http://koti.mbnet.fi/mtmm/mc.jpg

the background is a bit to unsharp here to get that detailed dave hill background...maybe add some H/S to get more details and then try some contrast to get the lines in the background darker...Nice work! his muscles on his arms look somewhat unatural....

I´m not trying to do background, only the model. For this shot I have also an empty(no reflections) background for masking.

You cannot go messing around with S/H if you have not exposed background well. Doing S/H for dark background will generate only big nasty noise.

Nice work there! tell us about work flow?!

Thanks man, there aren't any fancy tricks in post processing here. Mostly enhancing the lighting with curves and d&b. i think in many cases the lighting is the thing although there is lots of something more with photoshop in DH photos. I hope there is nothing to do with lucis art.

MTMM: when posting a picture in this dave hill thread, you should know that we judge it on the dave hill effect...backgrounds in the dave hill pictures are always crisp and well exposed. That's why I gave you a heads up...I think that this picture would benefit from crisper and lighter background not necessarily the background you are using here, maybe something more from the streets...

BTW, I just messed around with the picture to see how the background worked out I don't think it was that bad...some pixel noise, but maybe with a better background :D

Thanks man, there aren't any fancy tricks in post processing here. Mostly enhancing the lighting with curves and d&b.


d&b?? i'm sorry i am new to this what is that?

Yes ofc. To busy at work here.




3 Now while this looked very nice on the clothes, it totally messed up the face.
So reopen the image in camera raw, play with the adjustments until you get the
look of the skin as you like.

4 Drag the Skin layer onto the cloth layer, add a black layer mask and paint in the
skin, where needed.

5 Then some basic dodge n Burn.

6 Posterize edges, the values at 1,1,1, and paint in where needed.

interesting technique, but you are right about the skin, it really looks rather harsh...

d&b?? i'm sorry i am new to this what is that?

Dodge & burn tools.

Dodge & burn tools.

ohh ok thanks.wow i feel dumb lol.

ohh ok thanks.wow i feel dumb lol.

You're not the first one that does! :D

So here is a official "welcome to the club" ...

You're not the first one that does! :D

So here is a official "welcome to the club" ...

hahaha thanks.


i was messing with your photo dex.i couldn't believe how easy it was when just messing with curves and what not to get this effect.my shadows were a little too dark but i am getting the hang of doing this.i am just having trouble with the eye like always.i still have to get the hang of the layer mask.i am getting there though.

can someone please post a step by step guide to achieve this effect. I'm quite new to the retouch/post process but know how to use ps quite well. a guide would be good in simple to understand terms.

thanks in advance

can someone please post a step by step guide to achieve this effect. I'm quite new to the retouch/post process but know how to use Photoshop quite well. a guide would be good in simple to understand terms.

thanks in advance



Have you been reading along?

i kind of got lost at the whole dodge and burn part!

Do a search in this forum for "dodge burn" or "d&b" or "Paint with light" or "PWL" and read up extensively.

ok, here is my attempt i did a month ago. is it close?

http://img31.picoodle.com/img/img31/5/12/8/f_ChasingDavem_fd7e449.jpg


stock is taken from http://www.sxc.hu/photo/316755

ok, here is my attempt i did a month ago. is it close?

http://img31.picoodle.com/img/img31/5/12/8/f_ChasingDavem_fd7e449.jpg


stock is taken from http://www.sxc.hu/photo/316755

keep the background sharp...more texture in the wall...the dark area on the left there should be lighter...imo..

hrkljush I like it a lot. If the light had been like DH it would be very close.

MTMM: when posting a picture in this dave hill thread, you should know that we judge it on the dave hill effect...backgrounds in the dave hill pictures are always crisp and well exposed. .I´m sorry, but I see lots of photos in this thread with only studio background. Dave Hill is retouching his models by far more than backgrounds, or is somebody here thinking that background is the thing? Heads up koax, you should know that for example HDR will produce very cool backgrounds, but you cannot use it on humans. If you can produce DH-like skintones, then you can do backgrounds with one hand.

mtmm: why did you post your picture in the first place? you can't handle other people giving you examples on what to do better to achieve dave hill? And then you write you don't do backgrounds, well dave hill does backgrounds...so therefor I mentioned your background...

As I said, lots of other users have posted photos with no DH-like backgrounds, and that is because everybody is trying to do DH like retouch to models, that is the difficult part of the process. Everybody knows what kind of style is attached to DH:s backgrounds. I dont think you need to remind that to me or to others. So is there a problem only with my photos or what are you trying to say? I can also stop posting, no problem there.

And I did not say that I dont do backgrounds, I mean i did not try to do it in that photo.

Usually I do bg:s.

http://koti.mbnet.fi/mtmm/pic.jpg

Here is my try. I just used the supplied jpg on this forum.

Heads up koax, you should know that for example HDR will produce very cool backgrounds, but you cannot use it on humans.


Heads up, Mtmm, you should research before you make snarky remarks.


You can actually make amazing HDR portrature. That is, if you know what you're doing with a camera :devious:

Heads up, Mtmm, you should research before you make snarky remarks.


You can actually make amazing HDR portrature. That is, if you know what you're doing with a camera :devious:Does recycle time ring a bell? Try to set up 3-6 lights with full power outside and then take several shots at different exposure without model moving. Mkay, I wanna see that. Somebody here does not know basic fysics.

Uhhh, who said anything about using multiple lights? Or were you just trying desperately to impress me?

Uhhh, who said anything about using multiple lights? Or were you just trying desperately to impress me?Isn´t that pretty clear that if you want to take a good portrait, you´ll need a good lighting? And even without lights(recycle times), sharp HDR is very tricky to do with a moving subject.

What's pretty clear is that

a) you've never heard of continuous light sources
b) you've never heard of tone mapping
c) you believe that quality of light is somehow proportional to quantity of light
d) you've failed to impress me due to above reasons.

What's pretty clear is that

a) you've never heard of continuous light sources
b) you've never heard of tone mapping
c) you believe that quality of light is somehow proportional to quantity of light
d) you've failed to impress me due to above reasons.
a) So you are telling me that if one is about to make a HDR shot, he/she has got to change his/her whole lighting system to continuous light? Very realistic scenario. Hands up who is using continuous light?
b) You are talking about true HDR, not tone mapping.
c) Did I say anything like that? No, so please cry me a river, you are being stupid here.

And of course, even with the huge continuous light system, your model is moving between shots. You just can not take good HDR shots with humans.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/440698504_0c8e1a15aa_b.jpg

Skin tone example:

http://www.g2foto.com/sample/dhcomp.jpg

(Where left is DH and right is my version. Shot and PP.) The only diff is the color tone of the model where DH model is a dark colored skin guy and mine is with a fair brown skin.)

BG example:

http://www.g2foto.com/sample/bgcomp.jpg

Excellent BG and skin tone.

mtmm:never had any problems with your pictures, or do I want you to stop posting! Please share wisdom and pictures! I'm not a wiz when it comes to photography or retouching I would never portray me in that manner! I made this thread so people could teach/learn others and come with their thoughts and ideas regarding DH! Your last picture with the clown was very nice! Thanks for sharing!

xfx: background was very nice! did you do anything special with the BG??

c) Did I say anything like that? No, so please cry me a river, you are being stupid here.

Yes as a matter of fact you did. When I asked who said anything about using multiple lights your reply was "Isn´t that pretty clear that if you want to take a good portrait, you´ll need a good lighting?"

Now who's being stupid?



And of course, even with the huge continuous light system, your model is moving between shots. You just can not take good HDR shots with humans.


Sure you can. Google "HDR portraiture." Granted it's a little more difficult than landscapes, but you can still do it. Consider 150 years ago people had to stay still for 30 seconds to get their portrait exposed.

And before you get snarky about how much technology has evolved and you show your true colors about how if it weren't for digital cameras, you would never have even gotten into photography, consider that people made great works of art with film and continuous light sources. Therefore, now that the technology is so much better, people should have no problem jumping creative hurdles... That is, if they know how to use a camera.

Yes as a matter of fact you did. When I asked who said anything about using multiple lights your reply was "Isn´t that pretty clear that if you want to take a good portrait, you´ll need a good lighting?"

Now who's being stupid?Camoon, are you a child of wtf is your problem? That is absolutely true, that a good portrait needs a good lighting, but I´m not saying that you have to set up 10 flashes. Somebody please say something to this guy, this is ridiculous.

I´m done, let it be so that you can do HDR portraits eyes closed and one hand jerking in a pitch black darkness.

And for the closure, this is from Dave Hill himself. Transoptic, are you saying that Dave Hill does not know how to handle a camera? Do you feel owned?

Hi guys,
Wow, I'm flattered by all this talk! I'm glad some of you like my work. I really can't share much about specifics, and I'm not a photoshop guru, but I am definitely down to discuss. I haven't used HDR or that tone-mapping stuff. I just recently heard about it, and it seems you need to bracket your images to do it well. That would be almost impossible when shooting humans! :-) In terms of cameras, depending on the budget, I use canon digitals and H1's; all prime lenses. Canons are SOOO fun and easy to shoot with, but the H1 files are crisp, edge to edge, and print bigger. Kinda a trade off. I'm a big fan of using lights, and I'd say the primary factor of how my images look is the lighting setup. Photoshop is of course crucial as well, but you gotta have a clean raw file to begin with. Too much processing can give you nasty digital grain, halos, all that stuff, which may look good on Flickr, but when printed on paper for a portfolio that an art director sees, looks like junk. I would totally suggest that new photogs spend less time on Photoshop and more time shooting and playing with lights, and learning how to direct their subjects. As to the comment about $50k shoots... haha... that made me laugh. For sure my budgets have been getting bigger, but a lot of the stuff on my site paid peanuts. You really have to work your butt off; lots of sweat, set-building, hauling lights all over the place, day after day, for at least a few years etc. But that's part of the adventure, right!? Let me know if u guys have any more questions. Thanks!

"Owned?"

Not really. I never said that D.H. uses HDR. I never said that it's cakewalk to do HDR portraiture. I just said that it can be done, in refutation of your original assertion.

I also refuted your implication that good lighting requires 3 to 6 lights. You said that. Don't deny it; read back if you must. In fact, you seem to be under the impression that any lighting outside of (several) studio strobes is inferior. You would be false however.


Anyway, I grow weary of refuting these silly assertions. Good luck to you in all your quixotic endeavors.

Please shut up already. You act like a child arguing. "You said that I cant fly to moon, but if I had a rocket and a starship....".

Can you read these words coming out from you monitor? When a subject is moving, you CANNOT take several shots without getting an unsharp image(subject). HDR is a combination of a several different exposures and there is a lack between each one.

Lets imagine a jumping model. I want you to tell everybody here how in the hell you can make a HDR photo from that jumping model without getting a crappy blurred model? It seems that you have somekind of a magic trick to it, please feel free to share it with us.

With some kind of a ultra high speed camera shooting thousands of frames/ sec it can be done, but is it relevant in this discussion? No it is definitely not. Even the true master Dave Hill is saying that it is almost impossible.

I feel so retarted to even answer to you right now. Somebody please make it stop!

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

Please, lets get back to business and lets stop this stupid arguing.

http://www.bodynet.fi/kuvat/laukku110.jpg

Superkoax:
Thanks. Nothing special, DB and experience in PP. Lighting plays a very impt role also.

Mtmm:
Thanks for appreciating.

Learn to read.

Once again, I never said it was easy to do HDR portraiture. Just that it was possible. Lots of people do it. Like I suggested, Google it if you must.

A jumping model does not fit into the realm of possibility. You are simply taking an extreme scenario and applying it to your faulty assertion. The fact that you implore other people to back you up on this issue (and their reluctance to do so) proves exactly how founded you are.



I bet you do feel retarded. I would too if I was making the same jackass assertions you were. This is the last time I will respond to any crackpot reply you make. So go ahead and respond with some irrelevantly snarky post. Hopefully a year down the road you will realize your folly.

Differences of opinion can be explained without personal insults. Flaming is NOT allowed on this website.

Let's get back to technique and helping those interested in learning how to mimic "the Dave Hill look".

Dave hill doesn't do it with HDR so leave it alone ( he's shooting with flash!).
I know it's possible but not practical. i would not create a look that i can't replicate in all of my photography(that's why is hired in the first place). could you image him asking for a band (tennage) to sit still for 30 sec......common.....plus you kill the spontaneity in the photo.

so how can we get this effect...

Differences of opinion can be explained without personal insults. Flaming is NOT allowed on this website.

Let's get back to technique and helping those interested in learning how to mimic "the Dave Hill look".


Thanks CJ.

As has already been said, we do not wish to see this thread degenerate into a name calling session, we are I hope all capable of behaving like adults.

If you have disagreements then keep them civil please. Better still lets get back to topic.

In the spirit of Dave Hills retouching!!! STOP IT!!!!
yeah! cool down! Just agree to disagree and end it :D this forum is about accepting difference as well! I would love to see a HDR portrait! any good sites for that?

U can do PSEUDO HDR in one single image. Just letting u all know. :)

That is true, but true HDR is always true HDR.

Ok here’s my attempt at it using a pic from I believe

Here's a couple using two photos from somewhere in this thread.
Spent about 5 mins on each, so there's some halo's etc but i was just
trying to make broad strokes to get to the 'look' as fast as poss.

Also, i got into photography this year to take of photos of bands
playing live. Attached a couple i took recently that are somewhat
"hill-esque". Maybe not. :P

I have two things to say..
One is that Dave hill is not doing 50K + shoots.
Most of his lights are cheapo White lightnings.
Most of his Canons look like 20D's and his so called "Primes" are the cheaper primes.
Also his lighting is not that critical and rather "basic" He seem also to do the same lighting all the time.
One or Two rim lights from the side and a softbox for main filled with ringflash. No genius set up there either.
I would say his final product is what makes him and the Photoshop helps enhance his pictures so they look "Cool"
I would not campare him to a David LaChapelle for instance who did everything on Film and very little retouching.
Obviously from watching his backstage stuff , they are a bunch of talented "hill" billies..:+} No Pun intended.
Also for the people posting, Ahh I did this in Just 5 minutes.. Well great. Now take 2 minutes to explain your 5 minute process..
That is what this Forum is about.. sharing your technique.. Not hosting your images. That goes in another forum.
Also Dave's Look is nothing new. It is actually a good copy of Ficus and Jillgreenberg who had there names WAY before Hill did..:+}
He just applied it to a quirky Rock Band side that not many have done.
Snook
PS. I do not think Dave Hill will ever be a well known photographer and will not last very long unless he plays his cards right.
He'll probably end up like a forum guru like Andre Dragan who until this day is copied in Forums but probably is still that starving artist in Poland!

Dave is using Canon 5D full frame, not 20D. And that is for fun, for serious shots he uses Hasselblad.

And Jim Fiscus is not even close, Dave is on the other level what comes to retouching and lighting

Dave is using Canon 5D full frame, not 20D. And that is for fun, for serious shots he uses Hasselblad.

And Jim Fiscus is not even close, Dave is on the other level what comes to retouching and lighting

second that! there is more to Dave hill then we ever will know! why did he take photos of Chris Brown? he's one of the most popular artist in the us today! Starving artist? They don't all have to work for high profile to do good! Dragan is one of the most discussed artist in 2006 and maybe 2007...But don not think he's starving! If so he has a PHD in physiscs or something to look back on :D

But Dave hill, his style is way better then Jill! Fiscus is a good contender, but still I like dave more!

Dragan is one of the most discussed artist in 2006 and maybe 2007...But don not think he's starving! If so he has a PHD in physiscs or something to look back on :D


Yep. In fact, just to throw this out there...I know someone, very well, who contacted Dragan and offered him $10K to show him his technique via emailed PSD. Offered non disclosure contract and everything.

This was after Dragan stopped selling his workflow for $300. And, in Poland $10K goes a long, long way. We are relocating to Prague in April, and I have checked money exchange. Dragan turned him down flat.

Dragan stated that he doesn't even like shooting photos and spends up to a month working 1 image in photoshop.

So, starving...I think he is not. Rich? Not likely...not by what Americans think of as rich. But the guy ain't digging under his couch cushions for sausage money either.

Damien

Sistere: I remember his old site! Before the flash site came along, he wrote that he would give tutoring via email and he would show picture by picture on how to do his style...back then I wasn't very interested in his style, but the style grew on me...fast...but then it was too late!

BTW: Does anybody know if Dave Hill is a member here? Maybe we should write a invite to get him in here? hehe...And maybe he could just show us a small fraction, so we could just feed our brains...becasue I'm hungry and little info goes a loooong way for me :D

Sistere: I remember his old site! Before the flash site came along, he wrote that he would give tutoring via email and he would show picture by picture on how to do his style...back then I wasn't very interested in his style, but the style grew on me...fast...but then it was too late!

BTW: Does anybody know if Dave Hill is a member here? Maybe we should write a invite to get him in here? hehe...And maybe he could just show us a small fraction, so we could just feed our brains...becasue I'm hungry and little info goes a loooong way for me :D

Same here man. For months I saw where he was offering his work flow and I kept thinking about it; wasn't quite as into retouching as I am now. Then, maybe two months later I think "Yeah, I would love that work flow" and I go back and he no longer offers it. I was kicking myself for a year! Ah hell, I still am kicking myself. :clown:

I even tried to find someone who had previously bought and buy it from them, but I couldn't find anyone. Hint Hint...anyone?

As far as Dave Hill being a member here, if he is I highly doubt he would ever speak up. Can you imagine the sheer volume of PMs and questions he would get...lol

Well, we could always get a retouchpro.com posse together and go crash one of his shoots, threaten to corrupt his data cards if he doesn't talk. :vampire:

Damien

I definitely love Dave Hill's style, but really when you look at his photos, most don't have much depth to them. But photographers like Jim Fiscus and Bill Simone have much more interesting subject matter...their images are more storytelling and interesting to look at, imo. Dave Hill almost seems like a one-trick pony, strip the processing away from his images and what are you left with? Don't mean to fuel the fire, again I love how he processes his images, but I don't believe he is the best.

sistere: I don't think he would speak up, but maybe just for once he would just see how long this thread has come and just enlighten us a bit...just a tad :D Lol...Count me in!!! hehe...I would love to visit one of his shoots...Heck, I think even being the coffeeguy has a long waiting list ...

I definitely love Dave Hill's style, but really when you look at his photos, most don't have much depth to them. But photographers like Jim Fiscus and Bill Simone have much more interesting subject matter...their images are more storytelling and interesting to look at, imo. Dave Hill almost seems like a one-trick pony, strip the processing away from his images and what are you left with? Don't mean to fuel the fire, again I love how he processes his images, but I don't believe he is the best.

I can agree there...But some of his picture are very "light! while fiscus pictures are very complex, but fiscus also have light pictures...But DH gives more humor to his pictures then fiscus does...
Some goes for advanced humor and storytelling, others for the simple stuff...

I can agree there...But some of his picture are very "light! while fiscus pictures are very complex, but fiscus also have light pictures...But DH gives more humor to his pictures then fiscus does...
Some goes for advanced humor and storytelling, others for the simple stuff...

That's why I particularly love Bill Simone's photos...his are full of detail, great lighting, and there's quite a few humorous ones. My favorite is a photo at a tattoo parlor...in the forefront is the shop owner, while behind him is a girl getting her rear tattooed and another employee is pretending to read a magazine while he steals peaks. Hill's photos are definitely humorous...my favorite of his is of Jon Heder on the slide, lol...too hilarious.

I seen his pictures...The tattoo shop is very good...i like his fashion pictures as well...the woman ion the forest is very good...I like how he uses the dof maybe he has a TiltShift lens? But his retouching is very similar to both DH and Patrick Hoelck! His darker portrait looks very like PH...

Never heard of Simone, but oh my f'king god how cool photography, thanks!

edit- We have a winner, Simone is the best! Absolutely brilliant retouching!

Never heard of Simone, but oh my f'king god how cool photography, thanks!

edit- We have a winner, Simone is the best! Absolutely brilliant retouching!

he's top notch yes, but I miss some of the sharper egde from him that DH has...have you heard about Erwin Olaf? That's wizard with good overall light :D not in the same category as Hill or simone, but very closeø...

http://www.erwinolaf.com/

Yes, Erwin is old news, but damn good. This Simone, I have no words, amazing!

BTW, there is some cool backstage footage at Bill´s blog. 10 thousand sg. feet studio with insane lightsystem. I feel so small.

mtmm: seen it before...to get good results, you need to be stacked with money :D

Lol, well perhaps I am a little biased since I work for Bill, but expensive equipment isn't what determines your results, they're just tools and it's how you use them that gives you great results. Bill told me how years ago he use to teach an adult evening class at a college on photography, and someone said the same thing. So he had everyone go to his studio for the next class and let them use anything they wanted. Even with all of that at their disposal, they were disappointed with their results. Bill then proceeded by setting up a little still life shot, hung up a white bed sheet, and used a clamp light from Lowe's and took a beautiful shot.

Mtmm, I'm glad you like the blog :)!

Lol, well perhaps I am a little biased since I work for Bill, but expensive equipment isn't what determines your results, they're just tools and it's how you use them that gives you great results. Bill told me how years ago he use to teach an adult evening class at a college on photography, and someone said the same thing. So he had everyone go to his studio for the next class and let them use anything they wanted. Even with all of that at their disposal, they were disappointed with their results. Bill then proceeded by setting up a little still life shot, hung up a white bed sheet, and used a clamp light from Lowe's and took a beautiful shot.

Mtmm, I'm glad you like the blog :)!

hmmm...I want to believe you so badly, but I'm blinded by my bad results with bad equipment :D He's talented allright...But it's all about talent and not equipment when it all comes down to it...So being blessed with a talent and to live from it is something not everyone is fortunate to experience...I'm super talented in dish washing, but that's probably it...I don't think I can get a descent living out of that...

Haha, well, unless you start a reality show about it...maybe join up with that chef one, "Hell's Kitchen". I know what you mean though, I'm pretty artistic but severely lack in creativity except for occasional stroke's of "genius". I'm always in awe of those who ooze creativity from every pore, and I feel extremely lucky to be able to be around someone like that everyday.

Koax, now I did the background as well. I just hate masking so much.

http://www.bodynet.fi/mayhem/53.jpg

mtmm: NOW THAT'S NICE!!! Great work! did you take multiple shot's from the background?

I did take only one bg shot and forgot that beauty dish behind me as you can see from the reflection.

http://photographyisrad.com/2007/12/14/the-world-according-to-pretty-toney.aspx

Wooo! Dave has updated his blog and that Ghostface Killah's new comedy book is out now. Only 15 dollar. Some of the shots are at Dave´s website. Cool!

-edit- ordered

mtmm: nice! Will check it out after my movie is finished :D Death Proof by Mr. tarantino :D :D

Death proof was pretty cool.

mtmm: Just checked out(yes I know! A bit late) the new pictures from DH...Looking very good! His style fit's comic books...The DH style can remind a bit of comic books...the film was very nice btw! Like roadmovies a lot!

mtmm: Just checked out(yes I know! A bit late) the new pictures from DH...Looking very good! His style fit's comic books...The DH style can remind a bit of comic books...the film was very nice btw! Like roadmovies a lot!
Dont expect anything if you are about to watch Planet terror, that sucks big time.

Lol, well perhaps I am a little biased since I work for Bill, but expensive equipment isn't what determines your results, they're just tools and it's how you use them that gives you great results. Bill told me how years ago he use to teach an adult evening class at a college on photography, and someone said the same thing. So he had everyone go to his studio for the next class and let them use anything they wanted. Even with all of that at their disposal, they were disappointed with their results. Bill then proceeded by setting up a little still life shot, hung up a white bed sheet, and used a clamp light from Lowe's and took a beautiful shot.

Mtmm, I'm glad you like the blog :)!

Can you post a link to his website?

here is the link....EEEEEENJOY!!!!! :D :D

http://www.billsimonephotography.com/

My images is usually in another style, but this one is leaning somewhat towards the Hill style ( I think ). I could be so wrong =)

http://www.pellepiano.com/thread_images/rp_dave_hill.jpg

My images is usually in another style, but this one is leaning somewhat towards the Hill style ( I think ). I could be so wrong =)

http://www.pellepiano.com/thread_images/rp_dave_hill.jpg

those fleshtones are looking good, but i think you could go further...

here is the link....EEEEEENJOY!!!!! :D :D

http://www.billsimonephotography.com/

Thanks. He does very nice work. Similar to Dave Hill and others.

My images is usually in another style, but this one is leaning somewhat towards the Hill style ( I think ). I could be so wrong =)

http://www.pellepiano.com/thread_images/rp_dave_hill.jpg

can you tell us abit on how go trough making the shadows down the ground believable??? Just want know :D the shadows IMO looks good...Are they real or fake? :D

Yes, they are fake =) The ground was very forgiving when painting in some shadows. I used my Wacom Bamboo to just darken some areas under their feet.
The people were shot one by one ( have a very small "studio" ) , extracted and pasted in.

Pellepiano, your shot is really cool. it looks like there a masking error with the two on the right. the guys hand is in front of the girl.

Yes, amazing I did not see that, I must have retouched the wrong file. I have to do something about that. Looks terrible.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[edit] I changed to another image.

[edit] I changed to another image.
I like that one even better than the other one. The shape and color of the shadows look great but they are at a different angle compared to the other shadows in the background.

A wide angle lens makes the shadows appear at different angles.If you look between the legs of the 5th person you see a shadow of a "lamppost" that is at a totally different angle than the big pole to the left ( sorry dont know the proper names =) ).

The shadows are not perfect, but done to resemble the original shadows.

A wide angle lens makes the shadows appear at different angles.If you look between the legs of the 5th person you see a shadow of a "lamppost" that is at a totally different angle than the big pole to the left ( sorry dont know the proper names =) ).

The shadows are not perfect, but done to resemble the original shadows.

I did notice the different angles of the 3 shadows (the people, the large light pole and the one between the legs) and was confused. didn't realize that a wide angle lens would do that to shadows. I'm obviously not a photographer :)

reflections and shadow direction/shapes can be tricky to photoshop because you can do an accurate representation/recreation but it "looks weird" so the view will think, fake.....

anyway nice image. :)

can you tell us abit on how go trough making the shadows down the ground believable??? Just want know :D the shadows IMO looks good...Are they real or fake? :D

This does look nice, especially when knowing they were shot individually in a studio.

What would be great, is if you would share your lighting setup. Boxes on both sides but what size? Front light?

Nice work! I've spent a lot of time on your StudioBild site and really like your style. I will be moving to Prague in March so perhaps I can buy a day of your time and come pick your brain. PM me if this would be possible.

Warmest regards,
Damien

No boxes, just cheap shoot thru umbrellas. Same goes for front in ( most cases ). I often change lighting depending on background.

I wanna try!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2232/2121616756_6318027945_b.jpg

The NewbieOneKaNewbi

I wanna try!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2232/2121616756_6318027945_b.jpg

The NewbieOneKaNewbi

looks good, definitely has a DH "look"...

EOS4Life: Looks very nice...can you share your work flow? Did you use LucisArt?

eos4life: indeed it look's very good. it would be nice if you could post the before and give us a run down on how you acheived it. thanks.

@Eos4life
Thats not a Dave Hill Look... thats pure Lucisartplaying.
@Pelle
Great work.... Respekt
Heres my part
53502
53503

All done with correct Light Set up and dodge and burn. You need hard lights from the side.
In post production you have to work at the shadows and the highlights.
Most people who can create the davehill look are Illustrator experts

sorry for my bad english

lg Calvin
http://www.calvinhollywood.de

Yeah,but not too far off,maybe if I went a little darker in the lighting. I did say "try".

i wouldn't say that it isn't close... plus, I'm pretty sure that i heard someone in one of Dave's videos say "it's amazing what you can do with HDR and a little LucisArts". so i think he is using it, at least for some stuff.

seriously, you think a top photographer getting paid thousands a shoot does it by using a 200 dollar filter - if you read his blog or any of his posts its quite clear that he doesn't use either hdr or lucisart - i've seen that video and found it very very funny, the poor man is sick of having his efforts compared to a cheap filter.

ah who cares. 60% photography 40% graphic artistry. looks cool,but getting over played.

This is a old image from my flickr account.My hard drive with the original is in Shanghai,and I'm currently in the States visiting family.

I start with duplicating the layer using smart blur(for skin) on 2nd layer to my liking...not that much. on the 2nd layer I apply lucis whyeth #1 with a mix of 66. Once applied,I dial the opacity down to my liking. onto a layer mask on layer 2 and brush set at 20-40 opacity and soft edges I paint some of the natural skin tone back. Depending how that looks I duplicate the original layert again and smart blur again,and then layer mask that layer for a second time to adjust the skin some more.

A photographer that I used to assist for says that a mix of lotion and this bronzing sparkle mixed together, and applied all over the skin of her bikini shots works well with this style. She also uses around 4-6 strobes,focusing on really punching out crazy highlights from the side lighting. That shine off the skin does amazing things with this look.

my first attempt shot yesterday

http://plushimages.net/clients/HeatherDraven/images/draven_tat.jpg

there is a video tutorial on this page (bottom)

http://www.blog.bluehourphoto.com/secretweapon.html

The Exposure filter with lucis art might be an option! mixed with differnet layers and blending modes. It think i'm gona pony up the 143.65$ and see if i can get anything good with it.

I will let you know if i do.

I wanna try!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2232/2121616756_6318027945_b.jpg

The NewbieOneKaNewbi

Love your work man! How'd you do it?

Here are a few result

Some more result with lucisart.

Nice work, zogdart!

Speaking of LucisArt, I wrote a review of it for .PSD magazine about a year ago (it's posted on their website here (http://psdmag.org/prt/view/lucis-art-review.html)). There's a better/larger example of the Goth girl's headshot here (http://plugsandpixels.com/lucisart.html).

Me first attempt.

Any tips to improve would be great!

That's a nice texture on the foreground subject. I would just suggest (for this particular photo) to dim down/soften/vignette the folks around him (distracting).

pic from "My take on Dragan" thread

http://img144.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=11780_My_dave_hill_effect_122_921lo.jpg

This entire thread is so much nonsense, from the standpoint that one artist has an answer to successful retouching for all occasions. Even DH disavows his is the only technique. DH provides a certain effect for a certain client for a certain project. Yes, learn from DH's technique, but to genuflect before it as a way of making more money is, well, robotic, which is what DHs images make humans into.

Superkoax is exceedingly boring. It could be he's up so late due to the midnight sun.

haha...me boring?! so,so wrong!
if this thread is nonsense then you, sir, you're just plain stupid! to learn and to discuss DH technique has given me a lot of ideas. Can't speak for others who have participated in this thread, but I think that to call this thread nonsense is just ignorant!

BTW, midnight sun? LOL! you probably think that we have polar bears running around here in Bergen as well...

BTW, midnight sun? LOL! you probably think that we have polar bears running around here in Bergen as well...They are all here in Helsinki Finland. :D

Had another go.

I think the thread is great by the way, the amount i have learned (d&b, curve variations etc) makes it well worth while.

Peace

This entire thread is so much nonsense, from the standpoint that one artist has an answer to successful retouching for all occasions. Even DH disavows his is the only technique. DH provides a certain effect for a certain client for a certain project. Yes, learn from DH's technique, but to genuflect before it as a way of making more money is, well, robotic, which is what DHs images make humans into.

Superkoax is exceedingly boring. It could be he's up so late due to the midnight sun.

My apologies to superkoax & to all who've participated in this thread. I wasn't thinking when I wrote that post & I displayed a great deal of ignorance, to my regret. I apologize also for stereotyping Norway & Scandinavia, in general, esp. since I'm Norwegian on my mother's side. I guess I thought I could poke some fun at my own people. Anyway, I'm sorry.

My apologies to superkoax & to all who've participated in this thread. I wasn't thinking when I wrote that post & I displayed a great deal of ignorance, to my regret. I apologize also for stereotyping Norway & Scandinavia, in general, esp. since I'm Norwegian on my mother's side. I guess I thought I could poke some fun at my own people. Anyway, I'm sorry.

no prob man! this is the most alive polar bear you'll ever see in Norway http://www.freidig.no/Isbj%C3%B8rn.jpg

Good to see other fellow vikings in here :D

Had another go.

I think the thread is great by the way, the amount i have learned (d&b, curve variations etc) makes it well worth while.

Peace

I think that by changing out the background with some circus or something the after picture would look so much cooler!

thanks fro sharing!

Hi guys,

I've really enjoyed this thread so I decided to played around with the photo posted by hrkljush.....here are my results.

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z150/blanchettephotography/Misc/PS/hrkljush-test.jpg

Lucisart then used Photo-Plugins local contrast enhancement, D&B, and Saturation adjust.

George

Hi,
I am a new member of this forum and comming from Germany so please excuse my bad english.

I am a fan of this "high contrast images" and i love the work from Dave Hill but also from Calvin Hollywood.

A few steps ago I fond realy nice original images which I can transorm in a "FineArt"


Udo

can't believe it's been going on for so long and no one's come close

none of us will probably have the lights that DH uses and most of us don't own the Lucisart plug-in...

"Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

(movie trivia test)

animal house

I bought Lucisart and and after trying it on different images i really don't think that he use this to get his result. i have mixed result with it. It's hard to get consistant result with it. on some images it's good and on some it's bad. it work's best with under exposed images.

I have made some progress in dismantling this technique, although it is not 100% yet. I have found that it is really all about the lighting. There is a lighting technique that is called "surreal lighting". This creates 90% of the look for me. Then it is just some tedious retouching, and tons (and tons) of adjustment layers in photoshop.

Ive been absolutely disappointed with this entire thread. Hill does not use lucis art. its all about his technical work he's learned, thus becoming a PROfessional photographer. Techniques, we all need to think learn about, compositing, stuff that you learn to become a PRO. Everyone is hung up that Hill's style can be accomplished in an hour. Im not even near pro, and I spend 3 hours per photo, minimum. Its an art, not a plug-in, that makes his work so great. The guy above me is one of the first people ive seen use their brain, and I like your lighting.

Oh well, I've watched this thread go on for a while, so I thought I'd inject a little more interest and hopefully some inspiration.

There are some guys who have Hill style lighting and I know that there is definitely some retouching;

For Example Taylor has done it (http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackicewap/sets/72157600307287762/). Kristof has done it (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8379674@N03/)

Some nice techniques discussed here (http://www.flickr.com/groups/studiostrobism/), in which Taylor is an active member. In fact, check out the photo pool there. Some awesome photos (and some not so awesome of course).

zogdart, remember you can use different LucisArt effects on different layers, combining them with blending modes, transparency, etc. Maybe this will help your results some.

Surreal lighting and PP.

http://www.g2foto.com/sample/mfg_hoody3.jpg
http://www.g2foto.com/sample/mfg_mafiaboss1.jpg

can't believe it's been going on for so long and no one's come close

hehe...that's why we practice everyday :D

"Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

(movie trivia test)

I call Japan!

Surreal lighting and PP.

http://www.g2foto.com/sample/mfg_hoody3.jpg
http://www.g2foto.com/sample/mfg_mafiaboss1.jpg

good shots but not close to dave

Oh well, I've watched this thread go on for a while, so I thought I'd inject a little more interest and hopefully some inspiration.

There are some guys who have Hill style lighting and I know that there is definitely some retouching;
.

Kristof has probably come the closest from what I've researched. Taylor I believe assisted for Hill so he should know the lighting setup pretty well.

Kristof has probably come the closest from what I've researched. Taylor I believe assisted for Hill so he should know the lighting setup pretty well.

Yep, Taylor did assist him for a while. He seems pretty outgoing and helpful on the flickr group though. I've had a few email conversations with Kristof, who is also very helpful!

yeah! I agree...just took a quick look today and saw kristofs pictures! think his pictures are a bit lighter on the look then dh pictures...

Taylor and Kristof's stuff is great.
Thanks for the link enigma!

The lighting setup interests me the most.

Seems taylor has copied Dave's lighting setup.
White lightnings and AB ringflash..?

Kristof's blog is very interesting.
Seeing a before and after..

Can we have the links to both Taylor's site and Kristof's blog? TIA.

Can we have the links to both Taylor's site and Kristof's blog? TIA.

Nevermind.......boy not enough coffee this morning, sheeez

There is a lighting technique that is called "surreal lighting".

I got a little curious on this, as I've never seen it mentioned before on any lighting sites, and Google did not help either. What would be main "ingredients" to this technique and what is it supposed to do?

I got a little curious on this, as I've never seen it mentioned before on any lighting sites, and Google did not help either. What would be main "ingredients" to this technique and what is it supposed to do?

I've also heard it called 'Hyper-Real lighting'

Taylor can also be found posting on the Alien Bees forum which discusses different lighting set-ups in depth. Here is a link (http://paulcbuff.com/forums/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=507) to his profile from where you can find his previous posts and examples and, believe it or not, he also mentions his lighting set-ups. (P S: I'm not sure if you have to register with this forum first to get the link to work)

Boy... I'm giving away all my hard work of tracking this info down. It's taken me months to find these links and I'm giving it all away in a few days... lol. Oh well, that's what this forum is about.

I've also heard it called 'Hyper-Real lighting'

Boy... I'm giving away all my hard work of tracking this info down. It's taken me months to find these links and I'm giving it all away in a few days... lol. Oh well, that's what this forum is about.

Yeah but it's MUCH appreciated! :)

I agree, it's more about balancing the existing light with flash and head placement then anything else. Here's a quick "down and dirty" shot I just came in from doing. Explaining too much about lighting is deviating from the topic of this forum.
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z150/blanchettephotography/Misc/PS/before-after.jpg


G

Hey guys, I`ve found out new info about the dave hill effect and I thought I`d share it with you. Recently I`ve been working for a studio which uses the same camera Dave does: a Hasselblad and a Phase One p45+ . I`ve tried applying lucis art to photos of that quality and it wouldn`t work but it worked pretty well with the photos from my canon 30d. So dave couldn`t have used lucis art as a plugin.... respectable photographers don`t like to use plugins from different reasons...one of the reasons is the very large format of the image. Can you imagine that the biggest tiff format image coming directly from the camera to the computer has from 100 to 400MB? After photoshopped the tiff format result takes up to 4Gb. The conclusion is that most of the plugins will not work on very high resolution photos. I also converted the tiff images to jpeg and still didn`t work. I think is all about lighting and using multiple shots at different exposures and of course a lot of layers, masks and ps work.

Hey guys, I`ve found out new info about the dave hill effect and I thought I`d share it with you. Recently I`ve been working for a studio which uses the same camera Dave does: a Hasselblad and a Phase One p45+ . I`ve tried applying lucis art to photos of that quality and it wouldn`t work but it worked pretty well with the photos from my canon 30d. So dave couldn`t have used lucis art as a plugin.... respectable photographers don`t like to use plugins from different reasons...one of the reasons is the very large format of the image. Can you imagine that the biggest tiff format image coming directly from the camera to the computer has from 100 to 400MB? After photoshopped the tiff format result takes up to 4Gb. The conclusion is that most of the plugins will not work on very high resolution photos. I also converted the tiff images to jpeg and still didn`t work. I think is all about lighting and using multiple shots at different exposures and of course a lot of layers, masks and Photoshop work.
I has nothing to do with camera, a pixel is a pixel. And how many times is said, that you CANNOT take multiple exposures with humans without getting ruined photos.

I've also heard it called 'Hyper-Real lighting'

Taylor can also be found posting on the Alien Bees forum which discusses different lighting set-ups in depth. Here is a link (http://paulcbuff.com/forums/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=507) to his profile from where you can find his previous posts and examples and, believe it or not, he also mentions his lighting set-ups. (P S: I'm not sure if you have to register with this forum first to get the link to work)

Boy... I'm giving away all my hard work of tracking this info down. It's taken me months to find these links and I'm giving it all away in a few days... lol. Oh well, that's what this forum is about.

thats my friend taylor.he is an amazing photographer and photo editor.

mtmm: I don't think that DH take multiple exposures of humans! I've seen his behind the scene material and if you look at his Dan Heder photo shoot he only takes random shots of the guy! what I do think, is that he uses multiple exposures of the background :D to get everything in focus and well lighted(is that correct English :) )

my latest sad attempt

http://www.plushimages.net/pics/arr.jpg

despite the fact, that this is a retouching forum, I believe many of us are photographers? and in that case, I think there should be much more discussion on the use of lights in hills photos, because without the knowledge, his post production is nothing. The reason I believe he doesnt tonemap or lucis art it, is the fact that he uses those lights. If youve seen his shots, youre looking at more than three or four lights ususally, and he's using all those lights to light every aspect of the photo, to have detail in every area. Im seeing alot of people use lucis art to bring out their details, but hills already got it. Quite a few of his shots are also composites, thus the sharpness of foreground to background. thats just my perspective and thoughts.

I have made some progress in dismantling this technique, although it is not 100% yet. I have found that it is really all about the lighting. There is a lighting technique that is called "surreal lighting". This creates 90% of the look for me. Then it is just some tedious retouching, and tons (and tons) of adjustment layers in photoshop.


wanna give us a run down on your lighting setup and your post processing?

Rocksteady,
Danno~

despite the fact, that this is a retouching forum, I believe many of us are photographers? and in that case, I think there should be much more discussion on the use of lights in hills photos, because without the knowledge, his post production is nothing. The reason I believe he doesnt tonemap or lucis art it, is the fact that he uses those lights. If youve seen his shots, youre looking at more than three or four lights ususally, and he's using all those lights to light every aspect of the photo, to have detail in every area. Im seeing alot of people use lucis art to bring out their details, but hills already got it. Quite a few of his shots are also composites, thus the sharpness of foreground to background. thats just my perspective and thoughts.

Me thinks you have nailed it and just summed up six months of DH discussion with over 400 posts...
Just my thoughts after reading everything here and watching all the vids and seeing his set up on the DH site

my latest sad attempt

http://www.plushimages.net/pics/arr.jpg

should note no lucis was used.

Me thinks you have nailed it and just summed up six months of DH discussion with over 400 posts...
Just my thoughts after reading everything here and watching all the vids and seeing his set up on the DH site

It's the end result that counts really! I think the journey trough all the post have been a blast to read! Trying different tips and tricks people have shared! The lighting is crucial here, I would love to learn more on what f/shot shutter time the placement of lights and stuff! It's fun to see that this thread has come a loooooooong way since it's earlier posts! I've learn a lot! Thanks to all who contribute!

Let's talk lighting technique, people :D

Her is a shot I did.

I think the lighting is pretty close. there is no retouch on it, exept a high pass filter set at overlay for a little sharpness.

I think he does a lot of photoshop to get his effect. it's not only the lighting.

I would have needed more props in between the background (my shower curtain) and me to get a better effect!

What do you guys think!

(i have aded the lighting set-up so you could have peak!)

the easiest way to emulate hills lighting in my opinion would be to follow the standard greenberg set up. two left and right in the front softboxed, two left and right hair lighting gridded or softboxed, and a beauty dish fill. that pretty much gives you all the detail around the head.

also looking at hills post production, i think people try to hard to lighten and darken the areas they think look light or dark, but the basics come to this- you gotta really think about what would be light and dark in reality, the deepest areas would be shaded the darkest and the highest points would be the lightest.

i know i talk like i know what im doing, and i assure you i do. and i promise ill show some stuff ive done, just my cameras been down for a bit.

the easiest way to emulate hills lighting in my opinion would be to follow the standard greenberg set up. two left and right in the front softboxed, two left and right hair lighting gridded or softboxed, and a beauty dish fill. that pretty much gives you all the detail around the head.

also looking at hills post production, i think people try to hard to lighten and darken the areas they think look light or dark, but the basics come to this- you gotta really think about what would be light and dark in reality, the deepest areas would be shaded the darkest and the highest points would be the lightest.

i know i talk like i know what im doing, and i assure you i do. and i promise ill show some stuff ive done, just my cameras been down for a bit.


can't wait! HURRY! :D

the easiest way to emulate hills lighting in my opinion would be to follow the standard greenberg set up. two left and right in the front softboxed, two left and right hair lighting gridded or softboxed, and a beauty dish fill. that pretty much gives you all the detail around the head.

also looking at hills post production, i think people try to hard to lighten and darken the areas they think look light or dark, but the basics come to this- you gotta really think about what would be light and dark in reality, the deepest areas would be shaded the darkest and the highest points would be the lightest.

i know i talk like i know what im doing, and i assure you i do. and i promise ill show some stuff ive done, just my cameras been down for a bit.

Huh?.....why do you need a camera to show "stuff you've done"?

Huh?.....why do you need a camera to show "stuff you've done"?

because we just talked about how lighting is crucial and i need a camera to show those lights?

Hey guys,

I really cannot believe that you don't realize that David Hill's pictures are HDR created with tools like Photomatix. And is not so difficult to ask your model to sit for ~3 seconds, how long will take the camera to shoot 3 different exposures ...

Let me give you some thousands of other examples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsyrba/471380721/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/92832952@N00/163042946/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevenhorr/378774004/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cecile-c/217688590/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightpainter/150410530/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michelevannucchi/391928906/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/estradasbiz/327291047/

You got the idea, just go on FLICKR and search for HDR, Photomatix, Photomatix portraits ...

From my point of view, this kind of portraits doesn't have to much in common with Photography ... it's like you will have a laptop with you, but you will use the iPhone to connect to the internet ... this photography is like I will take some monsters from computer games and pretend their are portraits ... portrait is capturing a unique feeling, moment ...

Just take a look at below examples done by myself ... I screwed up some pictures on a bridge in my home town, just look at them how ugly they are by themselves ... then I load them in Photomatix, generate HDR picture and apply Tone Mapping effect and play with settings there ... this is not photography ...

You can visit this link http://www.radutheodor.com/?p=12 for some more examples of before and after ...

Good luck!

P.S.: By the way, do you see any moving object in his photos? Can you wonder why ... ;-) ?

wow you solved it! whoo hooooooo!

on a serious note, those examples are FAAAAAR from dave hill's technique. I don't doubt there is some tone mapping going on but your examples aren't close.

@mrbeagle:

wooo hooo, the only way to find out what exactly David is doing to his pictures is to sit next to him while he's process them.

On a serious note, there is nothing special to those pictures from my point of view ... there is not to much to demystify ... it's about how much time you have to spend to tweak Tone Mapping and other similar stuff ... nobody can tell you what exact settings DH using in his photos ... each photo, depend on the subject, light, background, will need a different processing ...

Regarding examples which I gave, I took the idea, those were the first 5 photos found by doing the search, if go into detail ... the difference between DH HDR's and other's HDR's is the subject from the photography ... DH is preparing his scene, his going out there for professional models, his arranging the background, the foreground, he's trying to get an idea out of his photos ... it's obvious that if I will take 5 exposures of a picture with me standing like in a passport picture and apply Tone Mapping it will still be useless ...

I will show you some more examples from flickr, I really don't have time for this now ...

I have to agree with mrbeagle. Those examples aren't anything like Dave Hill. Just really bad HDR along with some really bad Lucis or other LCE. The halo'ing is terrible and the effect is completely OTT for Dave Hill.

zogdart and namphoto are much closer to the money for this look. Cheers for the lighting setup. :)

I'm not even close yet, but here is my example. Note no background as I'm waiting till Summer. I've gotten a whole load of Alien Bees lighting shipped to the UK to try it out.

Here (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2043/2178459723_c35d67fdf9.jpg)

That is similar lighting to Greenberg, with some PWL and LCE.

Oh... and just to prove that Dave hill isn't a simple HDR portrait, these are HDR portraits. Completely different to DH.

Here... (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/145/417453650_0bccab987d.jpg)
...and here (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/171/402247769_d261770925.jpg)

Notice... no halo'ing. Halo'ing is bad in any HDR shot and not liked by many.

Edit: Oh... and you can do HDR with moving objects. Honest. And the newer HDR programs will take note of this and correct it.

here's my second take on it.

Works a lot better when you are outside!

Well done Zogdart
I lll guess the key was the lightning*g*

lg Calvin

What is PWL and LCE?

Paint with light, Local contrast enhancement.

We need a glossary FAQ or something. Haha.

because we just talked about how lighting is crucial and i need a camera to show those lights?

Ok one more time.......why do you need a camera to show "stuff you've done"? D-O-N-E, past tense.

Sheeez

@George
Thats "off topic". Maybe he wants to shoot special for this kind of style.
And he dont like to work on old pictures.

lg Calvin

@George
Thats "off topic". Maybe he wants to shoot special for this kind of style.
And he dont like to work on old pictures.

lg Calvin

Nothing like speculation.........

I simply asked him why he needed a camera to show stuff he has done in the past, why is that off topic? If he's done this kind of work in the past (which is on topic), then I ask again, why do you need a camera to show the work if it has already been done? If it's because examples are not available and need to be re-done then that is for him to explain, not you.

@ Calvin.

I did put a little lucisart to it. Here is the comaparasion (no photoshop).

He might use it, but at small increments, but it's defenetly not only the lighting.

If you look at all the skin tone on his web site you will notice that they are off (more noticable with white people) but still nice. he doesn't seem to have the realistique skin tone or the bronze like jill greenberg.

Nothing like speculation.........

I simply asked him why he needed a camera to show stuff he has done in the past, why is that off topic? If he's done this kind of work in the past (which is on topic), then I ask again, why do you need a camera to show the work if it has already been done? If it's because examples are not available and need to be re-done then that is for him to explain, not you.

We understood what he meant, you didn't...leave it alone!

@mrbeagle:

wooo hooo, the only way to find out what exactly David is doing to his pictures is to sit next to him while he's process them.


Why don't you just visit his site and watch his behind the scene links down on the right side of the site and look at the videos!

superkoax. I've looked at your post count and always thought... "this guy must be experienced", but I checked through a lot of your old posts.

I'll not post here anymore.

I really enjoyed this thread at one point but no more. I'm out.

People shouldn't be so nasty.... simple as... anyway, as mentioned before. I'm out of this thread.

@george

alright alright dont fuss, i meant 'will do' future, come on be logical everyone else got it.

give me a week or so at the most you guys i promise.

Why don't you just visit his site and watch his behind the scene links down on the right side of the site and look at the videos!


Yeah as enigma said you must have a lot of boring time on your hands. Anyway, we are all aware he has behind-the-scenes footage but if that showed how things were done this thread would be pointless.



Also, thanks enigma too for taking the time to post examples of HDR portraits and commenting on the possibility of moving subject HDR. I'm sure Mtmm is shrinking in his chair right about now. (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/photo-retouching/17897-demystification-dave-hill-let-s-all-help-8.html#post175742)

superkoax. I've looked at your post count and always thought... "this guy must be experienced", but I checked through a lot of your old posts.

I'll not post here anymore.

I really enjoyed this thread at one point but no more. I'm out.

People shouldn't be so nasty.... simple as... anyway, as mentioned before. I'm out of this thread.

Hmmm...didn't quite understand what your were trying to say here!

Good luck to you, Enigma! Sorry to loose your experience!

Yeah as enigma said you must have a lot of boring time on your hands. Anyway, we are all aware he has behind-the-scenes footage but if that showed how things were done this thread would be pointless.
[/url]

What? How can you sit there and judge me? Boring time? Just either be here or not!

Anyway not everyone is aware of the behind the scenes! And as to my reply on the last point on the lighting was to point out that he doesn't shoot hdr! He shoots, randomly! I have even written that before!

@george

alright alright dont fuss, i meant 'will do' future, come on be logical everyone else got it.

give me a week or so at the most you guys i promise.


as I wrote eralier! can't wait!

BTW: what lighting equipment do you use?

I dunno, dude. You seem to have a lot to say, without actually contributing anything worthwhile.
Kind of like someone who loves the sound of their own voice.


Case-in-point: Your last 3 posts.

Make that 3 hundred posts.

I dunno, dude. You seem to have a lot to say, without actually contributing anything worthwhile.
Kind of like someone who loves the sound of their own voice.


Case-in-point: Your last 3 posts.

Make that 3 hundred posts.

I'm sorry that you feel that way! I'm curious to his style! Want to learn it. I started this thread to learn more really!

But if others feel the same way here...Please do reply! I don't want to be this member who write nonsense! I don't feel I'm just writing nonsense! I try to ask questions that everyone can take part in here...

two alien bee 800s and sigma ef 500 external flash.

Hmmm...didn't quite understand what your were trying to say here!

Good luck to you, Enigma! Sorry to loose your experience!

Whoops... I just re-read my post and all I can say is sorry. It does sound really rude and it wasn't meant that way. In fact I feel like an idiot now.

Apologies again.

Note to Self: Don't type up replies after returning from the pub :blush:

Hey guys,

I really cannot believe that you don't realize that David Hill's pictures are HDR created with tools like Photomatix.

Wow.

So, so , so wrong. And yet so positive that you are right.

Those HDR shots dont look like Hill. You really need to develop your 'eye' if you think they do.

I would say 'manual HDR', rather than Photomatix or some 'tool'.

Edit: Oh... and you can do HDR with moving objects. Honest. And the newer HDR programs will take note of this and correct it.Could you please show us? You cant, it´s not possible to make real HDR shots. I will lick my balls for the rest of my life if you show me how you can do a true HDR shot from a jumping model. It just not possible. So please show us how to do it or admit that it is impossible. Transoptic, please stfu and let enigma answer to this. I dont need your noob comments.

mtmm: I think understand your opinion, it's not possible due to recycle time of flash and the person is moving little by little everytime, right?

I can't honestly say that, when going trough DH's behind the scenes I haven't seen him shoot 3 or 5 pictures when the model is standing still! Can HDR be used only with 1picture? Underexposing and overexposing it in RAW?

mtmm: I think understand your opinion, it's not possible due to recycle time of flash and the person is moving little by little everytime, right?

I can't honestly say that, when going trough DH's behind the scenes I haven't seen him shoot 3 or 5 pictures when the model is standing still! Can HDR be used only with 1picture? Underexposing and overexposing it in RAW?
A true HDR needs several exposures. With one exposure you can make a "fake" HDR playing with raw-converter. With true HDR, no matter what everybody is saying, it´s just not possible. Flash recycle time is too slow, camera is too slow, when subject is moving you cannot take several shots without model moving too much. Enigma lacks some fatal information about flash shooting if she/he is still making HDR shots with moving subject. If your recycle time is for example 1sec with half power, you´ll need a wizard model who can levitate and stay still for several seconds in the air.

Enigma lacks some fatal information about flash shooting if she/he is still making HDR shots with moving subject. If your recycle time is for example 1sec with half power, you´ll need a wizard model who can levitate and stay still for several seconds in the air.

Has anyone considered using three cameras remotely fired to all go off at once.... with various exposure settings? That would get a true HDR with moving subjects. And I have heard through the grapevine that Photomatix are working on new algorithms to tackle moving subjects. In fact they already have the early alogorithms to try and tackle movement in water.

Has anyone considered using three cameras remotely fired to all go off at once.... with various exposure settings? That would get a true HDR with moving subjects. And I have heard through the grapevine that Photomatix are working on new algorithms to tackle moving subjects. In fact they already have the early alogorithms to try and tackle movement in water.

If you used three cameras they would all be in different locations so how would you be able to align the shots for HDR purposes?

I'm fairly sure that Dave Hill said that he didn't use HDR anyway, so why has this discussion gone down that route?

Enigma lacks some fatal information about flash shooting if she/he is still making HDR shots with moving subject.

I have heard through the grapevine that Photomatix are working on new algorithms to tackle moving subjects. In fact they already have the early alogorithms to try and tackle movement in water.

There's also big steps in improved sensors that will handle HDR in camera. The Sony Alpha range already have in camera HDR settings which are only improving with time.

Has anyone considered using three cameras remotely fired to all go off at once.... with various exposure settings? That would get a true HDR with moving subjects. And I have heard through the grapevine that Photomatix are working on new algorithms to tackle moving subjects. In fact they already have the early alogorithms to try and tackle movement in water.
There is no software that can align bodyparts what are at different angle in every shot. And of course, flash recycle time is way too slow for rapid fire. As said, 3 cameras would also be at different angle. It would be also insanely expensive setup to use for example 3x1Ds mkIII, 3x24-70/2.8L and another problem would be to set all the cameras to fire at the same time syncing with flashes. And for the record, Dave Hill himself said that "it would be about impossible to shoot HDR with humans".

There is no software that can align bodyparts what are at different angle in every shot. And of course, flash recycle time is way too slow for rapid fire. As said, 3 cameras would also be at different angle. It would be also insanely expensive setup to use for example 3x1Ds mkIII, 3x24-70/2.8L and another problem would be to set all the cameras to fire at the same time syncing with flashes. And for the record, Dave Hill himself said that "it would be about impossible to shoot HDR with humans".

Thanks for confirming that Mtmm! We know DH makes composites, often placing his foreground subjects on separate backgrounds so I suppose there is nothing stopping you from placing your portrait subjects on a HDR'd background. This I feel is the only extent to which HDR is relevant to this discussion.

And for the record, Dave Hill himself said that "it would be about impossible to shoot HDR with humans".

Well I guess that's it then, if DH says so.

Anway.... I do know a guy who is beta testing new Photomatix software with 'better' movement algorithms. In fact the current version even has a pop at it. It's not great, but it does try some. Who knows what the newer algorithms and greater range sensors will do in the future.

I speculate that eventually it will be done, just as you speculate it won't.

with the greatest respect, if Dave Hill said that he doesn't use HDR, why are we still discussing it?

Is there any chance that we can get this thread back on topic?

Well I guess that's it then, if DH says so.

Anway.... I do know a guy who is beta testing new Photomatix software with 'better' movement algorithms. In fact the current version even has a pop at it. It's not great, but it does try some. Who knows what the newer algorithms and greater range sensors will do in the future.

I speculate that eventually it will be done, just as you speculate it won't.Relying just on basic fysics, it´s not possible. You know Enigma, when shooting with several flashes like Dave Hill, recycle time is so slow, that it´s not just about ghosting effect anymore, it´s a different image with different angle and position.

If you are taking 3 different exposures, it will take about 2 seconds to fire flashes 3 times. How in the world you can align that? You cant, just face the facts. And I´m talking about moving subject, like jumps or anything. Look at behind the scenes by Dave Hill and that shoot where they are using trampoline. Does the Photomatix freeze humans in the air for 2 secs?

And here is again, Dave Hill himself.

I haven't used HDR or that tone-mapping stuff. I just recently heard about it, and it seems you need to bracket your images to do it well. That would be almost impossible when shooting humans! :-) ......snip

If you are taking 3 different exposures, it will take about 2 seconds to fire flashes 3 times. How in the world you can align that? You cant, just face the facts. And I´m talking about moving subject, like jumps or anything. Look at behind the scenes by Dave Hill and that shoot where they are using trampoline. Does the Photomatix freeze humans in the air for 2 secs?

I'm not saying in the future you will use three (or more) exposures. What I'm trying to say is that, in the very near future, all you will need is one exposure. The way technology is growing the camera will be able to see the same as the eye... in fact better.

But what do I know. I've only been taking photos for about 10 years+, and I know people that are actually testing new software. Look up HDR hallucination. (It seems the world will always be flat). Maybe look up Moore's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law)

Anyway... back on topic I think. If it makes you feel better, then I agree with the current technology, you can't take moving objects with (true) HDR. But it aint far away.

Anyway... back on topic.

Let's just end the HDR PORTRAIT for now! :D

I'm very interested in moving it towards models on different backgrounds! Lookup the Dan HEder shoot from the behind the scene on DH site! First he shoots him in a kitchen shoot, and then the playground pictures! the playground shoot he places him on different background and the kitchen shoot he uses the same background! different post productions but same result/feel!

Back to Basics with NAM

HDR = High Dynamic Range

Why would we need a high dynamic range in flesh tones. With technical use of lights, you can bring out your highlights without blowing them out and bring the detail in your shadows using fill lights, reflectors, etc.

HDR is something you need in landscapes where the dynamic range differs as extremely as the sky and the earth, which cannot be captured in a single exposure.

@Enigma, why do you have this obsession with HDR portraits. Im not saying its not possible because DH dont do it. I could care less what he says, but he doesn't do it for a reason. too much work, for results you can produce with a little more careful work. There isn't an quick answer for a 'retouch pro'.

hey guys!...I have been reading this ENTIRE FORUM for about 2.5 hours now

I live in a humble town called Murfreesboro Tennessee in the US.

I, like yourselves, am in a never ending quest to create pictures similar to Dave Hills.

yes I have lucisart but everytime I try and use this I get really grainy nasty skin tones?

any ideas?

I read in a forum that Dave Hill was actually in...and someone asked him..Dave I dont want to steal your secrets but how do you do it dude?

and he replied "two words!....LUCIS ART!"

maybe it was a fake or I was dreaming hah..

but I have my TRIAL PICTURES...as well

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2121808306&size=l

I did not do this next image but beilieve it is very close...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2232/2121616756_6318027945_b.jpg

but when he tried to explain it all...I got lost

sry for the LONG post guys

You can HDR from the One RAW file and just run it out as 3 different exposures...
Also he may not be using Lucis Art but you can a similar look in RAW by playing with the Fill light exposures or do the same thing in Shadows and Highlights..
That is what dave hill is doing most likely.
In any case it is not a one step plug-in.
You should know a bit about photoshop, Masking etc..otherwise you will be way lost.

Also I saw in a backstage shot's by Dave that he has a guy on set there doing the photoshop.. not Dave Hill.
Also Dave Hill is nothing new! He has simply copied Ficus and greenberg but marketed it to a Newbie Rock band market...:+}
This technique has been around much longer than Dave Hill for sure..:+}
Snook

I have to agree with all of the above, no way does Dave Hill rely on a filter like Lucis to create his effect, and even if he does use HDR for his backgrounds (although he says he doesn't) further post processing would be required to finalise the look.

Here is a shot that i recently took, and posted elsewhere on this forum. I've retouched the photo a touch further to get a little closer to the Dave Hill look.

Although it's nowhere near as good as Mr Hill's work I do believe that it is a step in the right direction. I'll also state now that I used no HDR techniques or filters, instead making sure I got the lighting right at the start!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2164/2213862517_2da45cf7aa.jpg

cheers, Matt

hey guys!...

I have attempted another try

I honestly have changed my mind about my earlier post

I do not think DH uses any lucis art

I think he just hella lights his pictures..

Im aware I am NOT DH and my pictured are VERY flawed but...heres my second attempt

http://www.flickr.com/photos/charliebrownphotography/2214579663/

still grainy and nasty at points but closer than I have ever been

feedback would be fantastic

looks interesting, but not exactly DH like...

Charlie...nice pic, but it looks Lucis art and not DH. I agree with snook DH is a copy of Fiscus and I'd much rather analyze Fiscus than DH. Anyone check out his site lately...some nice new shots. He uses plenty of lights. Camera looks like a leaf, but I can't figure out the lense he is using. Ummm..good lights...good 39 mpix camera...and lucis art...maybe that is the secret.

you are right guys

I only have one alien bee b800 and a couple of hot lights...no ring flash either

so recreating DH pics I think with only these tools are very hard..

stay away from lucis art and HDR...stay far far away if you want your images to look like DH haha

soon though I am going to try to get a group of photographers from the Nashville area together and get about 5 or 6 strobes...then we will see whats up :)

This is my first time here. . Saw Dave's work a couple of days ago and got pretty interested.

I tired it with a pic. . Not near but not crappy for a two minute job.

What do you think?

http://flickr.com/photos/23176182@N07/2220766866/

This is my first time here. . Saw Dave's work a couple of days ago and got pretty interested.

I tired it with a pic. . Not near but not crappy for a two minute job.

What do you think?

http://flickr.com/photos/23176182@N07/2220766866/


looks like a bad lucis job. The skin is highly discolored and uneven.

that was a bit harsh beagle.

Yeah the colour's uneven but it's not a bad look, nice first try

Yeah I know, didn't bother to play with the colors. . Will do that though. .

Here's another try with a low res pic of "my girlfriend".
Should give a better result with a focused background

http://flickr.com/photos/23176182@N07/2223103822/

Hi Lance,

Unfortunately I still think your way off with your edit. The use of the Lucis Art filter has what I call a "zombie effect" it really messes with skin tones etc. IMHO if your serious about going for the Dave Hill Look I would ditch the Lucis Art filter. Unfortunately there is no quick filter method for getting the Dave Hill look, just lots of work with lights and then some in Photoshop.

Just have a look on Dave recent blog updates, he says that he has had a few fifteen hour days editing his shots, that's the level of effort required. Such a statement also dispels the rumours that Dave has some lacky editing all of his shots for him.

Do you guys think it might be safe to assume that lucis is an option with regard to some elements of the photo? For instance, if the lucas filter works well on one section (maybe a building, or a car thats in a certain color/tonal range) - maybe it can be applied to that one section of the photo, and then the parts that require fine tunin' (such as skin) is where all the D&B / local contrast / PWL ect is used?

I've never used it, but it looks like sometimes it's just terrible for skin, and really dark areas. But some of the really well lit / lots of detial areas of photos seem to have some success with the filter...

I came across this today...I haven't seen this method used before so I thought I'd pass it on. Still not Dave Hill..but interesting.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/72157594577686705/page2/

I came across this today...I haven't seen this method used before so I thought I'd pass it on. Still not Dave Hill..but interesting.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/72157594577686705/page2/


that's been referenced before, but it isn't dave's look.

Just tried the last method I posted. Could be cleaned up..not bad..not Dave Hill...but I can't complain about the price...no expensive lights or camera...not saying I don't want the lights or camera!

eternal...sorry bout that...thanks for pointing that out...

yo sky, im guessing you used a surface blur? i dont know but when you do any sort of blurring i strongly recommend re adding the texture by adding noise, embossing it alittle and usually use a good blend layer. also when trying to soften the skin, dont forget to mask out the blurred areas that should be sharp like the hair or the clothing. my two cents.

hello everyone i'm new here. came across this thread and would like to share my two cents...

i believe they use lucis art, with some color saturation adjustments. it will need some layer masking and curve adjustments as well. and yes, flat lighting would work best.

long before i saw dave hill's, i researched about this effect when i first saw andrzej dragan's and jim fiscus' works.

i pretty much followed tweaked/varied the technique according to my own taste. if you guys have the time, check some images from my links below:

http://lexkabigting.multiply.com/photos/album/14/Unleashed#
http://lexkabigting.multiply.com/photos/album/17/oomph

most of my images on this site were processed that filter too:

www.lexkabigting.com

palapupu: nice work man. . mind sharing the workflow?

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/charliebrownphotography/2121031093/" title="A Semester Abroad 2007 by Charlie Brown Photography, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2237/2121031093_a60c4bf1e0_b.jpg" width="1024" height="685" alt="A Semester Abroad 2007" /></a>

no lucis art

no HDR

3 hot lights

and minimal Post Process

I think about as close as I am going to get

what do you guys think?

not sure if that last link worked!

here is another

http://www.flickr.com/photos/charliebrownphotography/2121031093/

view large for muchos detail

Here's more or less my attempt at the style...Just to give it a shot

When I did the shots as a series, I changed the look a little.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisknightphotography/2197448993/

Just tried the last method I posted. Could be cleaned up..not bad..not Dave Hill...but I can't complain about the price...no expensive lights or camera...not saying I don't want the lights or camera!

just looks like smudged skin

hello everyone i'm new here. came across this thread and would like to share my two cents...

i believe they use lucis art, with some color saturation adjustments. it will need some layer masking and curve adjustments as well. and yes, flat lighting would work best.

long before i saw dave hill's, i researched about this effect when i first saw andrzej dragan's and jim fiscus' works.

i pretty much followed tweaked/varied the technique according to my own taste. if you guys have the time, check some images from my links below:

http://lexkabigting.multiply.com/photos/album/14/Unleashed#
http://lexkabigting.multiply.com/photos/album/17/oomph

most of my images on this site were processed that filter too:

www.lexkabigting.com


VERY COOL shots on the 2nd link, u gonna share some tips or just gloat in the mastery :)

http://flickr.com/photos/charliebrownphotography/2272381643/

as close as I can get

watcha think?

@charlie
post the original.

<center>
<img src="http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m162/acidpuppets6794/_DSC0644-1.jpg" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"><br><br>
</center>

by request..

the original straight from my cf card with NO editing or pp of any kind

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m162/acidpuppets6794/th__DSC0644-1.jpg (http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m162/acidpuppets6794/_DSC0644-1.jpg)


hope this one works..

the original from my previous post with no PP straight from my CF card

looks pretty good to me, the only critique id give is, correct me if im wrong, you concentrated too much on the face, and not any other aspect. l