How to produce this look? Post processing?

[dawn_tyler]

<p>Hi John -</p>

<p>I never actually said the bridal portrait was definitely a selective blur. I said it was a possible edit, as I know there are also ways to achieve this look without it. But I find most tend to do it as an after thought and as I couldn't prove it either way I stated it as a potential post process. If you have taken that much time to investigate it I will tip my hat to you and assume that you are correct indeed.</p>

<p>Everyone is entitled to speculate as to how the look was achieved. Unless Mrs. Harris replies personally we're not actually going to know for sure all we can do is guess - even as educated a guess that may be. I think it's up to Otto which advice he takes on, which technique's he tries and what works for him. I don't think anything is achieved by arguing with each other about what we think was or wasn't done. You state your opinion and you leave Otto to figure the rest out as he is the one that posted the question. But it's of course up to everyone to do what they wish in this scenario.</p>

<p>I happen to respect your photography, and Missy's, and I am certain Julie Harris does a job that her client's love. And at the end of the day, that is what is important. Roger Porter's reply makes me chuckle. Good luck, Otto! :)</p>

[dan_south]

<p>ETTR (Exposing to the Right of the Histogram) does not result in blown out skies. If this example had followed ETTR guidelines strictly the woman would have been UNDER-exposed in order to keep the bright sky from overloading the sensor. This image would have to have been LIGHTENED in post-processing, not darkened, if the hightlights had been preserved.</p>

[marekd]

<p>Otto,<br>

It's shooting RAW with prime lenses opened wide. I don't see any special editing besides little fiddling with white balance, contrast, etc...<br>

I guess it could be something else, but if you shoot RAW and use prime lenses that's what you will get.<br>

Cheers!</p>

[picturesque]

<p>David S.--this is why we have such a huge range of opinions in this thread--Otto has not really defined what he is talking about, so each person who looks at Ms. Harris' work makes an assumption formed by his or her own views.</p>

<p>Many people fall immediately upon good lenses shot wide open. However, Otto has said nothing about subjects 'popping', etc. His comments are about vivid colors and lots of detail in the images. I would guess the thread could go on forever arguing this and that--what is meant by 'detail', for instance--if no other information is given.</p>

<p>Once again, Otto, would you please be more descriptive about what you like about Ms. Harris' work? Using some examples from the images shown to support your statements.</p>

<p>Also, a link to some other of your images, Otto, would also help.</p>

[roman_thorn1]

<p>Just my 2 cents. Sorry but I don't see it. Not to say that her work is bad, average to me though. Maybe if you posted more of your work for comparison the peaple here could give you a better answer. By the way, that oversaturated look to me is not at all attractive.</p>

[kiva]

<p>I kept thinking it might be interesting to find out what Julie Harris might want us to know. </p>

<p>Julie has posted her response on her blog:</p>

<p><strong>"I read the forum posts and have posted a response on my blog. Please feel free to share a link to my blog post on photo.net if you'd like. </strong> <br /> <br /> http://www.julieharrisphotography.com/blog/2009/12/dear-otto-harring-and-paul-mongan-and-anybody-else-whom-ive-neglected-to-get-back-to-some-secrets-to-my-work/<br /> <br /> <strong>Thanks!<br /> <br /> Julie"</strong></p>

<p>********************</p>

<p>This may limit the guesswork and speculation (as fun as it's been).<br>

Thanks for helping out Julie!</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Except we still don't know what Otto sees in her work. Ms. Harris' generous answers may or may not have answered his questions.</p>

<p>I am also still interested in seeing his work, so we have a better idea what he is talking about.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Wow, she wrote that beautifully and with eloquence, her work is "honest" and I'm glad I'm not the only one who likes JPEGs. Good read!, maybe one of the best.</p>

[ofey_kalakar]

<p>If it is from Nikon cameras, then using ultra wide angles, fast primes like the 50 or 85 f1.4, older AiS lenses have similar color saturations. As an example the following shot was done with a 50 f1.2 AiS on a D300 at f1.2. </p><div></div>

[shawnee_pedraza]

<p>It looks like cuves to me :) Her PP seems very simple and nice! Play with curves in PS.. and her pictures are "creamy" which can be done with actions.<br>

If you play with the contrast sliders just a bit you can get more detail as well.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>It isn't the lenses, there isn't enough difference especially given variations in post-processing. However, moving the black point does exactly what has been noticed in terms of the color, it always makes images appear more saturated. Try it out and you'll see.</p>

[otto_haring]

<p>Here is the link for the solution :):):) <a href="http://www.julieharrisphotography.com/blog/2009/12/dear-otto-harring-and-paul-mongan-and-anybody-else-whom-ive-neglected-to-get-back-to-some-secrets-to-my-work/" target="_blank">http://www.julieharrisphotography.com/blog/2009/12/dear-otto-harring-and-paul-mongan-and-anybody-else-whom-ive-neglected-to-get-back-to-some-secrets-to-my-work/ </a><br>

I hope that everybody took away something positive from this thread. Thank you Julia! <br>

Viva in peace!<br>

Otto Haring</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Jeff is right bout the black point, but I wonder if she's also is mixing techniques so as to boost some things and back off others in terms of saturation. I'd say, and it's just my opinion, that she is very good with the camera, understands and is facile with DOF and good with lighting, and knows how to use light for effect in a photo. I think she gets what she wants starting in camera and following through processing to the final image. <br /> I would also say that none of the examples shown in this thread, at least to me, really look like her work. <br /> I would try using black point, and then maybe coming back with the history brush so you can push areas in saturation and pull other areas back more neutral. Also curves etc. Her photos have that nice quality of not looking over worked, the effect seems to be done simply and effectively. In other words, I like it.<br /> And to add, I agree with Nadine, that most of the shots look like film because even with the push in saturation, there's a very film like edge quality to most of these.</p>

<p>Lastly, my remarks are primarily for the photos on the top of her site, where the images roll through the categories. Not so much for the "blog" photos.</p>

[missy_kay]

<p>wow it's great she responded to this thread. I thought this quote on her blog was a little weird because it's something I didn't notice when going through her images...<br>

" My work is often out of focus and sometimes my compositions are completely unorthodox."</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>I realize that this thread is about her processing....pre, during, or post...but what I found even more commendable while looking at her pics on her blog, was her timing. The facial expressions and body postions she has caught are the real excellence in her work. I'm very impressed with that aspect....I must say.</p>

[josephwalsh]

<p>IMO, you are right, Thomas.<br>

Note that the "civilians" on her board (AKA "paying customers") feel the same and are a bit perplexed by some of the techno obsessives on Photo.net.<br>

The LEAST important part of her success lies in PostProcessing.</p>

[david_klaffenbach]

<p>Wonderful answer Julie!</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Barry--it must have been someone else who said Ms. Harris' images look like film. I don't think they look like film, generally.</p>

<p>It is very generous of Ms. Harris to answer so simply and honestly. I was interested to see that almost everyone was right about one aspect or the other about how she handles her files. However, I don't think the people who posted in this thread were overly critical of her work, and it was only natural to focus on the technical, since that was what the OP was asking about. As I said earlier in the thread, we are not being asked to judge her work, and were being asked about post processing, or at the very least, use of lenses--technical stuff.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>It looks like NIKs color effects pro - glamour glow or skylight filter in many of the shots. Probably some combinations but certainly some post work is giving those results. That and some fast wide angle lenses.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em>(ASIDE:)</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>"i am a nikon D700 shooter and i can tell you that I oftenly shoot jpeg, i use 35 f/2, 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 or micro 105, </em><strong><em>and this is the way they look straight out of the camera. [</em></strong>and if you use the wonderfull primes i described earlier, especially at wide apertures, that is what you are going to get.]”<strong><em> </em></strong><br>

<em>RESPONSE: </em>"BOOYAH! Where's William Wallace!"<br>

</p>

<p >Hello Missy, Dawn, Michael C, John D . . . (and others I might have missed . . .) </p>

<p > </p>

<p >When I read Missy's quote and her comment, I had to look up what "Booyah” meant, as it is not used in common vernacular, down here. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I understand it means “Yes - we scored a goal” and it is usually used as a taunt to the opposing team.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So if my understanding is correct, Missy Kay, when making this comment was alluding to previous threads where I have variously critiqued her images and commented upon using fast lenses, wide open.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I chuckled when I read Missy’s comment as I am used to being taunted in good humour. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I think Missy’s comment was misinterpreted and the thread went somewhat of course, because of that misinterpretation by some folk. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >*** </p>

<p > </p>

<p >To be clear: I have previously stated on the record, here, that my Photoshop Skills are not in the same league as many of my Photonet Colleagues. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >To mention one person only (as an example), Marc Williams has more skill and experience than I in Digital Post Production. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I previously did not need to have Photoshop skills, now I do, so I am learning and putting a lot of effort into that learning.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >No one has all the answers to everything. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >There are many ways to indentify solid answers, IMO. I have always tended to trust people who are knowledgeable enough to say “I don’t know, but I will try to find out”.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >*** </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I was on holidays, but I had an email tag on this thread, and I have now read all the posts previous to the thread being edited.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I unreservedly support Nadine Ohara actions as Moderator – it is not a job I envy. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >It was a shame the thread went askew – perhaps only over (yet again) the misinterpretation of what I read as a little intellectual humour . . . which if I am correct was directed at me alone, and taken by me with a big smile. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Happy New Year</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

[jonj]

<p>Otto I know what you are saying there is a wedding photographer Stacy Cross look at her work the same deal with the color. I did ask her and she told me that all of her procesing was sub-contracted out.<br>

I think it is her post processing that does achieve this look and it on average cost $2-$3 per photo to have a professional do this for you I know I have done the same searching you have.<br>

You can tell they are processed by the pinks in the one girls dress they start to bleed out of the bounderies of her clothing. Also I think she is over exposing a stop or more and uses a high end wide angle.<br>

Good Luck</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>@Nadine...DOH you are right, I misread, you said you DIDN'T think most were film...my bad. However, to me, in the first set (not the blog photos but the slide type presentation at the top) look more film like to me, primarily because of the edges on several of the photos, but that could be created other ways as well. </p>

[jonj]

<p>Otto,<br>

I was thinking about this some more and everyone here who is saying it's just film or lenses or proper exposure is way off course. I want all of those people to look at some of the best photojournalist and every White House photographer and you will see that their images don't have this kind of color and vibrance. <br>

The reason is Photojournalist as a whole do not post process thier images beyond cropping. I have freelanced for 6 years and all the news papers require that you are not allowed to manipulate your images. Go to world press photo and look over those photos they are the best in the world and don't even come close to looking like the wedding photos in question.</p>

[josephwalsh]

<p>"it was only natural to focus on the technical, since that was what the OP was asking about."<br>

Well, gotta disagree with you here, Nadine. (probably for the first time :-)<br>

The OP asked this question:"How to Produce this look? Post Processing?"<br>

The short and correct answer is: "No."<br>

Admittedly, this is a bit of a bugaboo for me. While teaching photography for 30 years I have tried to convince students that you can't become a good photographer with your Master Card. There is no lens, camera, computer program, filter, secret recipe or plug-in program that will work.<br>

It's up to you... mind, heart, passion and eyes.</p>

<h1></h1>

<p> </p>

[picturesque]

<p>Joe--OK, we agree to disagree. Otto does ask "How to Produce this Look", but then goes on about color, and asks whether it is the camera, the camera settings, lighting or post processing--all technical. Also, lots of "detail in the pictures". No mention of her ability to capture expressions and timing, or of subjects popping or selective focus. Since he is obviously not interested in telling us what, exactly, he saw in the images, we'll never know.</p>