Color, sharpness and clarity

[martynas_kundrotas1]

<p>Hi, i'm sorry if this was poster before, but i couldn't find an exactly similar post. <em></em>Since i began shooting, i shot black and white, either i desaturated the images or later used monochrome film. Now that i'm shooting digital for assignments, i can't get away with grayscaling all of the images. It's mostly ok under artificial, colored light, since it doesn't really matter how correct the photos look, you just do them the way it pleases you. But it's a different story under natural lighting, i get weird color casts, muted colors and so on. I want to learn and understand how to get pictures like these <a href="http://www.jusufoto.lt/klientai/2010/zivile+arunas.html">http://www.jusufoto.lt/klientai/2010/zivile+arunas.html</a>. Is it mainly the editing? I understand the lenses are sharp and maybe he uses a camera with better noise control, but what else? Everything is so sharp, clear and the colors are bright. How do you get something like this? I understand that lighting is the essence of photography, but i never ever get these kind of colors under overcast days for example. By the way i'm using a Nikon D80 + Nikkor 50mm 1.8f + Tokina 12-24 f4. Thanks</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>I'll advise you to set colour balance to daylight (if it is on Auto) and shoot in raw format. Much control is possible at the raw conversion stage.</p>

[martynas_kundrotas1]

<p>I always shoot raw.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Please show a couple of examples of the results you are getting. It may be a matter as simple as using a filter and not using a lens hood.</p>

[marlon]

<p>Many years ago I used to shoot with Davina + Daniel (davinaplusedaniel.com). They're now two of the best wedding photogs around. If you see a before/after of one of their shots very little has actually changed. A big part of clear shots is proper color correction. If you have that down the pics will look sharper, clearer and brighter. Little pushes in contrast, exposure, clarity and blacks will help too, but 90% of the magic happens in camera.</p>

[martynas_kundrotas1]

<p>For example.</p><div></div>

[mukul_dube]

<p>You spoke of "weird color casts, muted colors ...". I see no colour cast here; and the green and the red cannot be called muted. The sharpness too seems adequate. You might try making the photo <em>slightly</em> warmer and boosting the saturation <em>a little</em>.</p>

[martynas_kundrotas1]

<p>Well, i still think it has some kind of color cast and certainly doesn't look as good as in the link i posted. It's not even close.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Take a look at this. Saturation raised, clockwise rotation to make verticals vertical.</p><div></div>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>But it's a different story under natural lighting, i get weird color casts, muted colors and so on.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Most of the color images in the link you provided are shot with highly controlled lighting, not simply using one off cam flash or bouncing.</p>

<p>Natural lighting is just that, natural, or what there is to work with.<br>

Top quality natural light images are no longer natural if you consider the use of modifiers and artificial light.</p>

<p>To shoot a completely unmolested natural light portrait, (no modifiers whatsoever) the light has to be close to perfect.<br>

This is rarely if ever the case. A soon as we introduce a modifier, we are (changing) the nature of the light...It is not natural light at this point. <br>

I suppose it also depends on one's definition of natural light.<br>

Shooting a portrait under high sun is natural light; ugly, but natural.</p>

<p>Color casts: <strong>All light has a color cast</strong>. The question is does it look as we envisioned it in the final product?<br>

So many things influence the color of light..What's coming from above, what's coming from below, what's bouncing from nearby objects, what the subject is wearing.</p>

<p>We can not control natural light.<br>

We CAN manipulate it, be it a minor manipulation like placing the subject in shade to all out total control in the studio or on location with many modifiers, external light sources ans light shaping.</p>

<p>I completely agree with a prior responder here; although PP can salvage a poor shot, there is no substitute for shooting it right the first time. Shooting RAW has obvious advantages, but will have little chance to look good under a mixed color environment.</p>

[wogears]

<p>First of all, there IS a color cast in the OP's image--it is blue. Otherwise, everything that has been said is true.</p><div></div>

[martynas_kundrotas1]

<p>Thanks for thorough response :) Well, i completely agree that first of all you have to to shoot the picture well, then tune it with photoshop. And by highly controlled lighting you mean he waited for a specific time of day to shoot those pictures? If yes then everything is more or less clear how these images look as they look :) Apart from this i don't see any other light sources, apart from maybe some reflectors in some of the pictures. Is that what you mean?</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>The images you linked to have been tone mapped somewhat. I've downloaded and examined quite a few Raw sample images online from some of the most expensive digital camera's available and none provide the tonal roll off and color treatment I see especially on the faces in that link. IOW it doesn't come out of the camera looking like that. I don't care what quality or amount of light available was used.</p>

<p>Anyone disagreeing should post a downloadable unedited Raw image straight out of the camera and the final edited version that shows the same dynamics and contrast shown in that link. I have yet had anyone do this in discussions of this sort. These folks are not going to tell you straight out how they get what they get and aren't going to show you the stinkers. And why should they? It's already a heavily competitive market as it is. Why would they want to show someone how to make images to look the same as theirs?</p>

<p>I'm guessing from all the numerous posts on this subject throughout the years they're probably using some sort of tone mapping software like Topaz and/or action scripts and presets which are available online. Subtlety is the key here and most don't know when to stop mapping tone until it suddenly turns into looking like a cartoon.</p>

<p> </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Below is a tone map treatment to your posted image straight out of ACR 4.6. It's a modified preset I randomly picked out of a long list of presets I created from another image I've long forgotten about.</p>

<p>Don't know that image's lighting or exposure, but when I clicked on it I suddenly got something close and continued to tweak the saturation, HSL, Clarity slider and Point Curve which already had a severe reverse S-curve applied to get the final results posted. The ACR tonal settings were Brightness +22/Contrast -21.</p>

<p>Here's the main issue about this. Since you want to copy a style of rendering from another photographer who also BTW copied from someone else (because I've seen the same treatment from several different photographer websites), I'ld suggest you get to learn the editing tools and how they work because even though a preset you can download online may get you close, you still need to know how and in what part of the image to tweak the tools to correct what the preset doesn't. </p>

<p>Good luck.</p><div></div>

[martynas_kundrotas1]

<p>I completely agree with you Tim, i also don't think it's possible to get such an image naturally. There's heavy processing involved, but still it's very well controlled and thought out. About the presets, i think it's quite wise to try some lightroom presets, because you see exactly what has been done, what sliders were manipulated. The problem is, you have to pay for most of them :)</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I think you will find the ket to the style is very accurate and well used depth of field, he really uses that very well, and also clarity.</p>

<p>Here is a quick rework focusing on dof contrast and clarity.</p><div></div>

[martynas_kundrotas1]

<p>Hmm, that's a bit more like it, the clarity is way too much for my taste though. Did you get these kind of colors only with the clarity slider? They look alot better and that's what i'm looking for.</p>

[igord]

<p>Skin on your photograph reads C4 M17 Y12. Seems the yellow is too low, making the photograph look cold.<br>

I made it C3 M10 Y21. I am not best at color corrections but it seems better now?</p><div></div>

[igord]

<p>Hmm, more contrast and sharper.</p><div></div>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Wow, lots of different edits here. Personally I didn't find the original image too blue, but that could be my monitor. I don't find my prints too yellow or magenta though, so I'm betting that it's as much a personal preference as anything else.</p>

<p>The best advice I can give is to either set the WB yourself, or futz around with it a little when you convert your raw files. The Auto WB on the D80 does not have a stellar reputation. Without having the full file to zoom in on, the only thing I can see that I would say is objectively 'wrong' is that your DOF is just a tiny bit too narrow to render all of his head totally sharp. It looks like 1/3rd or 2/3rds of a stop would have done it. Or maybe his head was turning, and that's motion, I dunno. But everything else seems subjective to me.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Martynas,</p>

<p>Yep just clarity, no saturation or vibrance. As I said though, the key to copying the style is the subject isolation, I blurred the background and sharpened just the subject, added contrast and clarity.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>To my eyes, Les Berkley's approach looks best. You can see the excess of blue in the original if you look at the shadow between the subject's jacket and shirt, and Les adjusted for that tint perfectly. I do like how someone else fixed the columns to make them look vertical. The other versions didn't look as good on my screen.</p>

<p>Boosting the Clarity control did bad things to the man's skin, IMO. Les' excellent version could be improved a bit by removing skin imperfections from the face, but that would require a bit more time and was not the topic of this discussion.</p>

<p>The photos on the site linked by the OP have been through a lot of processing. They remind me somewhat of Marcus Bell's photography. I believe that Mr. Bell sells Photoshop Actions, so perhaps this photographer used these or something similar to attain the "Bell look." That said, lighting played a big part, as well, particularly the choice of soft, diffused light in almost every case.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>It was excessive sharpening prior to the clarity that made his stubble look particularly bad, that is only due to working very quickly on such a small jpeg.</p>

<p>But the post wasn't about tints, colour hues or straightening, or, as you said, skin blemishes, it is about contrast, clarity and dof, it seems I was the only one to approach the touchup from that perspective.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Hi Scott,</p>

<p>The original subject was indeed "Color, sharpness and clarity." However, I believe that this quote exposes the OP's intended objectives.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I want to learn and understand how to get pictures like these. (LINK) Is it mainly the editing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps the terms in the subject were simply his guess as to how to arrive at that objective.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Labas, Martynas -</p>

<p>To a large extent, the color balance one prefers depends on your intent. If you want realistic, you go in one direction. If you want a bit of fantasy and want to make believe it isn't ever cloudy in LT, and that you always shoot in the golden light of sunset, you go warmer.</p>

<p>I don't have any problem with the color balance in your image being a bit cool. To my eye, your image looks very much like what I would expect to see on an overcast / cloudy-bright day, especially the very cool shadows. I experimented with various warmer balances and other color adjustments. I didn't feel that any of them (or any of the much warmer color tweaks already posted) looked realistic. In the end, I settled on leaving the color balance of the mid-tones in the groom almost unchanged, but partially neutralized the blue cast on the groom's jacket and in the shadow areas of the groom's white shirt.</p>

<p>IMHO, and as pointed out by previous posters, a major improvement to this image would come from better foreground-background focus / blur control. As posted, the subject's face is about as soft as the background. To illustrate my vision for this image, I sharpened him up a bit (altho, unfortunately, introduced some sharpening artifacts in the process, so just ignore them), and added a bit of blur to the background. I also reduced the contrast and slightly desaturated the bkgnd. Altho a simple Gaussian or "lens blur" worked OK for the background, I preferred to enhance the dynamism of the image by using a motion blur and making the blur slightly tilted. I'm sure this version won't appeal to everyone, but it's one approach to giving this image a bit more "pop".</p>

<p>First, the original, reposted for easy comparison.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M</p><div></div>