How to produce this look? Post processing?

<p>I love her work! Do you have any idea how she produces this type of look? (I have already asked her. I guess she is busy, she hasn't answered yet.)<br>

The colors on here pictures are soooo vivid. Is it the camera, the camera settings, lighting or the post processing, which creates this type of look...? I try to make my colors vivid and interesting but they just don't turn out that well. :( I have a 5D, 5D Mark II, Canon 35mm 1.4, 85mm 1.2, etc so I don't think it is the equipment...<br>

Please look at the pictures and you will see what I mean: http://www.julieharrisphotography.com/blog/2009/12/hannah-and-erics-breckenridge-wedding/<br>

The colors are so beautiful and there are lots of detail on the pictures.... Do you have any idea how to start? What am I doing wrong so the colors on my images are not that beautiful? :)<br>

(I am not supposed to put my link here so if you want to see the difference between her and my pictures you can follow the link in my photo.net profile. Well, there is a difference...:))<br>

Thanks for all your suggestions!</p>

<p>I don't know what she does, but I love MCP actions! I use them quite often for their bright colors. Good luck!</p>

<p>This isn't so much of a wedding question as it is processing or beginner question.<br>

<br /> If you want to achieve similar effects in the post-shoot process, I would recommend taking a look at the NIK Software Color Efex Pro add-on for Photoshop. http://www.niksoftware.com/colorefexpro/usa/entry.php<br>

Hope this helps!<br>

Bill</p>

<p>1. I am not a beginner photographer.<br /> 2. None of the actions produce this look. I have used all the actions; Totally rad, Kubota and also the NIK efex sets. <br /> 3. If you would look at the pictures you would see why I posted this question here in the wedding section.<br /> Is there anybody who is familiar with this type of post processing?<br /> Thanks!</p>

<p>Yes, there are a number of ways you can accomplish overly saturated looks ... either in batch or selectively.</p>

<p>As a global modification it can be a combination of inducing more contrast and working with a post program with the defaults modified. These defaults can then even be assigned to a specific camera in a post program such as Light Room. Light Room also allows you to create "User Pre-Sets," which will then appear in the Presets menu. You can also create your own Actions in PS and apply them in batch or to individual images ... however, the advantage of Lightroom is that the Presets are non-destructive. </p>

<p>Personally, I am not a fan of orange skin or blue tuxedos, and prefer to create saturation "not found in nature" using a more controlled selective method ... which is simply applying the saturation sponge brush when and where I want the effect. I do this frequently for fall wedding photography ... like the attached shot (which I recognize is NOT what you are after, but is a demonstration of selective saturation):</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I don't think it's a processing trick. I honestly think its shooting perfectly on camera. The only editing I see besides BW is the color bump. But her images retain the quality because I would guess she shoots in film at an aperture 2.0 or less. Or utilizes the zoom of the 70-200 at 2.8. Then I would assume she slightly over exposes.<br>

Otto- I looked at your one image and I think it's your usage of light. See how the hair is blocking their faces of light? What aperture did you use for that image? What type of post-processing?</p>

<p>According to her website, she shoots with Nikon digital cameras. Most of the images definitely have some sort of post-processing, as Marc pointed out the tuxes are blue! If I were to take a guess at lenses I might first think primes... but then again the Nikon 24-70 is a Rock Star comparable to most primes in terms of sharpness and color. Although I imagine she had the 70-200 as well!</p>

<p>Ya to be honest, she's a really good shooter. I'm just going to agree with missy kay, you can tell her apertures are dead on, images are super sharp, she prob has a great lens selection.</p>

<p>Take a look at the 9th image....she has an image with the sun and a blue sky. IMO, this is the way it should be done and is the result of careful exposure and one of the very few times that the effect is nicely done and really works.</p>

<p>It is hard to determine exactly what you mean, Otto, with only one image of yours to go by. That particular image seems to lack a bit of dynamic range, and that might be one thing you're seeing in the photographer's work. Most of the images seem to be exposed correctly, if a bit over (as is trendy now), and as for the saturation, I am just seeing a bump in saturation, although the skin seems to me to be too magenta and the shadows blue (as Marc points out), which is a consequence of setting the white balance toward tungsten when it is more daylight white balance. This seems to be trendy now, and not something I particularly find attractive.</p>

<p>I don't think the effect Otto is talking about is due to lenses or selective focus.</p>

<p>I liked the color, but not her pictures! I cannot believe what she chose to show, especially the first ones.</p>

 

<p>Marc! I really like what you did to the picture! Very nice job!</p>

<p>If you like these images, then I believe the key lies in:<br>

1) A ton of shadow lifting (shadow/highlight tool)<br>

2) Boosting contrast after shadow pull<br>

3) Messy saturation<br>

4) Shooting shallow DOF<br>

That's about it really. Some nice simple compositions but nothing really advanced at all on the processing side of things.<br>

A lot of processors could achieve this look and do so on a selective basis, but most wouldn't want to do it this much. Personally i don't like anything here in terms of processing but do like some of the compositions.</p>

<p>To be honest I am still confused a little bit...:)<br>

I can see that her exposure is very accurate but there is something there which makes her images very nice to look at...<br>

Somebody had mentioned using film cameras with superb lenses...it makes me think. Is there anybody out who still shoots in film and could add her/his opinion to this thread?</p>

 

<p>Otto--you can look at a ton of previous posts about using film on this forum. There was one just recently. I don't think these images are with film, although if you want to get an idea of what film looks like, particularly using the trendy overexposure technique, look up Jose Villa.</p>

<p>People have given their best guesses, but without further identification of what, exactly, you like about the images, beyond, "makes her images very nice to look at...", it will be difficult to clear up your confusion. Back to your original question--I don't think it is the camera or lenses (you don't appear to be talking about selective focus or shallow DOF). Camera settings only for correct general exposure of the scene. It isn't the lighting, and it is mostly the post processing.</p>

<p><em>It isn't the lighting, and it is mostly the post processing.</em><br>

Completely disagree! It looks like very little post processing is done besides the color bump. I think it's shooting right on camera with the right lenses. And in her other posts she does say she uses film. A ha!</p>

I agree with Nadine. Can you pick a specific photo or bunch of photos and twell us what it is about it/them in particular? There is a plethora of ways to achieve these various looks. It must start with a good image. Generally speaking, they seem to have been shot at wide aperture (hence shallow DOF) which can really help the subject 'pop.' However, they are a tad over-sharpened IMO.

<p>i don't see what's so special about her style..they look pretty normal images to me.</p>

<p>too many people these days depend on bought actions rather than try to understand what exactly are the actions doing to the images...</p>

<p>a bit of a color bump/curve tweaking and contrast changes should do the job. those images are fairly normal looking like i said.</p>

<p>Looks like a bit of in camera correction plus post processing treatment to me.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I think the photos have indeed been processed a bit and sharpened as well. I use sharpening myself a fair amount as I like the results, so I tend to recognize it and it's affects on the image overall when it's been done. There is also selective blurring in places that there wouldn't normally be with just a shallow DOF (for instance number 5 - the portrait of the Bride where her eyes/face are sharp, neck area is blurred yet the dress is again sharp is a potential post-process.)</p>

<p>I agree with Theresa that I'm not a huge fan of her style actually! For instance number 4 doesn't have any real focus (the flower ideally but it takes awhile for the eye to follow to it) and the white balance is pretty heavily off and very overly yellow, perhaps she edited that way or left it that way - either way I don't like it very much.</p>

<p>I agree with David on the excellent exposure of 9, however.</p>

<p>3,5,9,12,17,18 & 25 are the only ones I myself would post if they were my photos personally. The others look a bit random although nothing is wrong with them exactly. She may well shoot with film too, as Missy states - as there is heavy grain in the last image that eludes to the use of film or it may just be a post processing filter. It reminded me of Neil Ambrose's work slightly, except not as well composed as his images make the most of the available light.</p>

<p>Her overall style however, reminds me very much of one of my favorite photographers at the moment - Jasmine Star. She is easily found via google by typing in Jasmine Star Blog. Jasmine is very open with how she got where she is today - she posts FAQ's about everything from which camera she is using to her entire lens collection, metering tips, off camera set-ups - the works! So if this style is something you want to emulate I think you'll find it rather easy with the help of Mrs. Star!</p>

<p>Best of luck Otto - and remember to make your own way and not to just copy someone else's look! :)</p>

 

<p>Missy--I believe the website says, "Nikon film <em>and digital</em> cameras". I still don't think most of the images shown are from film, but I could be wrong.</p>

<p>In any case, I pretty much followed Michael Church's list on shots below, plus the white balance shift toward tungsten--you end up with blue tuxes. I upped Clarity and Vibrance. I also don't think the last shot has 'grain'--it looks like the image was brought up in exposure. Film doesn't give 'bands' of mottled areas--but again, I could be wrong. In any case, if it was shot on film, the resulting digital scans were manipulated further.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Nadine,</p>

<p>I only looked at the last image briefly - so I am happy to bow down to your superior knowledge on what may or may not be film. They looked digital to me, except the potential on the last image. So, if you say it isn't the right sort of 'grain' then I will happily agree.</p>

<p>I think there are a number of things that make the images look the way they do. The lighting, the selective DOF and the post processing. Here is something I did back in the summer.</p><div></div>

<p>Apart from the highlights being blown to hell in most of her pictures I can't honestly see and sort of processing "tricks" here. They're sharp with nice bokeh and most of that will be down to decent lenses and knowing how to use them. No disrespect to Julie Harris but, <strong>technically</strong>, I don't see anything out of the ordinary here. Other than that, her work is good and I am sure her clients are well pleased.</p>

<p>Dawn--no bowing down necessary. Your guess is as good as mine. Just doesn't look like film grain--to <strong>me</strong>. In any case, I still would like Otto to expand on what, exactly, he is talking about. So far, I have "vivid colors" and "lots of detail in the pictures".</p>