bit of direction. Thanks in advance for any help you might provide.

Gooshin · 11-19-2008, 02:31 PM

hmm

this is only a guess

but have you tried using lightroom to

lower the saturation,
increase the contrast
then increase the highlights

so you get a low saturation.. high contrast with blown out whites image!

JonPB · 11-19-2008, 03:05 PM

That website is painful to use, and what I did see had rather saturated colors. Can you link directly to an image with the style you like?

Chances are that there's selective editing: not a setting applied to an entire photo but some to some parts and others to others.

A couple thoughts that might be helpful. Our eyes like contrast. Start with an image that uses the full dynamic range of your sensor and uses midtones to show texture of a subject rather than subject boundaries. Push up the black level and pull down the white level. Our eyes are sensitive to human textures. Blur skin to airbrush it, but always leave tonal gradations to show shape and leave sharp details in the lips, eyes and hair. Our eyes don't care much about non-human textures, so be more aggressive on the curves for portions of the image that aren't human.

Oh, and automatic music on a website? Never do it. Worse than blinking things.

Then again I'm a beginner too, so my thoughts may do more harm that good.

*Wheatfield* · 11-19-2008, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by kveldalf

Ref: Amber Katrina Photography

I found this photog's site, and like the way the coloring is done (high contrast, low saturation). I like how the white balance produces crisp whites (especially the whites of eyes and teeth), and how the bleach bypass is applied. I haven't tried an ExpoDisc or similar for white balance, but am thinking this would greatly improve my WB issues.

1. Crispness: Can my Pentax K100D product shots this crisp? I don't find my camera snapping things anywhere near this crisp. I have a FA-50mm f/1.4, and a Tamron 28-75mm/2.8. My first though was "do I need a Canon 40D if I want shots like this?," but then thought perhaps my camera is just fine. Perhaps I need to change the saturation, contrast, and sharpness settings. Would a K10D be any better?

2. Bleach bypass (high contrast, low saturation): How is the bleach bypass done in Photoshop that leaves the subjects pupils marbled and popping like this? Are their actions for this? Can this be done straight out of Aperture 2 or Lightroom?

3. What do you use to smooth out skin tones without making subjects look like their skin is made of rubber latex?

I thought I was taking some good shots until I discovered sites like this one. I'm inspired on the one end, but see that I have so much more to learn, and need a bit of direction. Thanks in advance for any help you might provide.

First, if Flash is the answer, you are asking the wrong question. Her website is a design nightmare.
Find an example of what you like on a real website and post it.

marcdsgn · 11-19-2008, 11:34 PM

I can assure you that the shots on this website look crisp, bright and sharp because:

PRIORITY 1) The photographer has a good eye and photographic technique.
PRIORITY 2) The photographer understands how to make the camera work for her.
PRIORITY 3) The photographer has a half-decent camera. (K100D is at least half-decent)
PRIORITY 4) The photographer knows how to post-process with restraint so that the image replicates how she saw the shot through the viewfinder.

Post-processing is as much a part of creative photography as the darkroom used to be, but the initial shot is still 95% of what makes a good image.

I'm reasonably well skilled at the post-processing end, but even I can't make a silk purse out of some of the sow's ears that come through our studio. A good photographer gets it right in the camera first. Everything else should be minor tweaking.

Practise photographic theory with the camera you have. As you get better, everything else will follow.

kveldalf · 11-19-2008, 11:39 PM

Thanks for the advice markdesign. I'll pick up a ColorRight disc, Photoshop, and look into some actions that might help me adjust photos to how I see saw them originally.

*Wheatfield* · 11-20-2008, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by kveldalf

Thanks for the advice markdesign. I'll pick up a ColorRight disc, Photoshop, and look into some actions that might help me adjust photos to how I see saw them originally.

If your camera isn't doing that for you out of the box, it's broken.
Get it fixed.

kveldalf · 11-20-2008, 09:31 AM

Interesting that you'd mention that. That camera was shipped back to Pentax two weeks ago for a faulty sensor. Photos were noisy and had streaks.

marcdsgn · 11-20-2008, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

If your camera isn't doing that for you out of the box, it's broken.

Not quite the view I'd be endorsing...

One of the points I was making (probably too subtly) is that the mind's eye of the photographer perceives a scene with more clarity and imagination than any camera can capture by itself. So a good photographer compensates for the camera's limitations through the use of technique and/or additional facilities at the time of the shot, then does further minor tweaking at post-processing time until the image matches the original vision.

kveldalf · 11-20-2008, 06:38 PM

I had picked up on your subtle point. I had to narrow down which of the pieces of my tool kit was not working for me: user, camera, lens, or other.

As for the actions and effects I had asked about, I have learned of two providers of such actions: one from Kevin Kubota (Kubota Image Tools - Empowering Photographers Across the Galaxy), and the other from Doug Boutwell (Totally Rad! --Rockin' Photoshop Actions).

*maxwell1295* · 11-20-2008, 07:06 PM

What's wrong with the website? All I see is a standard blog.

In some of the shots towards the beginning of the page she seems to be pretty heavy handed with the clarity slider, but the last 2 sets (TTD and the kid portaits) are really good, IMO.

kveldalf · 11-20-2008, 07:18 PM

I edited the first URL since it was to her site which was loaded with flash, and a song.

*Wheatfield* · 11-20-2008, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by marcdsgn

Not quite the view I'd be endorsing...

One of the points I was making (probably too subtly) is that the mind's eye of the photographer perceives a scene with more clarity and imagination than any camera can capture by itself. So a good photographer compensates for the camera's limitations through the use of technique and/or additional facilities at the time of the shot, then does further minor tweaking at post-processing time until the image matches the original vision.

I don't agree with this.
A photographer learns to see what is in front of him, not what he wants to see.
If the camera cannot faithfully reproduce what is in front of it, it needs attention.
Adjusting the image away from faithful reproduction is a photographer's choice, nothing more, and has nothing to do with the camera's ability to create a faithful reproduction of what it is pointed at.

*Wheatfield* · 11-20-2008, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by kveldalf

I edited the first URL since it was to her site which was loaded with flash, and a song.

I just noted this, and had a look at the new link. I think if you play around a bit with selective colour layers in Photoshop you will find you can emulate what she is doing.

Frogroast · 11-20-2008, 10:12 PM

Unless you have a specific reason to use Photoshop and actions, it's really overkill for straight post-processing work.

I use Lightroom for about 90% of my post-processing. As a pro graphic designer, my wife is an "Adobe girl" and knows how to make Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign do exactly what she wants it to. Even she has learned to use Lightroom for basic post processing because it not only saves time, it's easier to maintain consitent results without loading up on actions.

Adobe designed Lightroom specifically for that - to easy post processing for the working photog. It also allows you to easily export JPEGs, print photos and photo packages, and upload to websites.

There are also hundreds of free presets out there, some of which will do exactly what you want to replicate here.I've gotten to the point where I know which presets will at least get me close to what I want, then use the sliders to customize it.

It's also much cheaper.

Insofar as the photos on her blog - as others have commented, that's mostly the photographer's eye, both in composition and post-processing. marcdsgn is dead on there.