How does he do it?

[Spearhead]

<p>17-of-55 is quite obviously post-processed to throw most of it out of focus. The way you can tell that it's post-processing is that it's not distance-dependent and it doesn't appear to be something like vaseline on the filter. It's very sloppily done.</p>

<p>The second one also looks like it was done with post-processing. There is no gradual change in apparent focus that you would expect if it was a lens effect.</p>

<p>The appearance of the out-of-focus highlights probably has something to do with the post work.</p>

[rab_l]

With regards the first image, it's possible it's a shift lens rather than PP, only because all the images using this effect

have the line of focus running top to bottom centrally which a shift lens would do, if it was PP I would expect the area of

focus to be used with more variants of placement and sometimes to be more circular. I've only used camera movements

in 5x4 though, so I'm not writing from experience with 35 mm lenses.

The second image looks similar to the oof area on the 85 1.2 when you get down to about 1.6 -1.2, so could be in

camera, I'm not saying it is, just that it could be.

[rab_l]

Sorry Jeff, my post above was made in response to Rasi and before I'd read yours, it looks like I'm arguing with your post

which was not my intention, besides I've probably got it wrong.

[grey_rogacion]

<p>I'm just a newbie to all this and what I think is he played with the, saturation, and chanel mixer to boost the colors halfway in-between provia or maybe velvia film effect. He did toy with the background by using the blurring tool, he's pretty good photographing in very good light also....................</p>

[plavchak]

<p>Rasi, in reference to the link you provided, I'm not seeing anything special about that photo. The women are wearing very bight colored dresses. The room has a lot of rich colors as well. There is an off camera flash he used in the background. It adds lighting to the room and a little rim light to the subjects. Looks like fill flash as well as you can see a shadow on the back wall. His focus is tack sharp on the subjects. It does not look "over processed" as some have said. Looks like, to me anyway, he just brought out the colors a little and not much more. Sure he added a little sharpness as well. As to what he did exactly in PP no one knows for sure but him. Sure he added a little sharpness as well.</p>

[plavchak]

<p> As far as the photo with the cottage. There are tons of PP programs that will give that effect. Or you can do it your self with little trouble.</p>

<p>Jeff you seem a little harsh on other photographer's work. The look that you said was "sloppy" may have been the look you was going for. Who are you to judge? The link was not posted for critique but by the Op to ask how the effect was done. Also, as far as composition goes on a photo, unless you have seen the original file, how do you know this was not the best composition/crop that he could get from this photo? You don't. This photo (the women dancing) was not a posed photo. It was a lot of people in a closed space dancing and moving. How would you "compose" such a shot? Weather you liked the shot or not was not the point of this post. It was a "how did they do this" question, not a "break this photo down and tell us what's wrong with it."</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>The look that you said was "sloppy" may have been the look you was going for. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It's bad post-processing.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The link was not posted for critique but by the Op to ask how the effect was done</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Teaching someone how to do bad work is not a good thing.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>as far as composition goes on a photo, unless you have seen the original file, how do you know this was not the best composition/crop that he could get from this photo? You don't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That in no way justifies a poor composition on someone's web site. How it got there isn't a concern. If the clients liked it, that's fine, I've been in that situation. However, the composition of that one really sticks out from the much better ones on the site.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How would you "compose" such a shot? </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You don't compose a shot like that, but if you are doing that type of shot, you look for a place where the composition works and you don't shoot it when it doesn't. I shoot at least three events a week, it's easy to keep moving until you find the right composition.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Weather you liked the shot or not was not the point of this post. </p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br /><br>

Where did I say anything about liking or not liking it?<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff, can you let us know how to tell? I don't use Lightroom so it'd be an education.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Michael, the jpg file name has a structure that only comes from using plug-ins (or Photoshop) from Lightroom. It has four "edit" labels, indicating that it made four trips out and back. It is possible to generate the file name doing four trips to Photoshop but it would be highly unusual since the normal choice would not do that. Also, someone suggested Viveza above and it is a good tool for that.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>MODERATOR’S COMMENT</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong> </strong><br>

<strong>This thread contains some very useful information and comments.</strong><br>

Some specific housekeeping matters, so as to ensure good continuity and high quality of discussion:</p>

<p>Jeff Spirer’s previous comment described that - the Post Production technique which was employed, was sloppily employed – this comment was an opinion <em>about the employment of the Post Production Technique</em> which the photographer apparently chose to use.<br>

Previous to that comment, Jeff did make a comment on the <em>composition</em> of the shot which was referenced.<br>

<em>Composition</em> is one constituents of the "look" that any Photographer might attain. <br>

It is noted Jeff, himself a short time later, ensured that this thread <strong>stayed on the MAIN track of discussion</strong>, by mentioning that the thread is about the PP Techniques employed and the 'look' that the Photographer attained - (i.e. NOT a critique of the photographer's work, per se.)</p>

<p>***</p>

<p><strong>The questions that Mike has asked of Jeff have been addressed.</strong> <br>

It will be best, if this thread stays on the main track and discusses and comments on the Post Production Techniques which seemingly have been employed by the Photographer and generally how the Photographer might have attained the "look" of his Images.<br>

It would NOT be good for this thread to wander into a side-track of critiques of this Photographer’s work.<br>

<strong><em>Nor is it beneficial for this thread to wander into on-going correspondence, between members, just chatting about the same, side issues.</em></strong><br>

Thank you in advance, for your co-operation.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[rasi_wickra]

<p>Thank you for your responses everyone. As the moderate said, I understand that some people may have reservations about Mr. Haring's compositional or postprocessing techniques, but as I posted the question what I wanted to know if anyone knew HOW he achieved this effect, not whether the effect in question was visually pleasing or a "good technique" -- ultimately, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I had to confess that despite the criticism in this thread, I remain a fan of his work. Thanks again for your responses. </p>

[fotografz]

<p>Rasi, I think you are justified in being impressed with Haring's work ... it is very difficult to produce a sense of vision that differs from others ... and he had managed to accomplish that. His work has a "graphic" impact which he is fairly consistent in applying to one degree or another. Personally, I was also impressed.</p>

<p>While anyone can debate individual images, it is subjectively in the eye of the beholder ... allowing us to react one way or another. Some take in an image emotionally, while others may analyze the elements of technique ... same can be said in how different photographers place priorities while shooting or doing post work.</p>

<p>If the question asks "how this was done" it can be answered in the aggregate, or the specifics can be analyzed. I tend toward the former over the latter because wedding photography usually involves a huge amount of images and there are limits on how much time you can spend with each individual shot.</p>

<p>How he achieves the effect(s) probably varies wildly ... however, the one driving aspect to any shooting, lighting or post processing decisions is that sort of consistent graphic impact ... the use of color or other techniques to control the viewer's reaction.</p>

<p>I also believe that his use of lighting plays a great part in pulling off some of the images on his site. Lighting can make a much bigger impact than all the cameras, lenses and post work combined. </p>

<p>In this day of wide spread public involvement in photography, it is increasingly getting difficult to live on content alone ... if you are shooting a wedding and 20 or 30 guests are also shooting it, chances are they will preempt the pro by posing images on Face Book before the pro even gets home that night. So, we all have to step up our game.</p>

<p>Thanks for the question and introducing Haring's work to me.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>