Photography style Q?
- Started
- Last post
- 30 Responses
- bigtrick0
what? it doesn't look illustrated to me.
i think the photos have had their contrast selectively increased, and also have been slightly desaturated. but the bulk of the work to me seems like lighting it obsessively before clicking the shutter. i wouldn't say it's "good" lighting - notice the panoply of shadows and the tons of light reflections in the first picture, and the blown-out gauges in the second picture - but it is, nevertheless, very extensively lit.
- Great! - thanks for enlightening.jysta
- Big bright flash and some random fills, pretty crap lighting.Dodecahedron
- but bigtrick is right most of the 'look' of this is from lighting and contrastDodecahedron
- +1 for using 'panoply'.Raniator
- another +1 for using 'panoply'sseo
- a plethora of plus ones for panoplyian
- DaveO0
^ Yeah, I know there's no HDR but it's got that horribly unnatural look to it, that HDR stuff might also be up his street, wherever that crazy street may be.
- epigraph0
to me it looks like the background is genuine, just underexposed by a stop or so.
Looks like it's a daytime shot, cause of clouds in the sky reflected on the roof, and hood. You can actually make out the lip of the stadium as it cuts off the sky.
Rest of the lighting was done with hard lights( no modifiers). You can see the point light source reflections in the body panels.
The end look is actually not very processed at all, it's mostly lighting. IMHO the lighting is a bit sloppy too.
- epic_rim0
hdr bro
- *hangs headmonospaced
- ...bigtrick
- no hdr brobetelgeuse
- No hdr. Or maybe he did hdr then and adjusted shadows/highlights restoring the image to it's original form. Fucking pro bastard!!! :DHombre_Lobo
- epic_rim0
if not HDR, then the dynamics have been squashed by 12 BIG light sources, like huge octagonal softboxes and then post processing pulled out the shadows even further. nothing right or wrong with it, just a style.
- OSFA0
It's fake! Didn't you guys notice the steering wheel is on the right/passenger side? Ha!!! Fools.
- bigtrick0
^ you're right here, no hdr. there are no softboxes either. lots of point sources, as indicated by the reflections. sorry. and i don't know that they pulled any shadows in post - look at the shadows on the driver's seat, the darkness of the pedals.
- vaxorcist0
lighting..... not post-production... well, maybe a bit of contrast tweeking, but it's mostly lighting.... and/or multiple "lights" in a CGI render....
...and the flare spots, we try to NOT have those on a real product shoot.... it would be interesting if this type of "lighting" becomes popular, it's exactly what I was trained to NOT do...
- DaveO0
I feel sorry for the dude that shot this now, hope he don't se this thread!
- SteveJobs0
i generally respect the opinions of many here, particularly within the realm of photography. however, i think it's a bit presumptuous to insist a look wasn't achieved using a particular technology because of your exposure (NPI) to it from flickr or some other site where amateurs put on display their innate ability to misuse a digital imaging technology by pushing levels to the max.
hdr can produce some very stunning images and go completely unnoticed - it is entirely possible.
- bigtrick0
^
er, no. those saying that it is not hdr are saying it for good reasons. here are mine:1. the many lights in the original shot suggests that the photographer is a practicing pro. pros generally don't use hdr, especially since they can control their dynamic range with the lights.
2. if the photographer did use hdr, he/she would have brought out the detail in the driver's seat and the driver's footwell, and recovered the highlights in the gauges in the center console. since this did not happen, i believe there was no hdr involved.
3. "bad" hdr would show up as weird intensity gradients and strange brightness relationships, which are not present here. "good" hdr would be used to recover highlight and shadow detail. but again, since the photographer has control of the lights in this shoot, "good" hdr would not have been necessary, presuming that the photographer has good attention to detail. i would say that this is moot, however, since i don't think the photographer had the time and/or skill to pull off a well-lit shot - evidenced by the many small reflections of his/her lights in the first photo and, the blown highlights and too-dark areas in the second photo.
steve, i am a photographer. it is my career. betelgeuse and vaxorcist are similarly qualified. it is my business, and presumably their business, to know what i am talking about - i wouldn't say it otherwise.
- bigtrick0
^
to add to that, epigraph looks like he's a pro photographer too. so that makes four people whose careers are in the photo industry weighing in on the side of "no hdr."
- SteveJobs0
that's a more than valid argument, bigtrick.
just gets to me when someone says:
X was not achieved using Y, because Y is *always* shit.
- jonny_quest_lives0
It's lighting. The Photographer synced his strobes with the Sun. Or High Speed sync if you will. Essentially the strobe becomes the dominate light source overpowering the sun. Which gives it that weird HD look
- hahabigtrick
- sorry pal but that shot doesn't require high-speed syncbetelgeuse
- Not saying he needed it just saying that's how it was shot. To bad his white balance was set to daylight. For it to be cool you have to set your white balance to Tungsten and daylight balance the strobes with a gel.jonny_quest_lives
- For it to be cool you have to set your white balance to Tungsten and daylight balance your strobes with a gel.jonny_quest_lives
- seeessess0
- but you're not using flash/strobes...betelgeuse
- no, I guess not.seeessess
- (hangs head)epigraph
- Lol, similar in the sense that a car is in the pic!! Hehe
v nice pic as always though :)Hombre_Lobo
- vaxorcist0
It may have been done in a huge hurry.. in a less-than-favorable lighting environment...... I've shot motorcycles in a warehouse where we only had an hour and a half, and all these horrible house lights to contend with, we had to hang some huge silks and move lots of stuff around to get fight the house light reflections from hell....
I can imagine a shoot like this where the people who give the photographer access to the car have no idea how much of tight situation they're putting him/her in.... a product shoot for a shiny car takes time and space to setup, and/or usually happens in a studio with a HUGE light source like:
- yes, but did he sync his strobe with the sun.bigtrick
- that is one hell of a soft-boxbetelgeuse
- "high speed sync," if you will.bigtrick
- lol - bigtrickbetelgeuse
- yes, he did sun-sync.... probably he had a parking lot shoot and not much time...vaxorcist
- _niko0
Thought I would post my favorite retouching trick that I use a ton:
1. Duplicate layer
2. Change blending mode to Soft Light
3. Image > Adjustments > Shadows/Highlights (i usually leave it the default)
4. Filter > Other > High Pass (usually use a radius between 2-3.5)
Don't know if this one is common knowledge but I think it's a good one :) Feel free to post your tricks as well.cheers