[slip]

My wife thinks this photo is manipulated and I think the lighting is the right place at the right time
What do you think? If this is natural lighting does anyone have an example of similar lighting?if real how is it done?

Let me know what you think https://elenashumilova.smugmug.com/United-States/Spring/i-mRZ7Rxz
Randy

[Rondec]

I think it looks like purposeful back lighting. Probably a touch of fill flash to keep the subject from being too dark. That would be my guess.

[slip]

I think it looks like purposeful back lighting. Probably a touch of fill flash to keep the subject from being too dark. That would be my guess.

Do you think the amber colour was added in PP?

Thanks

Randy

[Rondec]

Do you think the amber colour was added in PP?

Thanks

Randy

I would just say that they used a preset or filter with a warming effect. Personally, I think it looks OK. Some people make their photos too warm and almost get an orange look to their photos.

[UncleVanya]

It does't look right to me. The boy is brightly lit along the edges on the top and left sides but has no shadow. His knee is lit but no shadow. I would say I am no expert and I could be wrong. The empty space behind the boy on the right could be manipulation or just the correct light if his shadow blocked some of the cloud from glowing. I hope someone else has a more definitive answer.

[BrianR]

I'd guess natural light and processing. Also, an alarm clock.

[UncleVanya]

Also, an alarm clock.

I saw it as a late afternoon shot not sunrise. Isn't it funny how we process images and have stories in our heads to go with them?

[Rondec]

Isn't this the Russian photographer that went sort of viral awhile ago? I think Jay Sherman posted a thread on her photos saying that they were good because she used a full frame camera.

I personally find them kitschy and with too little depth of field, some weird fog effects added in at times too.

The photo you linked to is one of the better ones.

[tuco]

The fake fog in those shots is jut too much for me. Just like a movie, if you notice the special effects, epic fail. And that is the state of 90% digital photographs today. The PP is just way too obvious but of course to each their own.

[BrianR]

I saw it as a late afternoon shot not sunrise. Isn't it funny how we process images and have stories in our heads to go with them?

I always lean towards a factor that also works as an insurmountable excuse as to why my photos don't look like that. I mean, getting up before the crack of dawn? Crazy! Maybe if sunrise happened around noon...

Isn't this the Russian photographer that went sort of viral awhile ago? I think Jay Sherman posted a thread on her photos saying that they were good because she used a full frame camera.

Yes, that's her. But he wasn't ascribing her success solely to the FF equipment, but how well its isolation complemented her overall story telling motif. However, the kid + big dog photo that seems to be her iconic photo looked to have some artificial blur added to it, and overall I think she does a fair bit of PP (I don't mean that to take away from the images at all, but it's an important consideration if you want to reverse engineer the technical bits).

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/76-non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/248...rame-look.html

[romay]

Yes, that's her. But he wasn't ascribing her success solely to the FF equipment, but how well its isolation complemented her overall story telling motif.

That's quite funny if you notice how literally all her pics have a huge amount of radial blur added. Using that amount of PP, sensor size really doesn't play a big role for isolating subjects.

If you look at the stone near the dust, it's obvious that the dominant light was white, so I don't see how the light scattered by the dust could turn into yellow unless the little guy was playing with pure sulfur.
Given how much PP she uses in other pictures, I'm almost sure the dust cloud along with other parts got some strong tonal adjustments. However, not all of it, the portion near the boy looks pretty much untouched. If you look at the part where the dust cloud touches the ground, it can't be physically correct - the scattered light of the yellow portion suddenly is much brighter than the ground which isn't possible. Maybe even the whole yellow part of the dust cloud was added in PP.
Also, the obligatory radial blur - and the background also seems manipulated (higher frequencies and tonal shifts near the boy's right hand).

[Silverstierna]

What caught my eye first is the boys shadow to the right / his back. It looks as it is copied and carried out. You can see the colouring of his clothing mirrored in the shadow. Clearly that can't be natural, so that puts questions marks on the rest also (?)

[slip]

Great input so far!

Randy

[RAART]

for sure those are PP... how do not ask me. Yes, it is the same girl that vent viral a year or so ago. She is not bad photographer though, more excellent also in PP.

[romay]

I took a closer look at her pictures today and my impression is that all those pictures use the same, simple trick: The "raw" picture has much higher DOF and she just separates the background and gaussian blurs it in screenspace. Can anyone confirm?

I have to say i'm mildly annoyed with this kind of "photography" and the fact that it gets so much attention. This is no longer "painting with light", it's pure photshop and before long those effects will be available as filters or smartphone app. Not only will this undermine the documentary aspect of photography, it will also spoil the public eye to a point where a "true" photo will no longer be recognized as art and everyone just goes "wow" at purely synthetic shit and "skill" ist just in finding a smartphone app than didn't get old yet.

Well, if you look at all those HDR and instagram pictures, it's probably already happening ;(