How to produce this look? Post processing?

[john_deerfield]

<p>To those suggesting that the images are moderately or heavily post-processed, according to the photographer in question, she herself says that she doesn't spend too much time (as little as possible actually). And I believe her. <em>However</em>, she also shoot JPEG (and lets not get started on that) in camera and the JPEG image <strong><em>IS</em></strong> a processed image. It's just processed by the camera. And todays camera's have a host of in-camera processing abilities. From saturation, contrast, sharpness, and more. Even the AWB on the Nikon can be set to a more cooler or warmer AWB. I haven't looked in awhile because I shoot Raw but I know there were other discussions on different in-camera "recipes" for post-processing the file. </p>

[curtis_wallis]

<p>Funny how much talk about what post processing someone uses then she says none. I have worked with many photographers. I have noticed when is come to natural light everyone seems to look for something just a little different. Each haveing different quiality of light. I think this plays into what may look like a post process. As well as each quaility difference seem to change differently with a small amount of post process. Even a slight curve or level.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>John makes a good point. Perhaps Otto needs to know how the in camera jpeg controls on Ms. Harris' camera are set. Not to mention the further processing pushing black point and lifting shadows. You cannot get open shadows in bright sun conditions, even overexposing by a couple of stops (shadow exposure) and all subject detail is in the shade, unless you have a reflector or use fill flash. Most bright sun/shadow contrast spans 4 stops or more. Even backlit, if you exposed exactly for the shadow side face, for instance, everything else will be more or less blown out, not just moderately blown out, as in the samples.</p>

[lucia]

<p>I have shot alongside Julie - not only she is one of the most talented photographers one has the pleasure of working with, but she is also incredibly gracious and kind - she didn't have to disclose her process or "secrets" but that's just what giving person she is - she has shared what she reveals in her blog response with me without even asking, and I've seen her work right out of the camera, I can assure you she IS THAT TALENTED and that is exactly what she does - I guess it's flattering that people spend so much time trying to figure out what she does post-production to "make her images look that way", but her photography is so stunning because Julie is a photographer first, not a digital artist and not a photoshop guru. This used to be a community that supported each other's successes, what happened? I say Congratulations Julie, YOU are the real deal!</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Lucia--no one here has been overly critical of Julie (re read the thread), particularly of her artistic work, and I agree--she has been very gracious and honest, something which I admire completely.</p>

<p>As I said above, the fact that her processing or lack of, has been discussed here is because Otto asked his question and people are attempting to answer it.</p>

[lucia]

<p>Thank you Nadine - I re-read the thread to see what "got" me, and I think it's because in a thread where Otto admired someone's work, somebody else had to comment "I liked the color, but not her pictures! I cannot believe what she chose to show, especially the first ones." This is not about her processing or lack thereof - this is unprofessional and uncalled for. But Julie's grace shows through in her response. She doesn't need defending, her work speaks for herself.</p>

[dawn_tyler]

<p>I enjoyed the blog post, it was nice for the professional with the actual answers to reply as we were all just guessing our little hearts out but as we weren't the one behind the lens or the mouse we couldn't really be certain.</p>

<p>I think the reaction has gotten a bit out of hand from the fans and/or supporters because I don't think anyone has been overly harsh in their guesses or opinions. We are all photographers, and we won't all be in love with the same artwork all at the same time. Although we're admirers of art like anyone else - we're rather close to the subject matter and it makes it less all-encompassing and romantic in a sense. A client or a fan sees an image and just thinks "Wow." We see an image and may think "Wow" as well, but then we have the technical aspect behind it too in our minds.</p>

<p>I found the post genuine, albeit confusing. At one point she says she very firmly doesn't use Photoshop or any Kubota actions. Then she says she might use Magic Sharp (which is the same action I myself tend to use and noticed it's effects in some of the pictures) occasionally - but at the end of the day no one is asking her to justify or prove the way she does things or questioning the purity of her work. I certainly wasn't. She is an artist and free to do what she pleases how she pleases. Otto was just asking the how, not the why and I think that's been taken out of context. Just because a few of us (like Theresa or me) we'ren't blown away with some of the shots - doesn't mean that some weren't lovely too and most of us said that. I pointed out the ones I thought were particularly nice, especially 9.</p>

<p>But others, if you looked at more of her work, for instance the brides in their undies (I do boudoir shoots myself so I am not put off by any form of nudity) but I just don't take pictures of brides in their undies and all that I've come across don't want that either. She obviously finds brides who do and that's fantastic - but I found it awkward or disjointing for the overall elegance of a bridal day in my personal (and only personal) taste. Also there was a picture of a dog about to use the bathroom on the lawn - whilst quirky and fun I just don't find them appealing however well shot they are. But she and her clients do and that's yet again, what truly counts.</p>

<p>A question was asked, several of us gave it our best guess and were correct or incorrect but that doesn't take away anything from the artist in question. Every single artist in the world has fans and critics alike (Dali? Picasso? Van Gogh? Damien Hirst? Jeff Ascough? Jasmine Star?) and that is why there is variation in art and style - because we all have personal taste and we want that photographer or artist we love to express that for us.</p>

<p>It's just as unreasonable to blast people for not being totally enamored with one artists work, as it would be if we had totally ripped Mrs. Harris apart. Which we didn't. And our comments don't take anything away from her - she makes a very good living from her art and has a very loyal fan and client base. She seems a nice person, and I don't think anyone here wishes her anything less than all the continued success in the world.</p>

<p>And with that, Happy New Year!</p>

[maaac]

<p>HI Otto,</p>

<p>Can you send her an email and ask her directly? It makes sense if you like her style.</p>

[photom]

<p>Very interesting blog here. I also enjoyed the information passed on by Julie Harris.</p>

<p>She uses mostly JPEG but does not say which JPEG in camera setting she uses. Almost all pro or semi pro DSLRs have color saturation, color style, contrast, sharpness, NR, etc. options that you must select for the camera to process the JPEG file. She says she adds no saturation to the photos in post processing, however, the camera may be adding a lot to get to the JPEG depending on the options selected.</p>

<p>She then goes on to talk about the simple but important post processing that she does do in Lightroom to get the final look she wants.</p>

<p>A lot of skill (but still basic fundamental photography) that she applies by using narrow DOF, proper focus, balancing the backlighting, and of course careful attention to what is the emphasis of the shot.</p>

<p>Very nice job Julie and thanks for sharing.!</p>

[photom]

<blockquote>

<p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=5233527">John Deerfield</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 29, 2009; 10:57 a.m.</p>

 

<p> ... A softbox, (a small softbox at that) from the distance it's being used offers no light softening whatsoever. The only thing it does is make the flash work harder. Soft lighting is achieved by creating a light source larger than your subject- hence bouncing a flash off a wall or ceiling. ...</p>

<p> </p>

 

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would disagree to some degree with this statement. A softbox is not going to weaken the flash power any more than bouncing off of a wall and ceiling corner 10 feet behind the camera. It will however loss the original intent of a softbox of having shaped light by being too far away. It will start to look more like a shoot through umbrella which might be OK.</p>

[g.e._masana]

<p>She writes: "I shoot jpeg... I attribute my color quality to the jpeg."<br /> <br /> So that you know, she likely then has her camera set on sRGB color space in creating those JPGs, which is the smallest color space available and does not yield the wide gamut of colors available in digital capture. So, I'm deducing that many of the colors in her shots are of the sRGB closest match equivalent kind, which may account for some of the color shift.<br /> <br /> Also, it doesn't look like she does any kind of white balancing/color correction in post which could help to correct that, so that probably contributes to the coloring as well, for example, where most everyone's skin tones are a bit too magenta. Or in the one where the groom's neck is dark orange and the bride's face has a magenta cast.<br /> <br /> Digital is a relatively new thing for wedding photographers and there are these little nuances to it that are often overlooked or not considered or given any priority. Yet, commercial photographers seem to have it nailed down I guess because to get the corporate clients spending millions on advertising campaigns in print publications and what not, you'd better be highly proficient and get those skin tones looking good!</p>