Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-27-2014, 07:17 PM   #121
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
QuoteOriginally posted by bkpix Quote
I'd love to see one of you gear/technique/PP geniuses out there deconstruct one of her photos and describe exactly how it was done. That could be a fun education for the rest of us.

To some extent this would be possible but especially in photography this implies a comparison between what she originally "sees" and what she finally expresses.
We can never know for sure how the original scene appeared to her subjectively but comparing the original RAW file to the final image would go a long way.
Deconstructing an image is really advanced stuff - only a few photographers were really good at it. Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Andre Kertesz and August Sanders come to mind. All of them "old school" - they had a definite "vision" and knew how to get it.

01-28-2014, 10:00 AM - 1 Like   #122
Veteran Member
richard balonglong's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Baguio City, Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 350
QuoteOriginally posted by bkpix Quote
I'd love to see one of you gear/technique/PP geniuses out there deconstruct one of her photos and describe exactly how it was done. That could be a fun education for the rest of us.
I'm no genius, but I do have a post-processing technique that is similar to hers'...

Here's a photo of mine back in 2010, and that I think we have a similar process:


***
So, how did I do this? The process in Photoshop is simple and is also called Layering:
1) You must have a subject with good lighting, lighting such as side lighting, back lighting.
2) Capture your subject in a spacious location.
3) In Photoshop, with Layering technique, I blur out all the background and foreground (using controlled Gaussian Blur) and leaving the subject clear. You must also leave a thin un-blured area where your subject is standing so it is to create a fake shallow depth of field (notice the sharp area in the ground).
4) I merge all the layers and duplicated another one then applied a fair amount of Gaussian Blur then reduce its Opacity down to 10-30% to give that soft look.
5) Merged all the layers again, then applied some coloring like exaggerating the yellows in the highlights and shadows and also adding some reds and greens..

You could attain better result if you shoot with a full frame camera and with a larger aperture to get a better and shallower DoF.
01-28-2014, 12:35 PM   #123
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
bkpix's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Creswell, Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 517
QuoteOriginally posted by richard balonglong Quote
I'm no genius, but I do have a post-processing technique that is similar to hers'...

Here's a photo of mine back in 2010, and that I think we have a similar process:


***
So, how did I do this? The process in Photoshop is simple and is also called Layering:
1) You must have a subject with good lighting, lighting such as side lighting, back lighting.
2) Capture your subject in a spacious location.
3) In Photoshop, with Layering technique, I blur out all the background and foreground (using controlled Gaussian Blur) and leaving the subject clear. You must also leave a thin un-blured area where your subject is standing so it is to create a fake shallow depth of field (notice the sharp area in the ground).
4) I merge all the layers and duplicated another one then applied a fair amount of Gaussian Blur then reduce its Opacity down to 10-30% to give that soft look.
5) Merged all the layers again, then applied some coloring like exaggerating the yellows in the highlights and shadows and also adding some reds and greens..

You could attain better result if you shoot with a full frame camera and with a larger aperture to get a better and shallower DoF.
Richard,

Thanks for the interesting post! Your description of how you got the effect is helpful.

I think what she's added to that mix is greater color/contrast separation between the subject and background. Her fake fog -- is it fake? -- is similar to atmospheric perspective practiced by painters for centuries.

Her approach isn't especially unique -- you can see it in a lot of high-end wedding and portrait photography these days -- but she pulls it all together very well.

Bob
01-28-2014, 07:31 PM   #124
Veteran Member
richard balonglong's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Baguio City, Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 350
QuoteOriginally posted by bkpix Quote
I think what she's added to that mix is greater color/contrast separation between the subject and background. Her fake fog -- is it fake? -- is similar to atmospheric perspective practiced by painters for centuries.

Her approach isn't especially unique -- you can see it in a lot of high-end wedding and portrait photography these days -- but she pulls it all together very well.

Bob
Exactly... The purpose of the post-processing is to give or amplify the separation of the subject/s from the background and foreground by exaggerating the shallow depth of field and bokeh..

About the fog, yes, it's fake. I have a very similar post-processed photos (back from 2009) from hers':



Here, the original photo doesn't have a fog/mist and the background was originally sharp and cluttered.

Here's another similar processed photo with fogging or misting:



01-28-2014, 09:26 PM - 1 Like   #125
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,237
Original Poster
I don't generally like fake blur and 'mist', but if it's done well I can really appreciate the skill involved (like 'HDR', don't like the look but am still oddly amazed at some of the results and effort.)

My PP is usually constrained to color cast experiments - NIK SEP2 for black & white, or just some split toning at times. I like the 'old film' look in some prints I make. But I personally have never done anything to bokeh or added elements into the frame that were not there... not against it, really, just doesn't appeal to me.

Here's about as far as I go with PP - this looks very good in print (not sure who the woman is, never asked for her permission which I usually do, but... )

50mm @ f/2


Or just a plain desaturation:

50mm f/1.8


180mm f/2.8


Or this type of cast, I like:

180mm f/2.8
01-28-2014, 10:30 PM   #126
Veteran Member
richard balonglong's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Baguio City, Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 350
Nice photos, jsherman..! =)

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
But I personally have never done anything to bokeh or added elements into the frame that were not there... not against it, really, just doesn't appeal to me.
Ah, yes, composites are not for everyone.. For me, I only do composites for personal art collections and for requests for ads. And as for my regular photography and especially for my work (photojourn), I only edit minimally like adjusting the curves, brightness, contrast, white balance, and sharpness in Lightroom. I don't use Photoshop for my regular photography and work anymore, my workflow in Lightroom is much faster... =)
01-29-2014, 03:37 AM   #127
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
Been thinking about how I get from original to final...

This was a rather quick edit I did sometime back.

Thinking about it I realize that often, in spite of my grand talk about having a "vision" much of the time when I release the shutter I have only a very vague idea what I want to do with the image and it's only after looking at the raw image that I decide what the final image should be. In other words it's the file, as displayed on the monitor that often tells me what it should be not any preconceived notions of getting it right in camera and having a definite vision.

Original and final - don't get too bent out of shape about the final quality it is only a small email file that I sent to the girls mother as a rough example.

K20, Sig 105 macro at f/8


Last edited by wildman; 01-31-2014 at 03:15 PM.
01-31-2014, 04:01 PM   #128
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,237
Original Poster
.

Here's one that jumped out at me, in part because of equipment used - old shot taken with basically a kit zoom (Nikon 24-85 3.5-4.5) on the ancient 2004 Kodak SLR-N FF camera:



From This Article.

.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
From Full-Frame Sony... to Pentax... to Full-Frame Canon Mr_Canuck Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 42 01-21-2014 12:50 AM
Full frame or no full frame.... Deedee Pentax K-3 & K-3 II 14 10-08-2013 05:39 AM
For Sale - Sold: Full frame $1600 Canon EOS 6D full USA warranty, NIB pocketrounds Sold Items 30 06-04-2013 11:43 PM
The full frame Pentax? slackercruster Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 02-13-2012 10:09 AM
How do the K5 photos compare to Full Frame camera photos as far as the "look" goes? crossover37 Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 166 05-16-2011 07:24 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:50 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top