WHAT KIND OF PRO TECHNIQUE IS THIS?

[jack_lord1]

<p>Hi everyone i'm just trying to figure out what kind of post processing is involved to reach effects like the ones in these photographs.<br>

Not as much to replicate it but to reach such a spontaneous feeling of the results. It seems saturation/desaturaion process or something else?<br>

Thank you!<br>

<b>Per the photo.net Terms of Use, do not post photos that are not yours.</b></p>

[brian_ellis19]

<p>Maybe there's more going on than I realize but to me they look like underexposed photographs in which a wide aperture has been used to reduce depth of field and in which saturation and contrast have been reduced.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>I agree with Brian, except, to me, it looks like contrast has been increased rather than decreased. It's also possible that the shots were modified by reducing levels (in photoshopese) to make them appear underexposed. In other words, no particular magic in the processes, just considerable skill in their application...</p>

[WJT]

<p><strong>To the Forum Moderator: Emre</strong>, you might as well just delete this thread because without the image for reference what good is it? Maybe Jack could post a link to the image. That would be okay, no?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I agree Walter, but why do some of our registered people who have been here for a long time, not get the point about posting other people's images and just post the damn link to start with?</p>

<p>Furthermore, I'm betting that this may be another "drive-by" posting by someone who never checks back anyway -- that seems to be the norm for people who haven't figured out how to link to something.....</p>

<p>Give a couple days, then please, moderator, just nix it.</p>

<p>Of course this may be an opportunity for jokes about an "all white" image, I guess somebody's got to have fun :)</p>

[jack_lord1]

<p>Well, can't really understand why they took the images off. I just linked the URL addressess of the actual photos on the owner's websites, not uploaded anything.</p>

<p>Anyway i'll just post the URL's ...<br>

http://www.robertoboccaccino.it/files/gimgs/2_-1-3.jpg<br>

http://www.robertoboccaccino.it/files/gimgs/2_017_v2.jpg<br>

http://www.robertoboccaccino.it/files/gimgs/2_002_v2.jpg</p>

<p>Thanks everyone! :D</p>

 

[jack_lord1]

<p>Thank you guys for the answers.. it really seems some levels twitching maybe.I'd really like to understand the mistery above it all :D</p>

<p>As to the guys above, i've posted the URL from the ACTUAL images, didn't took anything from there to here. Which would have been an appropriation of copyrighted material obviously...<br /> It really eludes my mind why you can paste the URL's but can't use the same ones to show the image... pretty strange IMHO :D</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>It really eludes my mind why you can paste the URL's but can't use the same ones to show the image... pretty strange IMHO :D</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your opinion isn't relevant here. Hotlinking is a legal grey area and photo.net doesn't want to spend resources on that. In addition, hotlinking results in problems beyond the legal issues. Either you can post in accordance with the rules or you can not post, those are the choices.</p>

[WJT]

<p>Thanks <strong>Jack</strong> for taking the time to revist this thread and post the URL's of the images..I'm glad Mr Weinberg lost all his "bets". I am always on the lookout for new techniques. Regards.</p>

[jack_lord1]

<p>@ Jeff Spirer<br /> Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I wouldn't be as confident as you are in weighing the validity of a mere question but thanks. That what i'll do.</p>

<p>@ Walter<br /> LOL ;)</p>

[plavchak]

<p>Little rude and uncalled for Jeff, but thats my opinion, so I'm sure it's not relevant</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I too, am glad that my bets were wrong. Beer for everyone down at PK's, if I could.<br>

I'd still say not coming back is the "norm" here, all the same.<br>

I have to confess, that as one of "America's most beloved photographers", the other day wasn't a bright spot for me. I might even have been a teensy, un peu, overbearing. As regulars here can testify, this is .. well, never mind, on second thought.</p>

[jim r]

<p>Jack/Mike,<br>

Per the original post looks like low-light digital to me.<br>

And, not to be critical but you guys need to learn what the symbols (in this case the "camera") next to peoples names mean.<br>

Some people have real jobs even in internet-land.<br>

Happy Trails... </p>

[jack_lord1]

<p>@ Mike<br>

LOL! :)<br>

@Jim,<br>

for low-light digital you simply mean photography taken in low light or is there a particular technique you refer to that i'm not aware of (pretty much possible :) . <br>

Yeah, one thing i hate about digital photography is that makes me transcend the actual conditions of the enviroment i shoot in. I'd just want to rely on post prod.<br>

Thanks!<br>

ps.<br>

Well, not that something changes, but that camera symbols means just Moderator which reads: "Dedicated volunteers responsible for one or more of the forum areas on the site". As far as i know moderators should sedate the rude comments not the other way round.<br>

But who cares, i thanked him anyway for the help! :)</p>

[papasan]

<p>Jack,<br>

it looks likes the photos were partly desaturated and in some case (the second shot) some colors (red) were selectively re-saturated to achieve this effect. If you want to achieve similar results, duplicate your background layer, then de-saturate the copy and adjust opacity until some of the colors return to your taste. Add an adjustment curve and increase contrast (S curve) to your liking. You can also add layer masks to the desaturated layer to reveal more or less areas from the original layer.</p>

[plavchak]

<p>Jim R,<br>

I'm well aware of what the "little camera" means next to the name. My post still stands. If Jeff wants to be rude with posters, then maybe he should find a new hobby.</p>

[jack_lord1]

<p>Thanks Michael!<br /> I tried your "receipt" and it seems the best option so far!<br /> I'll try and master the technique, i fine one i think.</p>

<p>All the best and thanks again!<br /> JL.</p>