jennifer_stinsman Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 <p>Trying to reproduce a grainy/high contrast/edgy look for a shot for a client. I'm NOT a photographer, but a web designer who dabbles in photography (trying to save the client some bucks), so I am a newbie who shoots with homemade lighting and reflectors. I am trying to get the look similar to the stock shots below...but a little darker (not so white). The subject will be shot at the same range, indoors, low light with no flash, but not sure if I need to "push the film" or what to get this look. The image will be of an infant crawling (posterior shown only) on a white shag rug with a brown table in the background. The last photo (baby in chair, I took). The only thing that's missing is the heavier grain and slight blurring. I'm using an Olympus OM-1 with a 50mm F2 lense and portra 400 vc film. Any thoughts? <img src=http://www.half-past.com/scarlett/grain.jpg> <img src=http://www.half-past.com/scarlett/grainy1.jpg> <img src=http://www.half-past.com/scarlett/grains.jpg> </p> This is a photo taken in the same conditions/room with similar light sources: <img src=http://www.half-past.com/scarlett/box11.jpg> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aardvarko Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Thanks for telling us who took those pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffcallen Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 This is an interesting bunch. The middle two, and a severe crop of the third image would look quite good in a self-promo catalog for a photographer. There's a similar color pallette, a nice sense of intimacy and composition. You shouldn't be saving your client $$, you should consider becoming a baby stock photographer, and at the very least, make sure you license these images to the client only for the specific use. You don't want them using these images elsewhere or selling them without you getting paid, no matter how poor the client claims to be now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffcallen Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Oooops,. I didn';t read your post... you should be aware that you posted somebody else's images without permission, a rather unfortunate thing to do, and a copyright violation. I assume that all photos posted here are the work of the photorapher. The last image, with a crop is still interesting. I don't think you need to copy anyone's style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennifer_stinsman Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 Uhm, the top 3 photos are CLEARLY STOCK photography and I did CLEARLY state that. With that said, I have no idea who took them. They are quite obviously marked with the VEER watermark and have been made available for comp use for me as a designer. It is certainly NOT a copyright issue to use stock photography comps to ask a question..it IS an issue to use stock photography comps in a project without paying for it. Trust me, I exclusively use this company for my projects and they provide me with enough comp images to last a lifetime. With that said, does anyone have any advice for me OTHER than jumping down my throat? If it's that offensive, I can remove the first three images and simply ask for advice on the final image, which I personally took. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_l Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Hi Jennifer, I did the following modifications to your photo in photoshop. Contrast layer - decrease contrast. Duplicate layer, desaturate, set it to soft light and adjust opacity. Adjust hue/saturation to bend towards greenish cast. Duplicate and run gaussian blur, set that layer to softlight, and low opacity. Run grain filter, adjust opacity. A bit more tweaking with the above, and I came up with this. Hope it helps.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Jennifer, your understanding of copyright law is debatable, but what isn't debatable is that this website does not permit you to upload photos here that you do not own. At the bottom of every photo.net page is a link called "Terms of Use" -- please read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david cunningham Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 i think everyone's getting a bit testy here regarding jennifer's use of these photographs. they are clearly stock shots, she stated they are stock shots, she's not passing them off as her own, merely using them as an example of a style/technique she is trying to approach. isn't this a learning forum? how best to describe what effect you are trying to achieve than to show an example. if she used another person's photograph and claimed it was her's, throw the bum out. but she used a stock shot, acquired legally. stock photography is just that, stock photography to be used in situations where they are warranted (within the constraints of the purchase/rental agreement). seems to me no line has been crossed here. give the girl a break for crying out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_musselman Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Hi Jennifer. I think you have the basic knowledge necessary to reproduce the feel of these shots. Just try some 1600 film without flash and you will get this result. I think these were taken with something very similar to Fuji Press 1600, or Fuji Superia 1600 color negative film. Also, if you underexpose it a little it looses a lot of the shadow detail, so try some bracketing. I don't think you need to push the film, but If you have time, you can experiment. You can try a roll of ISO 800 film pushed to 1600 to see what that it looks like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennifer_stinsman Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 David: Thanks for sticking up for me. EVERY person on this board who has been trying to reproduce a technique has posted photos/images. Most that I've seen were from a publication, were clearly copyrighted and no one said a word. I tried to do the right thing by NOT cutting things froma magazine and getting something from a photo disk I owned. Thanks for not letting me get taken out to be shot with the dogs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennifer_stinsman Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 Tom: I'll try that. Thanks so much! -Jen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennifer_stinsman Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 Mark: I just wrote all of that down...it looks great! Every time I go into Photoshop and play (add noise, etc) my pics come out looking like they were part of a cheesy 1980's video! -Jen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._kaa Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Jennifer's use of stock images is clearly fair use, so tbe board police should take their medications and go search for another victim. I think the look she's trying to achieve is perfectly doable in Photoshop -- Mark's suggestions are a very good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 #1 - it's not necessarily 'fair use' under US law. #2 - it doesn't matter if ti is or not: the website photo.net does not permit it. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennifer_stinsman Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 There's 5 other violations on this section of the board ALONE available for you to go kevetch about. Go have a party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Is one of them your misspelling of 'kvetch'? Last time: photo.net does not permit you to upload photos that aren't yours without the permission of the authors. Provide a link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claudia__ Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 I was referring to uploads. since Jennifer wasn't a paid-up member, she shouldn't have been abke to inline-link photos ... as she did do here. ... which is permitted. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennifer_stinsman Posted February 24, 2005 Author Share Posted February 24, 2005 Z: Yes, "kevetch" was a deliberate retort for your earlier misspelling of "it." Beginning to wonder if you know anything about photography.. you certainly seem to be quite the expert in copyright law and spelling. -J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennifer_stinsman Posted February 24, 2005 Author Share Posted February 24, 2005 <p>Z:</p> <p> Oh, I get it. I was supposed to do this: </p> <a href="http://www.supportbonaire.org/images/Photo-Bonaire-Donkey-Baby-And-Mom-150.jpg"> Thanks Z </a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now