"Glossy" look, how to achieve it?

<p>Hey all,<br>

since a very long time I wonder about something that I would really really love you experts to help me with... hopefully I can explain what i mean clearly enough...<br>

Most of the photos I like the most have a kind of what I call "glossy" look, ie. they look like they were coming straight out of glossy paper, with a very "film" look as well. This seems to be maybe a mix of soft focus and (glamour) glow (and in some cases a bit of desaturation) but I have still to figure out how to achieve such a look. Of course those photos were all taken with the right light and with perfect in-camera technique but still there must be some kind of post processing that helps to achieve such a look!<br>

Can you please please help me to understand what the "trick" is??<br>

Some examples of what I mean, which hopefully make the issue clearer (I hope its fine to link another photo community site...):<br>

http://500px.com/photo/50241848<br>

http://500px.com/photo/7983935<br>

http://500px.com/photo/12875447<br>

http://500px.com/photo/5305474</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

 

<p>No trick, just really good photography. A really good lens, open aperture and shoot into the light.</p>

<p>That's what happens when someone learns how to use their camera. You just do not need all that post.....</p>

<p>First shot, the guy was shooting with a Hasselblad H4D-60 medium format camera with a 90mm lens. The body alone is about $22,000. Definitely some post processing though. He took his time. Nice shot.<br>

<br />2nd shot is a Nikon D800E. <br>

3rd, Canon 5DII, 85mm 1.2.<br>

4th one doesn't say.<br>

So yes, the hard part was done in camera. Right part of the day, right lens, technique, etc. Post processing could be almost anything. Photoshop or plugins like Google Nik software, Topaz, Lightroom. But what each one shows is the control of the light. That's probably most important.</p>

<p>The first two photos are done by guys do professional post-processing. That doesn't mean they did it here, but they are certainly very open about post work on their images.</p>

<p>Thank you for your answers! Let's take the second one for instance, which I think is the best example among these ones of the "glossy" look. Any idea of what kind of post processing has been done?</p>

Strong composition, lighting ,staging and timing when shooting. Considerable use of thinking what would makes a

photograph that communicates with viewers.

 

careful raw processing and post-processing including capture and localized sharpening. Also careful use of mid-tone

contrast enhancement ( Adobe calls this "clarity in Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom. Some selective localized

increases and decreases in color saturation.

<blockquote>

<p>Thank you for your answers! Let's take the second one for instance, which I think is the best example among these ones of the "glossy" look. Any idea of what kind of post processing has been done?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi, I think it would be very difficult to know exactly how much work was done without a lot of serious analysis. But I'll point out some of what looke like discrepancies. (The shot is the little girl, seen from the back, heading into the poppy field.)</p>

<p>First, it looks as though the sun is going down over the hill. As that should be the main light source, we would expect everything to have a strong backlit appearance. That is, the little girl should be nearly a silhouette. Yet we can see plenty of detail - there is barely shadowing on the back of her head and neck. It's possible that special lighting was used on her, but how do we explain that the distant hills are also not in deep shadow?</p>

<p>Now, notice the tree to the right. It has darker shadows away from the light, which seems sort of ok. But it doesn't seem to cast enough shadow on the ground. Another odd thing is that the flowers are growing, unaffected, right up to the tree trunk. In real life, the shadow of a tree usually keeps the normal "sunny" plants from growing directly underneath.</p>

<p>My suspicions would be that the "setting sun" is fabricated, and perhaps even the tree has been added for effect. If this is true, who knows how much farther things go? I could go on, but it would be even more tenuous guesswork; I'd roughly guess the same sort of color/tone adjustments that Ellis mentions.</p>

<p>Both the girl and the lone tree are digitally inserted. It's not as ham-handed as, for example, <a href="http://500px.com/photo/49619392">http://500px.com/photo/49619392</a> but it's most certainly photoshop work. </p>

<p>I agree with Bill's examination of this image and even wonder if maybe the girl herself has been added as they are no signs of the tulips being trampled where she has just run.</p>

<p>I agree with<strong> Bill C</strong> above who suggests that the setting sun might be anything but. My hunch is that it's an artfully applied lens flare filter in Photoshop. In fact, there's a Gywn Dewis video showing how to do the exact same thing.</p>

<p>The first one definitely falls into the category of overblown post processing in my opinion, the others are impressive, but clearly these are not spontaneous shots: they are carefully planned and have extensive post processing work (not a bad thing). They resemble advertising images rather more than conventional shots. I doubt the 4 am walk is anything other than carefully staged, for example.</p>

<p>Didn't know a $22K Hasselblad could capture that much electric cyan in skylight water reflections under the canopy of a dark, dim forest. It's a gorgeous, silky looking shot I have to say though.</p>

<p>What I don't understand about scenes like this using high end equipment is their black points tend to hover around 20RGB and above. Or is this an intentional post processing treatment to give a foggy look to such dark scenes. I would think there has to be an absolute black somewhere in the original scene such as this.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I would think there has to be an absolute black somewhere in the original scene such as this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not if the image creator doesn't wish to express that on his rendering of the scene. <br>

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Didn't know a $22K Hasselblad could capture that much electric cyan in skylight water reflections under the canopy of a dark, dim forest. It's a gorgeous, silky looking shot I have to say though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, "fake" is the uncharitable word for such things!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>foggy look to such dark scenes</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Next you'll be telling us that dynamic range is not everything..oh the horror!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Not if the image creator doesn't wish to express that on his rendering of the scene.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So you're saying, Andrew, it's most likely the photographer didn't wish to expand the dynamics of that scene in post as a matter of taste?</p>

<p>Where in that PDF (which I've had on my computer going back years and have thoroughly read) does it indicate that's the case?</p>

<p>How would someone remember in post how an actual scene appeared with regards to black levels. How did that photographer know to stop at 20RGB black? How do you teach where that line is drawn to the OP of this thread?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So you're saying, Andrew, it's most likely the photographer didn't wish to expand the dynamics of that scene in post as a matter of taste?</p>

</blockquote>

Exactly! You either believe the rendering was done on purpose or the photographer didn't know what he/she was doing. In this example, I think the photographer had full control and specific ideas of how he wished to express the image (on the web).

 

<blockquote>

<p>Where in that PDF (which I've had on my computer going back years and have thoroughly read) does it indicate that's the case?</p>

</blockquote>

That's the crux of the <strong>entire</strong> PDF! Again, it's either a total accident or intentional and I believe it's the later.

 

<p>I keep telling myself to stop grabbing all the dynamics of the scene in my edits, but I just can't resist checking and making sure my notch curves hit 5RGB for blacks and 250RGB for highlights.</p>

<p>Guess it's a bad habit I developed as a prepress tech converting continuous tone photos to halftone dots for reproduction to newspaper and silk screen presses.</p>

<p>Why would anyone want their photographs to look like the handy work of Thomas Kinkade?!</p>

<p>One thing I like about film is when I shoot it and get it competently scanned it looks like a photograph. Even if I use Velvia it doesn't look like an over processed digital picture. One of the problems I have when processing digital pictures is I sit in a dark cave and push sliders around and think how marvelous my picture looks. Well when I print it and look at it in the harsh light of day with other things for reference like the trees and buildings outside my window I realize how fake whatever monstrosity I just created looks.</p>

<p>In the "sunset/sunrise" picture look at the little girl's shirt. That doesn't look like a photograph. That looks like CGI. Oh, wow. I just looked at more of that guy's pictures and he is the Thomas Kinkade of photography!</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I realize how fake whatever monstrosity I just created looks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Why don't you post one of your examples? Maybe people here can give some pointers on post processing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why don't you post one of your examples? Maybe people here can give some pointers on post processing.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Naw. It's just a hobby. I just kind of go with the less is more approach. I try to get things as right in camera as possible and take it easy on the processing. As others said some of the guy's shots could work in advertising and obviously Thomas Kincaide was a huge financial success, but I'm more just into capturing a very good but realistic representation of reality.</p>

<p>I've railed against K.R. on multiple occasions but in a kind of way he has a point about raw. I actually do a lot less tweaking overall these days but I try and get things very right in camera. raw is nice in case something screws up or you have a difficult scene. But pushing sliders around way too much in raw definitely yields an inferior product compared to just getting a solid JPEG out of the camera.</p>