Wishing I Could Achieve This Look Too

[mike_yazzy]

Hello,

 

More and more photographers are using this technique and I would truly like to

know how this images are made and manipulated. Absolutly stunning!

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4972091

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4974194

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4967496

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3189643

 

This question of how to achieve this "look" has been discussed before in other

topics, but I often find myself pulled in different directions after each one.

Some say it's merging to high dynamic range, others say that the dodge and

burn tools must be used used, still, others say its all about blending layers

and adjusting levels and curves. For all I know, it's a combination of all of

thoses things and more! Anyways, could the photographers who understand how to

create these spectacular images share their expertise in full detail? I mean

explaining each step in photoshop that they took to get to the final result.

Every time I see a shot with that "look" I am envious becuase no matter how

hard I try to duplicate it, my attempts are futile. If photoshop could do

nothing more than create that look, I would still pay the hefty price, I want

to know that bad! Thanks a bunch.

[emre]

That is like looking at a Rembrandt and asking how he did it. He just took his brush and painted! All it takes is some practice. There are many ways of getting there; you have to strike out your own. I see you have not uploaded any pictures. Maybe you should learn Photoshop's tools one at a time. First Levels, then Curves, then Layer Masks, then Blending Modes, for example. Learn to walk before you try to fly.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Frankly I think this is a stunningly and spectacularly ugly and dehumanizing look. After

seeing it at least a thousand times I'm throughly sick of this comic book cliche.

[tom_swanson]

Search for a Dragan action over at atncentral. I gotta say, tho, I think the look has played.

[don_e]

It's....

 

--

 

Don E

[steve_bingham]

The Dragan action, and variations, is a very long and complicated action. The action simply combines MANY PS steps (with MANY stops along the way for adjustments). The images, were at first, very interesting. They then became pretty trite. It is however, fun to play with. PS CS or PS CS2 both can run the action. I am not sure about other software.

[Uhooru]

I pretty much totally agree with Ellis. Too me its a technique driven approach to a

photograph, its overly distorted, looks more like a graphic than a photoagraph, has been

overdone, both in its application and its adherance. But if you like it, google the dragan (is

that the right spelling?) Study of the photoshop techniques of how this is done could in itself

be a great learning tool, but i would look to be toning it way down....Just my opinion.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Try playing with Apply Image with blue channel as Source and

start out with Hard Light blend mode choosing others to suit. You

might have to lighten your image or apply contrast before using

this tool or start out by sepia toning a copy of the image and

place it on a layer.

 

I happened upon Apply Image a few days ago and accidently got

that desaturated high contrast dead bluish look as seen in

Saving Private Ryan.

 

Also apply USM with a setting of 20 Amount and 80 Radius to get

a contrasty sharp look and adjust to taste.

 

There are so many tools at your disposal and I know what I've

offered isn't going to get exact results but at least it can get you

started on a variation of your own and a better understanding of

how Photoshop affects pixels.

 

I have no idea how they did that image. But I had fun playing

around trying to find out for myself without someone giving me a

tutorial on their own creation. You need to play with all of

Photoshops tools and filters and feel your way through it.

[ronald_moravec1]

It is ugly. Why bother?

 

I suspect curves were used to raise midtone contrast. In some the color saturation and/or contrast was raised.

[edgar_njari]

You have to understand that not everyone finds the same things pretty.

Some people find soft light glamour portraits ugly, some people find colorfull landscapes ugly etc.

[matt_needham]

Start by learning about "local contrast".

[paul -]

<a href="http://www.adidap.com/2006/09/12/photoshop-tutorial-dragan-style-in-video/">http://www.adidap.com/2006/09/12/photoshop-tutorial-dragan-style-in-video/</a><P>Narrated in Polish(?), but you can follow the technique pretty well by watching the video closely.

[digitmstr]

>>I am envious becuase no matter how hard I try to duplicate it, my attempts are futile. <<

 

The funny thing is that all the pictures are from different photographers and they ALL look the SAME!

 

So, now...you will be one more of the same...if indeed you succeed in achieving "this look".

[mike_yazzy]

Thanks to all that posted. I am new to the digital world as I have just converted from film no less than 2 months ago. While shooting film, I felt like I had a better understanding of the techniques in the darkroom which alowed me to develop and print wonderful shots. The reason for the switch is so I can share my work more easily with others to see, but I feel like since I have such a poor concept of Photoshop, my images don't have the fine tuning that others have. Which is why I haven't even posted any images.

 

I'm reading a book right now called Photoshop one on one, and it is a beginner level book that is helping me with how to work the program. Like many of you said, it just takes practice and some experimentation. So, thanks again for your advice.

[edgar_njari]

The reason why it looks like a painting is because this technique does to the tones what a painter usually does when painting:

 

A painting usually has flatened out color areas boardered by higher contrast transitions. It's not the same as when you increase contrast to a photo because you still have those photo gradations.

The trick to make a photo look more like your typical painted mixeillustration is to increase local contrast between surfaces, and flatten out single color surfaces. In other words reduce contrast on evenly lit areas, while increasing it on transitional areas.

That's exactly what most painters do, due to the limitations of the medium itself. Paintings often have jumpy gradations, which in combination with usually high saturation, makes them look so eye catching in the first place compared to a regular photo.

 

If you are really an expert, it can even be done with carefull and complex lighting

[jtk]

"Frankly I think this is a stunningly and spectacularly ugly and dehumanizing look. After seeing it at least a thousand times I'm throughly sick of this comic book cliche." EV

 

I don't react as strongly as Ellis, but even in the "best" hands it reduces the subjects to character actors, "types."

 

As Ellis said, its "dehumanizing." It prevents us from meeting the subjects as equals, formerly a primary photo value.

 

It's just a "look," no longer a photograph. But that's OK... it's OK for some people to paint duck decoys for display on shelves, rather than dealing with mortality, blood, feathers.