| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/08/2006 01:29:11 PM · #51 |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 01:30:39 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by ursula:
OK, what's "jk!" mean? |
just kidding (playing / joking around)
Message edited by author 2006-11-08 13:31:02.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 01:32:06 PM · #53 |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 01:32:36 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by ursula:
OK, what's "jk!" mean? |
Means I can't delete my posts. :/
But I did send him an invitation to stop over so we'll see. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 01:33:01 PM · #55 |
Both susi and this fellow are incredibly talented and I am getting suzi's video!
I do agree though. It's not photography but a mixture of techniques. In art I guess we would call it mixed media.
Still...that one fellow mentioned in the first post is a talented photographer on top of his artistic ability! |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 01:38:31 PM · #56 |
is he using a hasseld blad of 39000 buks?
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 01:59:48 PM · #57 |
Not up to his standards, but here is a very quick PP of a shot I didn't shoot for that type of art.
Quick adjustments in Highlight/Shadow to bump up shadow levels and Midtone Contrast.
Likely this is a lot of what he's doing in his work...
Message edited by author 2006-11-08 14:00:12.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 04:00:49 PM · #58 |
Another with an image that is more suited for that type of effect.
Once again playing with Highlight/Shadow, over sharpened, guasian blur and fade.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 04:06:26 PM · #59 |
| Looks like you got the trick! |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 01:17:26 AM · #60 |
Hi guys,
Wow, I'm flattered by all this talk! I'm glad some of you like my work. I really can't share much about specifics, and I'm not a photoshop guru, but I am definitely down to discuss. I haven't used HDR or that tone-mapping stuff. I just recently heard about it, and it seems you need to bracket your images to do it well. That would be almost impossible when shooting humans! :-) In terms of cameras, depending on the budget, I use canon digitals and H1's; all prime lenses. Canons are SOOO fun and easy to shoot with, but the H1 files are crisp, edge to edge, and print bigger. Kinda a trade off. I'm a big fan of using lights, and I'd say the primary factor of how my images look is the lighting setup. Photoshop is of course crucial as well, but you gotta have a clean raw file to begin with. Too much processing can give you nasty digital grain, halos, all that stuff, which may look good on Flickr, but when printed on paper for a portfolio that an art director sees, looks like junk. I would totally suggest that new photogs spend less time on PS and more time shooting and playing with lights, and learning how to direct their subjects. As to the comment about $50k shoots... haha... that made me laugh. For sure my budgets have been getting bigger, but a lot of the stuff on my site paid peanuts. You really have to work your butt off; lots of sweat, set-building, hauling lights all over the place, day after day, for at least a few years etc. But that's part of the adventure, right!? Let me know if u guys have any more questions. Thanks!
Dave Hill
davehillphoto.com |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 01:20:16 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by davehillphoto:
Hi guys,
Wow, I'm flattered by all this talk! I'm glad some of you like my work. I really can't share much about specifics, and I'm not a photoshop guru, but I am definitely down to discuss. I haven't used HDR or that tone-mapping stuff. I just recently heard about it, and it seems you need to bracket your images to do it well. That would be almost impossible when shooting humans! :-) In terms of cameras, depending on the budget, I use canon digitals and H1's; all prime lenses. Canons are SOOO fun and easy to shoot with, but the H1 files are crisp, edge to edge, and print bigger. Kinda a trade off. I'm a big fan of using lights, and I'd say the primary factor of how my images look is the lighting setup. Photoshop is of course crucial as well, but you gotta have a clean raw file to begin with. Too much processing can give you nasty digital grain, halos, all that stuff, which may look good on Flickr, but when printed on paper for a portfolio that an art director sees, looks like junk. I would totally suggest that new photogs spend less time on PS and more time shooting and playing with lights, and learning how to direct their subjects. As to the comment about $50k shoots... haha... that made me laugh. For sure my budgets have been getting bigger, but a lot of the stuff on my site paid peanuts. You really have to work your butt off; lots of sweat, set-building, hauling lights all over the place, day after day, for at least a few years etc. But that's part of the adventure, right!? Let me know if u guys have any more questions. Thanks!
Dave Hill
davehillphoto.com |
Thanks for the input Dave. Do you have any room for an assistant...lol!! Hey...a girl's gotta try!!
|
|
|
|
11/09/2006 01:21:35 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by davehillphoto:
Hi guys,
Wow, I'm flattered by all this talk! I'm glad some of you like my work. I really can't share much about specifics, and I'm not a photoshop guru, but I am definitely down to discuss. I haven't used HDR or that tone-mapping stuff. I just recently heard about it, and it seems you need to bracket your images to do it well. That would be almost impossible when shooting humans! :-) In terms of cameras, depending on the budget, I use canon digitals and H1's; all prime lenses. Canons are SOOO fun and easy to shoot with, but the H1 files are crisp, edge to edge, and print bigger. Kinda a trade off. I'm a big fan of using lights, and I'd say the primary factor of how my images look is the lighting setup. Photoshop is of course crucial as well, but you gotta have a clean raw file to begin with. Too much processing can give you nasty digital grain, halos, all that stuff, which may look good on Flickr, but when printed on paper for a portfolio that an art director sees, looks like junk. I would totally suggest that new photogs spend less time on PS and more time shooting and playing with lights, and learning how to direct their subjects. As to the comment about $50k shoots... haha... that made me laugh. For sure my budgets have been getting bigger, but a lot of the stuff on my site paid peanuts. You really have to work your butt off; lots of sweat, set-building, hauling lights all over the place, day after day, for at least a few years etc. But that's part of the adventure, right!? Let me know if u guys have any more questions. Thanks!
Dave Hill
davehillphoto.com |
haha, I was mostly teasing when I made that budget comment.
Welcome aboard Dave! |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 01:23:44 AM · #63 |
| OK, another dumb question. What's "H1s"? |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 01:27:13 AM · #64 |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 01:29:03 AM · #65 |
| Oh yeah. Thanks! Oyyyy, dream stuff. |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 01:30:32 AM · #66 |
Yeah sorry I was kinda wrong I guess the H1 is film but you can add the digital back like in the link. And yeah dare to dream ... :-)
Message edited by author 2006-11-09 01:36:45. |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 01:38:58 AM · #67 |
Dave, just got to say your lighting is great!
|
|
|
|
11/09/2006 06:43:39 AM · #68 |
the best bit:
//www.davehillphoto.com/behind_the_scenes/mcr_bts/pages/mcr4.htm
look sensor dust! This makes me feel way better!!
Dave Hill (or whoever took the pics of him taking pics) is human!!
those pics are just awesome though, beautiful effect. And damn, I want a dry lake bed near me!! |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 07:43:09 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by davehillphoto:
Hi guys,
Wow, I'm flattered by all this talk! I'm glad some of you like my work. I really can't share much about specifics, and I'm not a photoshop guru, but I am definitely down to discuss. I haven't used HDR or that tone-mapping stuff. I just recently heard about it, and it seems you need to bracket your images to do it well. That would be almost impossible when shooting humans! :-) In terms of cameras, depending on the budget, I use canon digitals and H1's; all prime lenses. Canons are SOOO fun and easy to shoot with, but the H1 files are crisp, edge to edge, and print bigger. Kinda a trade off. I'm a big fan of using lights, and I'd say the primary factor of how my images look is the lighting setup. Photoshop is of course crucial as well, but you gotta have a clean raw file to begin with. Too much processing can give you nasty digital grain, halos, all that stuff, which may look good on Flickr, but when printed on paper for a portfolio that an art director sees, looks like junk. I would totally suggest that new photogs spend less time on PS and more time shooting and playing with lights, and learning how to direct their subjects. As to the comment about $50k shoots... haha... that made me laugh. For sure my budgets have been getting bigger, but a lot of the stuff on my site paid peanuts. You really have to work your butt off; lots of sweat, set-building, hauling lights all over the place, day after day, for at least a few years etc. But that's part of the adventure, right!? Let me know if u guys have any more questions. Thanks!
Dave Hill
davehillphoto.com |
It's a post like this that makes this site great. Thanks Dave, you are an awesome photographer. |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 08:36:38 AM · #70 |
I tried with an old photo. pretty old. taken with the rebel, not the 5d. and I think I got kinda close. did it in black and white though. I didnt even attempt the great colors yet. one step at a time. rofl..
Whatcha think?
 |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 08:51:55 AM · #71 |
I've been looking for some portable lights but can't decide........I also think I have a great potential to die from extreme electrical shock :-)
Message edited by author 2006-11-09 08:58:55. |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 08:56:59 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by davehillphoto:
Hi guys,
I would totally suggest that new photogs spend less time on PS and more time shooting and playing with lights, and learning how to direct their subjects. |
Dave, your lighting is astronomical..if it were any better I'd need a few moments alone. |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 09:05:22 AM · #73 |
Very cool he wrote back.
Thanks Dave. We want to play with your camera!!or walk off with it for a day. |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 09:06:35 AM · #74 |
Ya know.... even though the claim is that they are not HDR Images ya have to see the similarities here
//www.flickr.com/groups/hdr/pool/
|
|
|
|
11/09/2006 09:14:04 AM · #75 |
I've been getting similar results by converting the photo to a sketch using various PS filters, then adding it to the original in one of the darken layer blend modes and adjusting the opacity.
ps, if anyone wants to post a 'before' shot, I can show you how I can make it look similar, depending on the quality of the shot.
Message edited by author 2006-11-09 09:14:53. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 12:23:28 PM EDT.
