Damn... that Thread is still running.. keep on going*g*

lg Calvin
http://www.calvinhollywood.de

His work looks good.... I seen this last year on www.photography-on-the.net... Also, all these teenagers "artist" ON MYSPACE are doing this with their personal digital camera... I am surprise these teenagers don't a DSLR?? Their technique is awesome! They upload their picture, then BANG! It look just as good as Dave! Seriously!! Check it out on MYSPACE!

Here is the link and a chance to buy the DVD on virtual painting... I am quite sure you can increase (intensify) shadows, lighting, and etc.... It will always look the same regardless of the camera. I am still practicing!!

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=260882

Superkoax!!!
Dave is using a Hasselblad H2 with a Phase One P 45 digital back that is 39 milion pixels.You have notice corectcly that his pictures are sharp allover.Photographicly speeking that is hard to achieve in one exposure because of Depth of Field which is "controled" by the lens and the aperture.So he makes multiple exposures, he focus on all elements separatly and then combine it in one stylish photo.The thing is that this digital back has a dynamic range of
12 stops.If you compare this with the best slr Canon 1Ds Mark II which has only 8.1 stops dynamic range you will understand why is no noise.

Dynamic range can be translated like this: the ability of the sensor to handle the shadows but also highlights in the same frame.So when you have 39mil pixels and 12 dynamic range + multiple exposures+ smart lighting+ big talent = the only one Dave Hill.

His work looks good.... I seen this last year on www.photography-on-the.net... Also, all these teenagers "artist" ON MYSPACE are doing this with their personal digital camera... I am surprise these teenagers don't a DSLR?? Their technique is awesome! They upload their picture, then BANG! It look just as good as Dave! Seriously!! Check it out on MYSPACE!
i kind of not-get-it oO

For CMS, you fail! Dave is also using Canon´s low-end shitty 5D for some photos.

Wow! Marclif,

That picture is very close... Why did you choose that pic? I would think it woudl be hard?

Did you edit each person, water, pool, items separately?? share you tips man!!

Here is the person who does it on myspace....

ok.. I made a mistake.. He is an photographer.... He does this by himself using photoshop...

I have to find the kids that are using a software to make it for myspace!

Here is the last one.... I am not sure if this one has all the intensity in it....

I like the light on the left side of this picture....

The last one could use some contrast and drama.Used some PWL on it.

Jackie, the b & w image you posted appears looks like an abuse of Lucis Art, the second one looks better but to be honest it just looks like a regular photo!....

For CMS, you fail! Dave is also using Canon´s low-end shitty 5D for some photos.

I do not think so.Just because you have seen it in his hands does not mean that he use it.This guy is an actor and he is making nice money.It is all about show!!!

BUT you can buy a 5D and prove me wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow! Marclif,

That picture is very close... Why did you choose that pic? I would think it woudl be hard?

Did you edit each person, water, pool, items separately?? share you tips man!!

which image are you referring to?

Making of here (http://obosila.blogspot.com/2008/03/dupa-ore.html).

Obosila you are the new dave Hill. Let us bow down to you. I loike the way youve done it using small strobes, proving that we dont need $10000 of lighting. Any tips on your post work I'm sure would go down extremely nicely with some people. keep up your top work!!!

Obosila, I have to agree with danny, you have a really good look going there, I especially like the notion of separately lighting the scene and the subjects, it has a cool look. My only very slight niggle with your shot is the guy sat on the floor kinda looks as though he has been composited into the shot a little too much.

Still great shot and I will certainly trying a similar technique at the weekend!

Jackie, the b & w image you posted appears looks like an abuse of Lucis Art, the second one looks better but to be honest it just looks like a regular photo!....

hahahahah! It does not! hahahah

These are the reduced, compressed, screen print (i shouldn't have done this) and a copy of the copy.....

I think he is a better photographer than a graphic artist?!?


oh, I didn't know Lucis Art was a plug-in? Is it??

Making of here (http://obosila.blogspot.com/2008/03/dupa-ore.html).

interesting to see that it was shot at different times of the day and to see just how much work went into that one image, i'd bet the photoshop work was quite intensive...

Making of here (http://obosila.blogspot.com/2008/03/dupa-ore.html).

wow ok excuse me great "behind the scene" but the photoshop work isn't show... i'm wrong??? is in another part of the obosila's blog???

If you`re interested, there`s Scott Kelby`s take on Dave Hill:
http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/
Scroll down a bit!

Scott Kelby certainly appears to know his stuff when it comes to Photoshop but from looking at his efforts at re-creating the Dave Hill look with Lucis I think it only serves to show that Dave Hill doesn't use Lucis!!

It really irritates me when people talk about the gritty Dave Hill look as none of his shots have a gritty look to them. His images are pristine, beautiful rich colours occasionally with selective desaturation and plenty of pop!

The efforts by Scott Kelby have none of the above and to me just show that no quick fix with a lucis is going to get you remotely near Dave Hill. The selctive contrast of Lucis just seems to blow skin details and accentuates shadows, resulting in images of seriously poor quality.

Just my two penneth!

obosila, great video. I too would like a look into your post techniques. Any chance of seeing what you have going in that area?

Just a suggestion:

I think everybody is confident that it's all about light AND post-processing.

Maybe someone can post a picture which is "Dave Hillish lighted", so we can go on with this thread and leave the light stuff and go on to post-processing by working all on the same photo and share workflows?



Bart

Here is a thought...
This is what I do sometimes as I already have got a little bored with the Dave Hill look and ficus and greenberg.. they are pretty much the same.
Use lucis which make everything but skintones very nice and put it on a luminosity layer and back off the effect (mask) on the skintones with fade and use a little noise reduction to help the gritty look to the skin..
I have posted several times shot's I have done with this technique.
I try and post something similar now but it was done with ring flash and has it's original background still.
Forget the wings brushes and stars as I was just showing a client of mine some brushes I have..
Snook.
PS. how do we post images in here again...? :+}Sorry

The efforts by Scott Kelby have none of the above and to me just show that no quick fix with a lucis is going to get you remotely near Dave Hill.

Not sure if you actually read his blog post entirely, but here's some stuff from it:

"I haven’t talked with Dave or even been able to replicate his look myself. So, in short, I could be totally wrong about how I think he does it.

Also, I want to make it clear that I am absolutely NOT saying that the Lucis Art plug-in will give you Dave Hill’s look; what I am saying is that the plug-in gives you a gritty, dirty look that I personally like, and while it does somewhat remind me of Dave’s look; it’s just a plug-in and Dave’s work is MUCH more than that."

"Lucisart won’t turn you into a Dave Hill, the look it gives is in the ballpark enough that I’ve seen people arguing back and forth in forums that his whole look is either based on this plug-in (he says he doesn’t use it, and I believe him), and/or HDR (as I mentioned earlier; he says he doesn’t use HDR either; I believe that as well)."

Perhaps you're not giving Scott Kelby enough credit.
He clearly is aware this is not the Dave Hill look, but something similar.

Even if there was a "dave hill" plugin which actually got closer than lucis, i wouldnt want to use it. this would teach people nothing about retouching and only about locating the filter menu. How soon would that get boring? There is much more joy in creating something rather than having it created for you and trying to pass it off as your own hard work. Lucis has its place but please...not in this thread!!

Not sure if you actually read his blog post entirely, but here's some stuff from it:

"I haven’t talked with Dave or even been able to replicate his look myself. So, in short, I could be totally wrong about how I think he does it.

Also, I want to make it clear that I am absolutely NOT saying that the Lucis Art plug-in will give you Dave Hill’s look; what I am saying is that the plug-in gives you a gritty, dirty look that I personally like, and while it does somewhat remind me of Dave’s look; it’s just a plug-in and Dave’s work is MUCH more than that."

"Lucisart won’t turn you into a Dave Hill, the look it gives is in the ballpark enough that I’ve seen people arguing back and forth in forums that his whole look is either based on this plug-in (he says he doesn’t use it, and I believe him), and/or HDR (as I mentioned earlier; he says he doesn’t use HDR either; I believe that as well)."

Perhaps you're not giving Scott Kelby enough credit.
He clearly is aware this is not the Dave Hill look, but something similar.

Point taken Captain Hook, slapped wrists for not reading the blog post in its entirety!

My first post....Whooopeeee:).

Just saw this on Fredmiranda and immediately remembered this thread. Not 100% the same, but this is cool considering it is all done in the RAW converter....http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/1094#comments

Thank you all...I am already learning some neat tricks on this forum.

I do not think so.Just because you have seen it in his hands does not mean that he use it.This guy is an actor and he is making nice money.It is all about show!!!

BUT you can buy a 5D and prove me wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You fail again. Look at his backstage videos. You must be somekind of a wizard to turn everything upside down.

But to make my point water clear, do you feel owned?

Dave Hill wrote:
Hey,
Thanks!
Ya, I used the H2 for a bunch of stuff this summer. Ghostface, Chris Brown, WWE Magazine, etc. It's slow, but still usable. I use the 5D for everything else. I have the 15mm fisheye, 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, Sigma 20mm 1.8, and also the Canon 70-200, but I rarely use it. Just for travel mainly. Ya, I like to use a ring flash a lot. Lata!
dave

And yes, I have Canon 5D.

Mtmm ~ what forum did Dave post that on?

http://www.photographyisrad.com/

In his own blog.

Ah. I should read the comments more often.
Cheers.

Heres a new interview with Dave on the strobist blog

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/03/beers-with-dave-hill.html

You fail again. Look at his backstage videos. You must be somekind of a wizard to turn everything upside down.

But to make my point water clear, do you feel owned?



And yes, I have Canon 5D.


Man!! Do not want to argue with you! I have canon 5D and phase one digital back on a mamiya 645 afd.I have seen the difference.5D has a 8 exposures P45 has 12.You take a look at those images and think in terms of light and shadow.
NO WAY 5D can do that to a good quality.If you want i can send you a raw file from my back to see what i talking about.He is recording with a camera what he wants.He has a secrets and he would do anything to keep it.

That is my opinion! You have the right to have another one.You can see some of my photos on www.cristianmihai.ro.If you have similar experience and images maybe you will share some!!!!!!!!

Well...lol.. Obosila's got it.. Now if he will just let us pick his brain...LOL

My first post....Whooopeeee:).

Just saw this on Fredmiranda and immediately remembered this thread. Not 100% the same, but this is cool considering it is all done in the RAW converter....http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/1094#comments

Thank you all...I am already learning some neat tricks on this forum.
Hate to disappoint you, but letting the fill light go(with recovery), will produce terrible halos and noise. Image is useless for print.

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

That is a really good representation of Mr. Hill's style.

That is a really good representation of Mr. Hill's style.

agreed! nice job.

Here is a shoot i did today. I did a very quick retouch to see were i'm going with this. I guess it Look's a little bit like Dave's !!! what do you think?

Dave Hill style IMHO

Nicely done Zogdart.

Here is a shoot i did today. I did a very quick retouch to see were i'm going with this. I guess it Look's a little bit like Dave's !!! what do you think?


what was your process for your post work?

After almost 36 pages of posts.. it still comes down to the original lighting in the image.

If the light isn't perfect to start with, you'll never match the 'look'.. really.

I've seen this look pop up all over the place, and seen it demonstrated at various conferences and such, and I've played with it a bit myself.. if you get harsh light to start with, you can get pretty close with some photoshop trickery.

Somebody above linked Scott Kelby's article about it, and it's a super short cut to doing something similar, not exactly, but it's a cool look and good enough for the average person. And yea, it prints just fine.. I've done a few test images this way and it looks just the same as on the screen, assuming you have it all calibrated and such. Yes, it can be done better.. but if there is a super crazy shortcut to get close, go for it.

As with many photoshop techniques, the key is going too far with it, then backing off in the areas that become rough, and carefully controlling the effect rather than just slapping on layers.

I honestly think a lot of the stuff in this thread looks GREAT, but it seems like a few who have spent so much time idolizing dave hill's images, refuse to accept that it can be copied well. I personally love that 'look' and have really enjoyed all the images posted here. Not all of them, and to some none of them, are duplicates of the exact "look" but most are very cool in their own right and it's fun to see people pulling out all the stops in their search for something cool.

Kyle

does anyone remember the guy, who got pretty close to "the look" with his pool-party pictures?
con one please direct me to this post, cause i got lost (again) :)

The important thing is the light.... the post is just 30 %.

The Scott Kelby way is ok... but not really good lightning.

Light from all sides and some contrast and colour manipulation there

57551

Have a nice week all

lg Calvin
http://www.calvinhollywood.de

Love that.

Does anyone know of a good workflow to reverse this process? You know, for when I find an image I would really like to use as a desktop but it's had this "stuff" done to it. Any way to bring back the color range, get rid of the shadows, restore the gradients between the huge drop offs between light and dark?
Just basically trying to take a picture that has been post processed to look like it was created in Poser and make it look like a realistic photo again.

The important thing is the light.... the post is just 30 %.

The Scott Kelby way is ok... but not really good lightning.

Light from all sides and some contrast and colour manipulation there

57551

Have a nice week all

lg Calvin
http://www.calvinhollywood.de

now that has a nice look to it, what does the original look like?

Paint with light?

http://flickr.com/photos/charliebrownphotography/2338877721/

http://flickr.com/photos/charliebrownphotography/2338878191/

as close as I want to get

Patrick...where have you been?

Here's my sample...

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3383/dhlikestyleix2.jpg

The main key is lighting. But a whole hell of a lot of post work.

This image was entirely edited using an airbrush, curve layer masks for dodge and burn, and ending with a high pass filter set to soft light.

The important thing is the light.... the post is just 30 %.

The Scott Kelby way is ok... but not really good lightning.

Light from all sides and some contrast and colour manipulation there

57551

Have a nice week all

lg Calvin
http://www.calvinhollywood.de

That photo is great.
You have a lot of nice examples on your site. I particularly like the little boy with his hand against the glass.

here's probably a better example than the previous;

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/1151/amybeforeafterav7.jpg

here's probably a better example than the previous;

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/1151/amybeforeafterav7.jpg

and what did you do to it? do you have a psd of what you did?

Rocksteady,
Danno~

Here is mine.Lucisart+neat image and some blending changes etc.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/isik5/2416621317/ (full size view advised)

You dont need expansive Lucis to achieve the same effect.

Aleksman71, it's hard to tell from the small example whether you duplicated the LucisArt effect or not, but it's possible you're headed in that direction.

But remember, the "Dave Hill" effect is but one blip on the continuum of what LucisArt (especially the upcoming LucisArt Pro (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/lucisartpro.html) is capable of. You can go from sand-dry exaggerated embossing to a soft and ethereal dreamlike effect with quick flicks of the two sliders.

Out of curiosity, how long is it taking and what process is being used to manually attempt to duplicate this particular Dave Hill/LucisArt effect?

isik55, that's nice work, and a cool combination of plug-ins that compliment each other.

Making of here (http://obosila.blogspot.com/2008/03/dupa-ore.html).

Nice work!

Can anyone close this stupid thread ? it's been months already and this has been any possible demonstration of mediocrity. People should focus on creativity rather than brainlessly copy a look or another. worst if that concerns a "B" class photographer...

Why? Just because you don't like it why should others that are fans of this ubiquitous look suffer and have this thread closed?

I myself don't like the look, but don't mind reading about things people share and contribute here.

Ronald N. Tan

Can anyone close this stupid thread ? it's been months already and this has been any possible demonstration of mediocrity. People should focus on creativity rather than brainlessly copy a look or another. worst if that concerns a "B" class photographer...

Can anyone close this stupid thread ? it's been months already and this has been any possible demonstration of mediocrity. People should focus on creativity rather than brainlessly copy a look or another. worst if that concerns a "B" class photographer...

If this thread bothers you "that" much then try not to read it instead of being rude! It's that simple.

No,No! Please do not close this thread! I enjoy reading about it and seeing what people do with the effect. I have Lucis Art and I plan to get the upgrade when available.

I cannot understand the criticism, since it is no more that another way of seeing! Are there people out there that rage against features in Photoshop like layers, brush dynamics and the art history brush as well? What is seeing, if you can't use tools to give you a differing view?

Explanation later.

Can anyone close this stupid thread ? it's been months already and this has been any possible demonstration of mediocrity. People should focus on creativity rather than brainlessly copy a look or another. worst if that concerns a "B" class photographer...

OMG....Do you seriously consider yourself the voice for everyone on RP? Why EVEN bother spew out negative words?! Man, you're so full of your self...A round of applaud goes your way, Taipan!!! :D

Her is a quick shoot i did! would need some side light to make it more hill'ish!!!

her is the before.

This is a joke right Sorry but how much time does one spend on this
its ok to Emulate but then move on people
Zganie

Zganie...if it is time for you to move on ...Move...the thead will end when there is no longer any interest. For now..there still seems to be interest.

With regards to Lucis Art (above) I have still yet to see a post from someone other than plugsnpixels who has claimed to use the $600 upgrade. To date, I've seen no evidence of a difference from the $150 product and the more expensive one...the only difference now is that if you want the product you've got to go with the more expensive version...maybe a discussion on a different post.

OMG....Do you seriously consider yourself the voice for everyone on RetouchPRO? Why EVEN bother spew out negative words?! Man, you're so full of your self...A round of applaud goes your way, Taipan!!! :D

you think you can make an image just by copying some style uh ? let me tell you what you are; just a bored day time job guy who spends his sundays in front of photoshop hoping he'll work something out of it.
You're efforts are so ridiculously pointed toward emptiness it makes you terribly pathetic. Now u tell me that i am full of myself -
let me tell you man, you're the one who highly overestimate himself thinking you can achieve things just foolishly applying techniques !
Now I ask you who do you think you are, sitting your fat ass in front of your computer spitting advices to others, on a subject you think you know well...
Look at the numbers of your posts; man if you worked half the time you spend on the forum you could be the next avedon !
The truth is that I, for myself still have a lot of work to have done before i get where i want to. and speaking of it, I know the amount of work that it takes: I've been drawing for more than 15 years now, learning perspective and anatomy, I've been a painter for the same amount of time, and attended french Fine Arts school. After that I attended a European school of media design. Now i collaborate with a fashion photographer, and i retouch his photos, which has been published.
Im not telling you that to flatter my ego as you might think: just maybe to say that it takes a huge amount of humility to tell oneself one has to go through long years of learning to get where they want.
Now i'll be leaving you toying with you brand new wacom tablet, fancy camera you think they'll get you somewhere. For myself i'll be returning to work and be productive. Have a nice time jerking around :)

Only things concerning this thread that need moderation are Hello_taipan's posts.

you think you can make an image just by copying some style uh ? let me tell you what you are; just a bored day time job guy who spends his sundays in front of photoshop hoping he'll work something out of it.
You're efforts are so ridiculously pointed toward emptiness it makes you terribly pathetic. Now u tell me that i am full of myself -
let me tell you man, you're the one who highly overestimate himself thinking you can achieve things just foolishly applying techniques !
Now I ask you who do you think you are, sitting your fat ass in front of your computer spitting advices to others, on a subject you think you know well...
Look at the numbers of your posts; man if you worked half the time you spend on the forum you could be the next avedon !
The truth is that I, for myself still have a lot of work to have done before i get where i want to. and speaking of it, I know the amount of work that it takes: I've been drawing for more than 15 years now, learning perspective and anatomy, I've been a painter for the same amount of time, and attended french Fine Arts school. After that I attended a European school of media design. Now i collaborate with a fashion photographer, and i retouch his photos, which has been published.
Im not telling you that to flatter my ego as you might think: just maybe to say that it takes a huge amount of humility to tell oneself one has to go through long years of learning to get where they want.
Now i'll be leaving you toying with you brand new wacom tablet, fancy camera you think they'll get you somewhere. For myself i'll be returning to work and be productive. Have a nice time jerking around :)


you type too much

Only things concerning this thread that need moderation are Hello_taipan's posts.

Well, He is a little harsh. It would appear that he is into the "no pain-no gain school" and to a degree he is correct. But he can't seem to accept that some of us are businessmen and seek a living from this craft. Yes, you have to know as much as you can, but whatever tools of the trade that come along and make the job easier and quicker are well worth while.

He is lucky if he has a gift for art. Some of us are art challenged and have to use it , not by instinct, but by the book. If Lucis Art, Photoshop, Lightroom, etc help to quickly turn a shoot into sales. . . God bless them.

Life is too short for constant non-constructive critique. It is easy to comment on the part that is good AND to add AND IT COULD BE IMPROVED EVEN MORE IF . . . . . . . . .

Smiles!

you think you can make an image just by copying some style uh ? let me tell you what you are; just a bored day time job guy who spends his sundays in front of photoshop hoping he'll work something out of it.
You're efforts are so ridiculously pointed toward emptiness it makes you terribly pathetic. Now u tell me that i am full of myself -
let me tell you man, you're the one who highly overestimate himself thinking you can achieve things just foolishly applying techniques !
Now I ask you who do you think you are, sitting your fat ass in front of your computer spitting advices to others, on a subject you think you know well...
Look at the numbers of your posts; man if you worked half the time you spend on the forum you could be the next avedon !
The truth is that I, for myself still have a lot of work to have done before i get where i want to. and speaking of it, I know the amount of work that it takes: I've been drawing for more than 15 years now, learning perspective and anatomy, I've been a painter for the same amount of time, and attended french Fine Arts school. After that I attended a European school of media design. Now i collaborate with a fashion photographer, and i retouch his photos, which has been published.
Im not telling you that to flatter my ego as you might think: just maybe to say that it takes a huge amount of humility to tell oneself one has to go through long years of learning to get where they want.
Now i'll be leaving you toying with you brand new wacom tablet, fancy camera you think they'll get you somewhere. For myself i'll be returning to work and be productive. Have a nice time jerking around :)


Lmao@ you writing that essay and having the nerve to tell someone else they dont have a life.

Explanation later.


Come on folks, somebody give me a comment.

[QUOTE]you think you can make an image just by copying some style uh ? We are all here to learn...You judge people because they are interested in learning a specific techniques! I ahev never said i would copy Dave Hill. To learn something on the way is what I see as important. let me tell you what you are; just a bored day time job guy who spends his sundays in front of photoshop hoping he'll work something out of it.WOOOOOW!! You really go all the way...Some little girly boy is mad, ey? You don't even know me, so just lay of trying to attack me...What you do just now is so stupid of you...Your points with this is so ridiculous...Now everyone can see how FULL OF YOUR SELF YOUR REALLY ARE...
You're efforts are so ridiculously pointed toward emptiness it makes you terribly pathetic. Now u tell me that i am full of myself
let me tell you man, you're the one who highly overestimate himself thinking you can achieve things just foolishly applying techniques !
Now I ask you who do you think you are, sitting your fat ass in front of your computer spitting advices to others, on a subject you think you know well...
Look at the numbers of your posts; man if you worked half the time you spend on the forum you could be the next avedon ! What? Fat ass? hehe...Some people who really have a bad self esteem really try to attack others...BTW, I have never said I'm a DAVE HILL KNOW IT ALL!!! People here know that! I made this thread because I wanted to learn more about his style...I give my opinion on what I think looks good and bad...NOTHING wrong in that...
The truth is that I, for myself still have a lot of work to have done before i get where i want to. and speaking of it, I know the amount of work that it takes: I've been drawing for more than 15 years now, learning perspective and anatomy, I've been a painter for the same amount of time, and attended french Fine Arts school. After that I attended a European school of media design. Now i collaborate with a fashion photographer, and i retouch his photos, which has been published. How nice for you...Can't express how good it must to be you...wow!
Im not telling you that to flatter my ego as you might think:HAHAHAHA!!!! Not full of your self....That is from now on an understatement!

Now i'll be leaving you toying with you brand new wacom tablet, fancy camera you think they'll get you somewhere.Thank you! Love my Wacom! A new camera is a good tool to have!

So to sum this up here,

You wrote a negative response....People reacted to your ridiculously written post before this! I replied to it just to tell you really, really how judgmental, arrogant and ignorant you sound! And by you posting this loooooong reply just gives people a nice view over how you really define your self....
Good luck to you, Taipan!

Once again I must applaud you!



Gerry

The pictures, anybody?

and another


hello, Crazy!

I think that this is a nice try, but it looks very lucis arts...What I have learned by following this Dave Hill thread is that Lighting, multiple exposers to background and separate exposures to the models AND good post pro in Photoshop is the essence in Dave Hills photographs...thanks for sharing! keep posting new edits...

Gerry

her is the before.

GREAT job zog, what did you do to it?

The pictures, anybody?


no where near dave hill... over processing using presets on plugins dont make it look like dave hill ;)

skydog, no one else will be posting examples created with LucisArt Pro until the beta or a trial version is released later this summer. I'm using what I'm told is the "core" of the upcoming version, for early testing (I do this occasionally; I have beta tested for Apple, Corel, ACD, Ambrosia, etc.). I understand the final version will have a different interface, at the very least, thus I haven't posted screenshots of it as it currently stands.

There won't be shocking differences between what Lucis Pro (http://plugsandpixels.com/lucispro.html) (the current high-end version of the Lucis technology) can do and the upcoming LucisArt Pro (http://plugsandpixels.com/lucisartpro.html). The approach is similar, but the software has been updated to be compatible with hardware and OS advances of the past four years. And both Lucis Pro and LucisArt Pro are much more flexible than LucisArt (the current low-end plug-in version). Once you are freed from the presets and little buttons which interrupt the smooth transition of the effects, you will have much more fun.

I intend to post a challenge here at RetouchPRO later this summer where we pit our skills against LucisArt Pro, trying to determine whether it is unique or if it can be matched by native Photoshop effects and/or cheaper plug-ins. Should be interesting!

superkoax, EternalTomorrow,
Thank you for your responses. I am not using any plugins to get the effect.
I'm posting my latest effort here. Your feedback is much appreciated.
I'm going to put togather a little expose' of what I've been doing and how I accomplished it and what my results are. Should have it written up in the next day or so and I think you all will find it interesting, or at least entertaining. Again thanx for your comments. Let me know what you think of my latest effort. From the left image you'll see that the origional was probably not great but I think it took the treatment rather well.

Hmmm, and here they are...

It's darker (??). Is that an "LA" gang sign?

crazyfly I think you're on to something, I'd love to see the write up you make!

Thank you, thank you, Mrbeagle! You are a gentleman.

skydog, no one else will be posting examples created with LucisArt Pro until the beta or a trial version is released later this summer. I'm using what I'm told is the "core" of the upcoming version, for early testing (I do this occasionally; I have beta tested for Apple, Corel, ACD, Ambrosia, etc.). I understand the final version will have a different interface, at the very least, thus I haven't posted screenshots of it as it currently stands.

There won't be shocking differences between what Lucis Pro (http://plugsandpixels.com/lucispro.html) (the current high-end version of the Lucis technology) can do and the upcoming LucisArt Pro (http://plugsandpixels.com/lucisartpro.html). The approach is similar, but the software has been updated to be compatible with hardware and OS advances of the past four years. And both Lucis Pro and LucisArt Pro are much more flexible than LucisArt (the current low-end plug-in version). Once you are freed from the presets and little buttons which interrupt the smooth transition of the effects, you will have much more fun.

I intend to post a challenge here at RetouchPRO later this summer where we pit our skills against LucisArt Pro, trying to determine whether it is unique or if it can be matched by native Photoshop effects and/or cheaper plug-ins. Should be interesting!

The big question for me is, aside from running natively (no Rosetta) under the Intel based MAC, is do you think the value for the high price will be there in the shipped product? As a beta tester, do you see the issues that arise dealt with properly?

Thanks.

I don't expect any surprises in the final version due later this summer. By that I mean, Lucis technology is stable (according to the developer, no bugs have been found in the current versions over the past several years) and the effects are familiar.

In playing with the pre-release core (which is not even a beta yet), I haven't come across any unexpected behavior–everything works as it should, and I have been happily cranking out treated images (running the Windows version on a Mac via Parallels, no less!). I offered the developer some user-interface related suggestions to make the experience even smoother (which are being considered), but haven't come across any bugs.

As for the value, there's no reason it should go down! I'm not sure what you mean by that. Everything about the Lucis experience will be improved in the LucisArt Pro version.

I don't expect any surprises in the final version due later this summer. By that I mean, Lucis technology is stable (according to the developer, no bugs have been found in the current versions over the past several years) and the effects are familiar.

In playing with the pre-release core (which is not even a beta yet), I haven't come across any unexpected behavior–everything works as it should, and I have been happily cranking out treated images (running the Windows version on a Mac via Parallels, no less!). I offered the developer some user-interface related suggestions to make the experience even smoother (which are being considered), but haven't come across any bugs.

As for the value, there's no reason it should go down! I'm not sure what you mean by that. Everything about the Lucis experience will be improved in the LucisArt Pro version.

Thanks for your input! I intend to do the upgrade, however, I only know what I have read about the "Pro" version and it was encouraging to hear your comments.

Thanks again!

You're welcome, Don!

Keep an eye on this page (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/lucisartpro.html), which I'll update as more info becomes available.

Here is another one without Lucis,just common effects in Paint Shop Pro XI
http://shrani.si/f/1r/6R/4Xj4fBE0/original.jpg
http://shrani.si/f/21/10r/2WwW6zEv/box1.jpg

P S
Images are not mine!!Owner is Ray Connolly

The pictures, anybody?


where's that write up you promised? :)

where's that write up you promised? :)

LOL, It looked as though this thread was finally going to go peacfully into the night and join the likes of threads about OJ's guilt/inosence and the virtues of Tmax.
Here I've gone and brought it back.

OK, what I did was try to take a scientific approach to this Hill look. What we are all lacking is a before and after of a Dave hill image. Given the talent that frequents this forum, if an origional were made available along with a processesed image, I'm quite sure the "mystery" would disappear in short order. I looked and did not find an origional unretouched image. I decided to try to reverse engineer one of his images to see if I could restore it to close to what it probably looked like as shot.

At this point I need to make a disclosure, I was curious to see what would happen when I posted my deconstructed Hills. What happened was odd. Noone said "wow, that's amazing" or "oh my, how did you do that, that's so close." Oddly, on the contrary, what I got was.

I think that this is a nice try, but it looks very lucis arts
and

no where near dave hill... over processing using presets on plugins dont make it look like dave hill
and this from plugsnpixels

It's darker (??). Is that an "LA" gang sign?

Only mrbeagle seemed to think I was on to something.

Folks I appologize for my small deception by omission however I really wanted to put it to the test. It seems that Dave Hill is much more about the legend than about the actual art. Responses brought to mind those of a small child being told for the first time that there really is no Easter Bunny, "Nooo, say it isn't so."
Do any of you really want to know the process?

Anyway, what I found is that there is another problem with determining the method used to obtain this look in that it is actually TWO looks; one the darkend vigneted image, and the other the clown look (for lack of a better term). I spent most of my time trying to decipher the former. I post an example of each here.

The first thing i noticed was what is likely the last part of Dave's process and that is the serious vignetting that he uses. On inspection using levels I found that not only does he use vignetting but I believe he subjects at least some of his photos to two or even three vignettes and possibly some sort of circular lighting as well. I believe that if there is any real mystisism to this tecnique that it lies with this fairly masterfull use of vignetting to increase focus on the subject. I have posted and image to show this lighting.
What I found beyond that is really very little. In order to take a Dave image and make it close to normal, all that really needs to be done is to use curves or in raw just reverse the vignette effect. Then run another curves adjustment to bring out the mid tones.
If there was any one thing I found that was substantial it is that Dave could pattent his histogram. All of his images (excepting the clown photos with the fake backgrounds and it is even true of these if you select the subject and run the histogram on that) have almost identical histograms, they exist almost entireley in the shadows and fall off to nothing passed the midtone point just barely hanging on into the highlights.
In episode 103 of photoshop user tv, Matt Kloskowski showed how to do this effect (with no mention of Dave Hill) using raw or lightroom. (Raw and Lightroom use identical algorithms to process images.) Basically the process is ;slam recovery all the way up. slam fill all the way up, slam brightness all the way up, slam contrast all the way up, slam clarity all the way up, slam the vibrance all the way up, drop out almost all of the color, and then bring the blacks up to meet your histogram, and adjust highlights to taste. Now go and give you image a huge big black vignette and your there.
Try that and you will see that somewhere in there lies the "mystery" of Dave Hill. Will any one of us ever be able to post definitavly "I've got it, this is exactly how it's done."? No. Why? because even when a Dave Hill is posted we don't see Dave Hill in it, and because The other thing I learned is that I do belive Dave loves his teqnique and his images. I started out looking to find that he probably had a droplet on his desktop that was the mill through which all of his images were run. Not so, I think truer is that he processes each image individually but manually and to taste. Now Daves "taste" obviously runs to the dark and ominous however each image has it's own character while maintaining the "look".
In actuallity I believe a lot of you obtained what would pass for the "look" if only you had access and could put your images on Dave Hills site. :)
I hope you've found this interesting or at least entertaining. Credit to Dave Hill for his images which I used for educational purposes.

One more thing I feel the need to pop back in for. No, as you may have guessed I am not a fan of this look (niether of them). I do respect Dave Hill for finding a look that a lot of folks do like, it just doesn't do it for me.
I set about trying to find the secret because I believed I had devised a way to come to that end that no one else had yet tried. Hopefully if this thread continues, and I've no doubt it will, others will try starting with a Hill and working backwards rather than the endless stream of "close but no cigar" attempts.
The Dave Hill look reminds me of the images my father captured over 40 years ago on his vacation to Colorado. Those images, now show a bygone era, not by virtue of the subject captured but by the color... all bright green and dark blue and a smattering of red for good measure. No orange, no yellow,little cyan, not much contrast either. I look at those and I see first, and old photo, only second a chipmunk with a mountain backdrop.
I have tried to bring them back to the day he shot them and it is all but impossible. Whatever my dad saw that day that made him pull out his camera and shoot what was then, for him, a very expesive photo, whatever beauty was in tht sky or in the sunset the subtleties of oranges and yellows in those rocks, the contrast between the bolders and crevaces, I can only imagen. They are gone forever.
I hope that when you do find the "as close to Dave Hill look as you can get" process that works for you, if it's an important photo, save the origional.

It's darker (??). Is that an "LA" gang sign?


Not sure about the signs, that is Dave Hill on our left though.

Thanks for your followup and obvious efforts! I hope my "It's darker (??)" comment didn't bother you... ;-)

No not at all, I took it with all the humor you intended and answered it in kind.

The important thing is the light.... the post is just 30 %.

The Scott Kelby way is ok... but not really good lightning.

Light from all sides and some contrast and colour manipulation there

57551

Have a nice week all

lg Calvin
http://www.calvinhollywood.de
This is the way if anyone tries to copy Dave Hill, lighting. Some noobs are trying to do it with a shitty raw files and with no required lighting. And how blind people are? Some user was saying here that "recovery to the max, clarity to the max, fill light to the max", LOL. Just try it on human skin and in FULL resolution shot and you´ll see that it´s no near Dave Hill. If you rape your raw-file with every slider at its peak, it will not pass at full resolution without terrible halos and noise and other shit.

Lighting + d/b is the basics, what else? Nobody knows. But that is for sure, that Dave is working with his Wacom alot.

Just buy that Ghostface killah book and take a careful look at it. Photos are just perfect in every way technically.

True...No one click or a 30 min. miracle guys. :)

This is the way if anyone tries to copy Dave Hill, lighting. Some noobs are trying to do it with a shitty raw files and with no required lighting. And how blind people are? Some user was saying here that "recovery to the max, clarity to the max, fill light to the max", LOL.

.

This is what I said
"Try that and you will see that somewhere in there lies the "mystery" of Dave Hill."
I have seen more than one tutorial using this method, the one I quoted is by a recognized, photoshop certified trainer who writes for photosop user magazine. Obviously this is a starting point and one must adjust the sliders for each image.
I stand by that until you or someone else comes up with a better explanation than "it's all done with lighting" which is the photographic explanation equivilant to the magicians "it's all done with mirrors". Which translates to "duh, I dunno either and I have nothing useful to contribute but I wanted to say sOmEtHiNg."

BTW, I wanted to be the first on the board to use flippy caps after you were the first to use the term noob.

K, nuff of this picture stuff, wanna play worlds of warcraft mtmm?

My try...I tried not to overdo it. What do you think?

http://digitalminds.deviantart.com/art/Gante-85690545
http://digitalminds.deviantart.com/art/Gante-2-85741005

Greetz

I don't want to see any more freakin pictures posted unless people show their workflow

I stand by that until you or someone else comes up with a better explanation than "it's all done with lighting" which is the photographic explanation equivilant to the magicians "it's all done with mirrors". Which translates to "duh, I dunno either and I have nothing useful to contribute but I wanted to say sOmEtHiNg."


I´m not sure how much you do know about lighting, but do you actually believe that you can produce good enough highlites and shadows with no proper lighting to build a foundation for D/B retouching? Do you believe that Dave just sets up over 6 flashes just to show off? Or is it possible that with proper lighting you can generate a pure clean raw-file to work with? You can do magic with several flashes including ringflash. A raw file itself can already be really unreal and like rendered. After that nobody knows what kind of a technique Dave uses. What I think is that Dave does spend lots of time with Wacom drawing everything with d/b.

Do you believe that Dave just sets up over 6 flashes just to show off?

Why yes, yes I do. In fact let me quote Dave for you
"That big octobox is just for show."

So yes I think he does it sometimes (and he doesn't always) just to impress the noobs.
It's showing you a flower with one hand while he pulls a quarter from behind your ear with the other.
Don't get me wrong I have already clearly seen that some folks want this to be all mysterious and remain unanswered.

I don't know. It could be that I'm totally off base and all you need mtmm is to wacom your raw with ring flash and dodge and burn.

Or, it could be that as with so many things photoshop there are several ways to get almost identical effects.

Mtmm is right, You need good lighting to get the good result.

No light...No image... you can wacom all you want! still no image.

If it would be as simple as shooting with a ring flash, and retouch with a wacom, a lot of people would achieve it.

You need a good understanding of light. the big octo is not just for show. I know lighting. I've been around...Did a lot of assisting with some of the big boys in London and N.Y.

Dave say's a lot of thing to trow us off...

Don't get me wrong I have already clearly seen that some folks want this to be all mysterious and remain unanswered.
And you have now discovered that mystery? Please, dont hold it down, shot us how to replicate Dave Hill´s style if it is so simple. There is hundres of users trying to replicate that style, nobody has done it. So please, enter the stage. You fail!

And for the record, I´m not trying to copy Dave, but I have learned a lot from his videos.

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

Guy in that photo is named Daniel Hill, just a coincidence.

Cannot believe the boneheads are still it is mainly lighting.. BS
His lighting is very basic lighting.. or at best average.
His "Look" is clearly achieved in POST! PERIOD!
Now get over it...:+}
Snook

Yes its done as I was saying before. First lights, then photoshop. But try to get this in to your head. You need a good lighting to start with. After that nobody knows what Dave does in photoshop/illustrator/after effects/3d max........

This is like explaining banana to monkey.

After all this some idiot is still saying, "you just need photoshop, blaa blaa...."

Ditto!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For anyone who thinks the way he lights is NOT integral to his look, watch his behind
the scenes vid with Chris Brown. He's tethered to the mac and the shots come up
as he takes them. The "look" is at least 80% there. No surprise that the raw files
look closer to his look than the many "post" attempts here.

This is a raw-file with 4 flashes, Elinchrom Rangers. 2 kickers, left and right. Key light softbox upper right, fill light ring flash front. Left kicker and ringflash at half power versus right side.

Post processing with d/b will produce more rendered like photo. After that I don´t have a glue what Dave uses. But I´m sure that d/b is done heavily in Dave´s photos for entire photo. When you go piece by piece the whole photo through with d/b you can generate more rendered look.

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

Mtmm, you might consider posting that picture somewhere in a larger size and in raw tiff or psd.

This is my try at it, I know, I know, not even close. Maybe if I'd spent more than 3 minutes on it but I have to go to the store. Oh well, I tried.
Thanx for the image.

That looks great!



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

Guy in that photo is named Daniel Hill, just a coincidence.

Another with more vignetting.
The more I do this the more I feel I am missing something that dave does when he adds the vignettes. Somehow he is getting rings of light intermixed with the rings of dark. Maybe a blend mode on the vignette layer?

Mtmm, you might consider posting that picture somewhere in a larger size and in raw tiff or psd.

This is my try at it, I know, I know, not even close. Maybe if I'd spent more than 3 minutes on it but I have to go to the store. Oh well, I tried.
Thanx for the image.

As you see, you are generating terrible halos, look at the shoulders.

Here is retouched with only d/b and some bleach bypass.

http://www.bodynet.fi/kuvat/raw2.jpg

mtmm: youre on to something here in your last post! I would say skin texture??? maybe the picture is too small to have a good outcome for us poor dave hill fans :D Post bigger picture, pretty please???? :)


Gerry

Mtmm, two possible responses to that. One is "I don't have the luxury of working on an origional raw, post the larger image please."
The other is "look at this picture, halos? hmmmm.?

That is no halo, its jpg artifacts. And as you see on the shirt and on his face, that is some serious dodge and burning there.

And if I take the retouching further, I can create more highlites and shadows with first softing the skin with linear light layer with gaussian and high pass keeping the detail in the skin. Then using first white with "select color range" and then again d/b heavily.

This is just an overdone demo with extracted photo.

And this is not even close Dave Hill, but with a good lighting you can do some heavy retouch without damaging the photo with halos and other shit. I still believe, that Dave is going through the whole photo with d/b and then he does his magic.

Key point still is a good lighting with enough highlites and shadow detail.

http://www.bodynet.fi/kuvat/raw3.jpg

Don't want to share the origional??

Nope. There is some good raw files on other threads. Try to look some photos where is already good highlites to work with. If you try to do those highlites from the scratch, it does not work so well. And of course if you are working with a file that is going to be on any printable media, you got to control magenta with an adjustment layer (curves) or with other method. You can go by numbers working in cmyk space. Keep yellow over magenta.

deja vu! Anybody around 20 years ago remember this same conversation. Then it was Arron Jones.

very good. could you please explain a little more precicely what you've done. your english is a little bit too crumpled for me :)



That is no halo, its jpg artifacts. And as you see on the shirt and on his face, that is some serious dodge and burning there.

And if I take the retouching further, I can create more highlites and shadows with first softing the skin with linear light layer with gaussian and high pass keeping the detail in the skin. Then using first white with "select color range" and then again d/b heavily.

This is just an overdone demo with extracted photo.

And this is not even close Dave Hill, but with a good lighting you can do some heavy retouch without damaging the photo with halos and other shit. I still believe, that Dave is going through the whole photo with d/b and then he does his magic.

Key point still is a good lighting with enough highlites and shadow detail.

http://www.bodynet.fi/kuvat/raw3.jpg

very good. could you please explain a little more precicely what you've done. your english is a little bit too crumpled for me :)

Crumpled or not, my basic point is to use enough good lighting. I just wanted to explain how important lighting is when trying to emulate Dave Hill. It definitely is not only photoshop as so many is thinking. And always, retouch your photos in full resolution. In this thread I see only few good photos, rest of the photos are that same old shit trying to do it all in photoshop generating terrible halos.

lighting, d&b

lighting, d&bYou got to understand light to use d&b in a right way. In your photo there is a light source on the right side, there should not be shadow on the right side of models face. When you generate highlites and shadows, you can manipulate those with d&b just increasing lighter areas. Dont create new shadows, just manipulate existing ones. But mainly your photo is closer than 90% of this thread photos.

And these are only my opinions, not absolute facts.

yes, you're right. this shadow on the face is wrong. i tried desperately to make a shadow on the side, and thats the effect: it looks wrong and not good.

deja vu! Anybody around 20 years ago remember this same conversation. Then it was Arron Jones.

oh? any good guides on where to find pictures from him?

thanks...

oh? any good guides on where to find pictures from him?

thanks...


NOOoooooOOooooooo!!
Nobody tell!

Actually, It's Aaron Jones. My bad.
http://www.repertoireart.com/news_views/photo_legends/jones.htm[/url]
His style may look like a lot off people in the ninetys but he was the first.
Sorry Crazyfly

http://www.repertoireart.com/news_views/photo_legends/jones

Actually, It's Aaron Jones. My bad.
http://www.repertoireart.com/news_views/photo_legends/jones.htm[/url]
His style may look like a lot off people in the ninetys but he was the first.
Sorry Crazyfly

No problem, totally kidding, welcome relief from...
sorry, lost my train of thought, started thinking about pie.

Anyway, your right he was an innovator. He also had the benefit of being a pretty skilled photographer.

Here`s another try. Larger version on my site.

Obosila... Looks pretty nice.
Why don't you list your steps and or maybe post a psd?
Thanks
Snook

Here`s another try. Larger version on my site.
Excellent work! Love your twisted humor.

one more.

@ obosila: nice work - whats your technique?

Will this thread ever die. lol.

Read through the posts...how many actually post their steps when asked? Few...

OKEY!!! There has been a lot of talk regarding posting your workflow! I think that from NOW on...PLease post your workflow in the pictures! Or even post a link to the PSD-file that we can download!!! It's about learning here and nothing good comes out when NOT sharing...It only raises more questions!

MARSHALL : Hopefully this thread dies when we all now how he does it :D

Gerry

LOL Gerry. I wonder if he has seen this thead. i bet he is laughing at us all. Maybe just maybe i might someday make a shot that looks like his. lol.

It is Dave Hill under another name screwing around with you guys...:+}
Snook

Heres is my try of getting in to something 'like DH. Tell what U think about it... then i will share some tips ;).

Well, I love it so no matter what anybody else may say. I would love any tips!!

This is still on-going?

Will this thread ever die. lol.

So, heres my few words about my way ;):
- some ask if it is HDR - it is not
- some ask if it is few pictures connected together and mask work - it is not
- some ask if it needs good light - yes it needs... im lasy, bad ligtning meens more work, also its easy to get "halos" effect around edges... so it is about lightning (U can chceck shadows under the car, u will understand what i mean)
- some says, it needs a lot of time in PS to get this effect - some yes, a lot no. Its more about preparing picture in the beginning, then to get the final look.

So, if U are a good photographer and can get good photo, with quite good lightning (2 Canon EX'es + 1 or 2 blends is enought if u know how use the light), then the rest is quite easy. Maybe today i will show u version with bad lightning to show what im writing about ;).

4 flashes. 3 softboxes and 1 ringflash and Wacom about 2,5 hours.

4 flashes. 3 softboxes and 1 ringflash and Wacom about 2,5 hours.

Love it! Two plus hours. Patience is an important ingredient!

Hey Cyberek, what the hell is the point of your post?
Some ask what? who asked?
Snook

It's becouse some words of my friends, who tried to guess, how do i made this kind of photos... everytime someone tryes to guess how this kind of ptohos are made, they usually wrong... or maybe... they right but not on 100%... the same as most threads topics
It can be done with good photo, that is usually made with "short" lenses and good lightning (U have to have lights and shadows to work on them later), with bad photo... i wouldn't even try.
It can be done few diffrent ways... Some are quick, some need more time... but usually the effect is quite simillar. Of course U can make few pictures of same scene, then make HDR from it, then work it out to get this kind of looking, then finally work with every person on photo just to get the best ligtning (from photographers point of view) - the long way, but U can also get a good photo with use 2-3 light sources + few blends (faster way)... then postprocess... with HDR U need some time, but after that, u Can make basic preperations, then some d&b and masking & d&b and this way, or sometimes there are some easiest way to get close to result, and use just a little d&b to get to that point... it depends. From my point of view... go to PS and try all things that was written here before... start from there and become creative... then You will get to the result - every one to his own, but all will look less or more the same. For me its not to copy someone, but to make own style.

Ps, dont get me wrong... read all 100% of tips written here (before), in whole thread, try this by your self, and U will get where U want ;).

My attempt. :grin:

Morpheus1870, I like the first image. Not overdone, still looks like a photograph.

Morpheus1870, I like the first image. Not overdone, still looks like a photograph.

Thanks crazyfly, have been trying to emulate the DH style for awhile now and can't seem to get any better than my examples posted previously. I don't know how people get that smooth pastel look to the skin tones, when i d&b it never turns out even and flawless. What d&b method do you recomend? 50%grey softlight, traditional d&b tool, curves adjustment layer 1 highlight and one shadown with layer masks?

thanks

Morpheus,
Personally I would forget about DH an work on perfecting what your doing, I like it better. My opinion the smooth pastel skin look will be something we look at in 15 years and go "wow, what were we thinking", not unlike the oversaturated films of the 70's.
As for D&B I can't tell you the best way, only what I use. I use the 50% grey layers (one each for lighten and darken) I don't use a curves layer as I want to train myself to see what I am burning and dodging without enhancment. I use overlay mode because I tend to overdue just about everything so when I'm finished with d&b and switch the layer to softlight it works out better. Also it seems that when I've pushed as far as I can in an area, in overlay that area starts to take on an orange cast so I know to stop.

I never use the d&b tool I use a white or black paintbrush. Reason for this is if you draw a couple lines of varying sizes in black on a white layer and then run over them with the dodge or burn tool you will see that when, for example you have the burn tool set to midtones and you run it over an area of midtones it acts like the tool just got bigger and it cuts a larger path through that section and then gets smaller again when you move to an area of light or dark. The brush tool does not behave that way and stays consistent throughout.

This is still on-going?
Yes it is...Are we getting any closer??? I think we are...how much closer you ask? Enough to keep it going :D

So, heres my few words about my way ;):
- some ask if it is HDR - it is not
- some ask if it is few pictures connected together and mask work - it is not
- some ask if it needs good light - yes it needs... im lasy, bad ligtning meens more work, also its easy to get "halos" effect around edges... so it is about lightning (U can chceck shadows under the car, u will understand what i mean)
- some says, it needs a lot of time in Photoshop to get this effect - some yes, a lot no. Its more about preparing picture in the beginning, then to get the final look.

So, if U are a good photographer and can get good photo, with quite good lightning (2 Canon EX'es + 1 or 2 blends is enought if u know how use the light), then the rest is quite easy. Maybe today i will show u version with bad lightning to show what im writing about ;).

I understand what you are saying, BUTyour result isn't that good...It looks very lucis arts to me...So, maybe explain in more detail what you have done....Thanks for sharing...


4 flashes. 3 softboxes and 1 ringflash and Wacom about 2,5 hours.

Your results are getting better and better each time....But your results are looking more like a mtmm photo/style and that is even better...thanks for putting in the effort to give us more ideas/inspiration and good tips...and thanks for the behind the scene...
As a side note, in your picture I would love to see more movement in the players...that is what I miss :D

Cheers

Gerry

I like the Morpheus' version. Still photographic! Right on.

My attempt. :grin:

Morpheus,
Personally I would forget about DH an work on perfecting what your doing, I like it better. My opinion the smooth pastel skin look will be something we look at in 15 years and go "wow, what were we thinking", not unlike the oversaturated films of the 70's.


Amen!!! I agree except I'm betting it will be more like 5 at best, rather then 15.

sigh! Isn't wonderful?! Still after all this time we are still talking about what's hot and not with Dave Hill! Never thought that this thread would get this response, and all the different opinions that people have! We whent from d/b to lighting around post 325?!(haven't checked) and still people have to say what they don't like and do like about his style! AMazing! Every word count and every opinion is important!

KEEP POSTING :)

And thanks for sharing!


GErry

So Gerry...since you started this post what have you really learned? Again..the few that provide a good shot provide little details...just the tease...

this thread should be summarized

Saby, just read this page, pretty much sums it up.
Gerry is still really excited that he started this thread.
Some people are so enamored of this mediocre photographer with the one style of retouching that it's passed laughable and gotten sad.
Others think he and his style are just a sign of the times, kinda like torture porn-it doesn't have to be good or artistic or rely on any of the rules that made Hitchock great cinema, just show lots of gore and the kids will buy it. Same thing, only not gore-grunge.
When a dave hill is posted here nobody raises an eyebrow, and when they realize it was a dave hill they say "oh well, that wasn't a good dave hill he was just messin around there"
BTW Cyberek, Gerry posted almost exactly the same comment when I posted a DAVE HILL, so if that's the look you want keep going you must be close.
If we look for some merit it's gotta be people like morpheus who are getting lot's of practice (and becoming quite good in his case) at d&b.
Oh and about the tecnique... survey says lots and lots of lights and lots and lots of d&B.
Of course as always, just my opinion I could be wrong.

Cyber your last post is just blah blah blah blah...
Are you really even saying anything in your posts??
Seriously!!
And I cannot believe you guys are still talking about lighting..
Yes the light is not just One..
But it is rather easy lighting.
THE LIGHTING has ZERO effect on the Cartoonish look that dave and others are getting..
Would you guys stop saying that.
2 kicker lights from the side and One key with some kind of Fill (re:ringflash)
is not Rocket Science!!
Dave's Pictures would be next to Boring if did not have his effect and his Punk looking Band members...
Un like many Great photographers who have several kinds of lighting and looks, Dave , Although very talented, has a One look show going and it will fade pretty quickly...
Snook

Wrong sport two.

I have a friend who looks just like that by the 4th hole/beer.

Mtmm.. Your stuff looks the closest and sometimes even better than Dave Hill...:+}
When you going to post some advice..?
Nice how you showed th lighting set-up for the hockey shot...
Just so people can understand the lighting is easy and has not much to do with the final effect...
Would be great if you could post some pointers as yours looks the closest!
Thanks
Snook

I have done some background videos, maybe I should do those in english. I use english only when I´m shooting foreign competitors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibAdspT25rg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sz0kNst3xQ&feature=related

Mtmm.. Your stuff looks the closest and sometimes even better than Dave Hill...:+}

Snook

Agreed, as far as the photography goes I would much rather see these shots...
http://www.pakkotoisto.com/mike/

I have done some background videos, maybe I should do those in english. I use english only when I´m shooting foreign competitors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibAdspT25rg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sz0kNst3xQ&feature=related

do them in english and that'd be awesome!

Not really interested in the lighting at all..
The Post is what this post is about and the website basically..:+}
Retouching.
The lighting like I said is pretty basic as you can now see...
Thanks
Snook

Mtmm is a perfect example of how these threads usually go..
These guys ask for help help and then when they need to give a little help, they disappear... Or post a bunch of their pictures they have done...

No body had asked about lighting etc..
The post steps is what we are looking to learn more about so we can apply it to our/your own style of shooting....
I get basically your same effect using Lucis on several lower opacity layers then erasing where I do not want it which is usually the skins.
You can blur it a little and take the reds and ranges out a bit to get rid of that Harsh Lucis skin people get.
Or you can go about the Lightroom Scott Kelby tutorial.
Would be nice to see if Mtmm would post some of his basic steps to see if they are any different from others advices?
Snook

Saby, just read this page, pretty much sums it up.
Gerry is still really excited that he started this thread.
Some people are so enamored of this mediocre photographer with the one style of retouching that it's passed laughable and gotten sad.
Others think he and his style are just a sign of the times, kinda like torture porn-it doesn't have to be good or artistic or rely on any of the rules that made Hitchock great cinema, just show lots of gore and the kids will buy it. Same thing, only not gore-grunge.
When a dave hill is posted here nobody raises an eyebrow, and when they realize it was a dave hill they say "oh well, that wasn't a good dave hill he was just messin around there"
BTW Cyberek, Gerry posted almost exactly the same comment when I posted a DAVE HILL, so if that's the look you want keep going you must be close.
If we look for some merit it's gotta be people like morpheus who are getting lot's of practice (and becoming quite good in his case) at d&b.
Oh and about the tecnique... survey says lots and lots of lights and lots and lots of d&B.
Of course as always, just my opinion I could be wrong.

Ahhh...I'm still excited about how the thread is going...From start to end sometime in the future...

When posting probably excact same comment on your pictures doesn't mean that you are close! The "lucis art look" isn't very good!


SKYDOG: Learned alot trough reading and spending time experimenting with lights...I think that lights has some part in it...Post pro even more...This is what I try to think about when I'm starting to shoot...But I', not trying to copy DH, but to learn a small percantage of his workflow and combine it with other techniques could get interesting also...

Gerry

When posting probably excact same comment on your pictures doesn't mean that you are close! The "lucis art look" isn't very good!
Gerry

I - posted - a - dave- hill - picture - and - you -said - it - was - very - lucas - art - so - if - you - say - the - same - about - his - effort - then - he - must - be - doing - o - k.

BTW glad you have a sence of humor.

Mtmm is a perfect example of how these threads usually go..
These guys ask for help help and then when they need to give a little help, they disappear... Or post a bunch of their pictures they have done...

No body had asked about lighting etc..
The post steps is what we are looking to learn more about so we can apply it to our/your own style of shooting....
I get basically your same effect using Lucis on several lower opacity layers then erasing where I do not want it which is usually the skins.
You can blur it a little and take the reds and ranges out a bit to get rid of that Harsh Lucis skin people get.
Or you can go about the Lightroom Scott Kelby tutorial.
Would be nice to see if Mtmm would post some of his basic steps to see if they are any different from others advices?
SnookIf you get the same effect with lucis art, then what is the problem? Go for it! Just Lucis and thats it.

This is a retouching forum. If you need help I thing you should go under the image help forum, If you will like a tutorial on a technique it should go under the tutorial forum. I don't thing you should get upset if a member those not want to share is technique. The most we can do is look at all the different techniques around. like Mr Ant say "SEE".

Just my half cent.

sorry it's think instead of thing

If you get the same effect with lucis art, then what is the problem? Go for it! Just Lucis and thats it.

I am fine with what I have learned here and I actually think the technique is really old.
I actually like the way Jim Ficus does even better and kind of pioneered the technique.
As was standing up for the many others that want to learn as well.
Also I basically sick of people like you just trying to a smart ass and show off your work instead of trying an help people out.
Mtmm is jut a perfect example of forum trolls.
Just an opinion. I could care a less about trying to copy Dave Hill.
He a one man look and it is already boring. I actually only ever thought he has copied Ficus and Jill greenberg.

Like it was mentioned here in a previos post.
Take away dave's effect and his pictures and Lighting technique have NO impact.
For Dave is not here to defend himself so I will not further bash him.
Because I do believe he is talented but with his one look look...:+}
Anyways Mtmm just goes to show what type of person your are...:+]
Snook

don't forget Gary Land
http://www.garylandphotography.com/

Don't forget what about gary..?
That he to need to know the processing?
His pictures look nothing like Dave Hill's and are actually pretty weak.
Maybe with a Dave Hill tweak his pictures would be more interesting...?
Is that what you meant, Gary also wants to know the technique?
There are lot's who would love to know..
Snook

Was not comparing is photos to Dave hill's i just think he have better composition.

I have read Snooks posts for quite some time now. Basically he, like Gerry and myself are trying to learn techniques...not to copy, but to improve our knowledge base. Like Snook said, most post their shots to say "look at me ...see how good I am" but never explain a damn thing when asked. I also agree with Snook concerning Jim Fiscus...I like his work much better than Dave Hill. But regardless, Hill, Fiscus, and others do start with the right lights.
Give me a break about Ant..add him to the list that basically ads nothing more than self promotion.
Two side comments,
1) Does anyone know who created the stills in the beginning of the IronMan movie?
2) How much did they pay to put the "high end retouching video" ad on this site? Only one of the photos in the ad is actually used in the video. The video is basic photoshop...nothing high end and OVERPRICED. But a great job at marketing!

actually I do not understand why we are talking about dave hill anymore. in the beginning it was as a challenge for us but not anymore(for me it is still). what do you think about pictures taken by mtmm. I think he has found the theqnigue which is similar as as dave hill.

mtmm photos are similar to DH. It's a shame that he is not posting his photos to share his techique but to show what can be done and that Hills technique can be mimic

My first try on the Dave hill look:
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/1157/davezw2.jpg

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/8208/dave2dl2.jpg

I used the lucis filter, corrected color and then a toned filter.

moo, that is where lucis is the worst.. the blotchy orange skin tones.
Try putting it on a Luminosity blend mode and it helps a little..:}
Lucis works great but fails on the skin.
That is what is missing really.. how to get it even out on the skin tones...
I get similar by doing it on many layers and lower the opacity and working the skin...
The backgrounds is easy to get with Lucis...
Snook

Snook thx a lot, that seems to fix a lot of the skin.
Here my second attempt.

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1818/gameek5.jpg

NO problem.. that is what these forums are supposedly for..:+}
Some people like Mtmm forget that...!
Losers!
Good Luck
Snook

Can't we just forget about lucis art??? It's an easy way out, but no way you can use this on a pro level...I've seen to many attempts that just looks too artifical...Dave Hill and FIscus DON'T use it! DH mentioned Lucis art a while back, but to me it seems he only did this to give people an easy way towards his style!

Hi, I'm Dave Hill, thanks for all the compliments. I use a ring light with one soft box and sometimes an umbrella. All the post is outsourced to some guy in India (he's real good isn't he?) Anyway all of the post is done with Lucas Art I think, I'm not really sure.

Hi, I'm Dave Hill, thanks for all the compliments. I use a ring light with one soft box and sometimes an umbrella. All the post is outsourced to some guy in India (he's real good isn't he?) Anyway all of the post is done with Lucas Art I think, I'm not really sure.

thx for the insights, dave.

i love you

thx for the insights, dave.

i love you

You are truly welcome, I love you too.
Oh, and thanx for all the money.

snook305 - im wondering, why u r so nervous about Mtmm posts? He has wrote here a lot. Afair he has even post one picture and explained in details how he did get final result. But in ending... he is getting money from this style... why he should be more detailed then now? Its kind'a like Microsoft would go opensource ;).

Snook, no need to get personal. You are attacking me like no other here. As I explained before, lighting and heavy D/B with skills will generate a basic foundation to Daves work. I believe I did post a raw file just to show how important lighting is. Snook you can go running your mouth calling everybody a looser, go ahead if that makes you a better retoucher. But what is for sure is that Dave uses complex lighting system. In his videos there is a raw files seen on the monitor and wow, those are good.

So please snook, stop fucking up this thread and if you want to insult, do it in private.

And then back to the point. One thing in Daves photos that makes them look like DH is the idea and composition.

You can go with lucis
You can go with hdr
You can go with bleach bypass
You can go with highpass
You can go with Color efex Pro

But you cannot go without a good lighting and composition and certainly you cannot go like snook calling everyone a looser while doing nothing productive.

And then how I do light the subject?

With these and ringflash, beauty dish, umbrellas, softboxes etc.

So far, what we know is that lighting is very important and also as said, composition.Im not going to ask Mtmm to give us his exact tecnique, but if you can help us with some tips it would be apreciated.Or also tell us if you are using lucisart or HDR pics.

Thx and regards.

Mtmm,,, you the one digger your grave not me..:+}

Again you come in showing you lights.. what does that have to do with anything?
If you think about it , it may be a compliment...:+}
As your the only one that has come close as well as Obsilia..(sp)?
Then again you leave a post like the last one showing you lights and nothing about post?
I have been shooting for 25 years and NO light is going to give you the Post look you are getting.
Actually those who say so, look really stupid (IMHO).
Actually makes you look worse if you ask me.. becasue ONCE again you are avoiding Posting you Post.
I am not saying you should right a book. Maybe some basic steps and let the others fill in the rest....
Obviously there were about 5-6 post after mine asking you the same thing from all different members....
Also you posting it cane be....? one of 5 techniques... we all know that already!
Why don't you help a lot of people here and post some of your steps or techniques??
I really do not get why you wasted your time showing your lights?? hahaha
Snook
Also I think HDR was voted out as it is difficult to do unless you do it with the same image...?

OK.. I'll take back the Loser part as that is not like me...:+}
But Will not take back what I have said about you and other that do the same thing...
So don't feel bad there are many that do the same.
And you say why don't I help??
I have helped A lot and always willing to help unlike others.
I have work coming out the Butt so I do not care about any secret formulas or lighting...:+}
Just trying to stand up for the people in here and retouching forums as it is where I learned all my stuff...:+}
Plus I am not worried about showing a technique... you think your going to get Dave's Job because you know his "trick"... Don't think so...
What you think your going to take a snapshot of your little sister's next door neighbor friend and press an action and it will become a dave hill photo... No..
In any case if you watch daves videos... his lights (not lighting) are crap.. half the stuff is white lighting.. which is Beginners type lighting source
and not very Professional.. although it really does not matter.. But is a point.

Mtmm do not take it personally... there are many like you in the world so your not a alone...:+}
Snook

One more thing, that i think enybody didn't mentioned before... is use of low mm lenses while shooting... and knowing the way to use it, to enlarge what we want on finall photo.

For me, its not just photography, and its not just retouch... one can't go without another. Good photo, and profesional retouch... this is what DH is doing.

Ps... Snook, somebody asked for lightning Mtmm is usinh, so he did reply for that post, so don't say, that he is showing up, or alike. He answered for a question. And again... he is earning money for the things he does. Maybe U should watch his movies on YouTube? So maybe U will also attack Microsoft to go opensource and stop earning money on things, that they only know?

Boy Cyberrek that was really helpful post...
Thank you Thank you Thank you
Snook

Haha, the beefing has to stop.

Let me break it down the way I see it. MMTM does not have to share anything - no one does. Sharing is appreciated, but not a requirement. I mean, if he applied himself and was able to figure it all out, then why would anyone expect him to share his discoveries just like that? I don't expect him to. For the record, props to him. His samples are bomb, his work is bomb.

And on the flip, if you're like me, and haven't figured it out yet - don't let the fact that mmtm knows how to do it discourage you - it should inspire / motivate you to continue with your attempts. Nothing is to be laughed at either - Lighting and sharpness are crucial. You can't make chicken soup out of chicken shit, so if you don't light your shots properly, then there's no way they're going to look the same no matter how much post you do. But Experiment. Keep with it. Your shots - bring them here for feedback if you want. Who knows, maybe throughout your experimentation you will be able to develop your own stylized look. Hill and Fiscus pioneered something here, so maybe someone here**can find a way to develop a spinoff style of their own that might earn itself it's own "demystification" thread someday.

Because really, Who wants to be known as a dave hill knockoff?**Dave Hill is Dave Hill. You Be You. Now let's drop the bullshit and make some Money!

Here's where I am at. This is a piece i did for a Band called turtleboy in Montreal. I didn't have enough lights on hand for the hyper real look, and only shot it with a d70 - But I am confident that if I shot it again with a 1ds mark III and a half dozen lights, it would be a crisper and sharper image.

That's it. Hope all is crispy.

EDIT: File won't upload, will try again this afternoon.

MrKronk I agree with many of your statements..:+}
No one has to do anything...
I also have the D&H look as much as I want.
I actually have not done it to any pictures in over a year now..
I always had problems with the skin with lucis.. that is when I learned the Luminosity layer, which helps a lot but still not the best for people.
I was really standing up for many hear and quite sick of the "Hey Look I can do it too" And I am not going to tell you...:}
Those type of people are NOT what these forums are about...:+}
Otherwise go put your stuff up on flicker and not here...:+}
You all know what I mean. you weren't born yesterday I imagine...
Snook

Haha, the beefing has to stop.

Let me break it down the way I see it. MMTM does not have to share anything - no one does. Sharing is appreciated, but not a requirement. I mean, if he applied himself and was able to figure it all out, then why would anyone expect him to share his discoveries just like that? I don't expect him to. For the record, props to him. His samples are bomb, his work is bomb.

And on the flip, if you're like me, and haven't figured it out yet - don't let the fact that mmtm knows how to do it discourage you - it should inspire / motivate you to continue with your attempts. Nothing is to be laughed at either - Lighting and sharpness are crucial. You can't make chicken soup out of chicken shit, so if you don't light your shots properly, then there's no way they're going to look the same no matter how much post you do. But Experiment. Keep with it. Your shots - bring them here for feedback if you want. Who knows, maybe throughout your experimentation you will be able to develop your own stylized look. Hill and Fiscus pioneered something here, so maybe someone here**can find a way to develop a spinoff style of their own that might earn itself it's own "demystification" thread someday.

Because really, Who wants to be known as a dave hill knockoff?**Dave Hill is Dave Hill. You Be You. Now let's drop the bullshit and make some Money!

Here's where I am at. This is a piece i did for a Band called turtleboy in Montreal. I didn't have enough lights on hand for the hyper real look, and only shot it with a d70 - But I am confident that if I shot it again with a 1ds mark III and a half dozen lights, it would be a crisper and sharper image.

That's it. Hope all is crispy.

EDIT: File won't upload, will try again this afternoon.
That just goes to show the difference.. Yours quite obvious LUCIS..
The Skin is a dead give away...:+}
That is not happening in Dave's pictures no Mtmm's, no Obsilia(sP)..
The only reason I like to discover other peoples work flows is to improve upon what I already know and use it from "my" look..
Not to copy anybody...
Remember the "Dragan" threads...
Snook

Lovin' the comments.

Here's my attempt though it has been a while since I've looked at a DH photo exclusively. I really wanted to branch out and do my own 'thang. ;-) I used 2 AB400's as hair light camera L/R and a AB800 w/ a softbox above for key lighting and a AB800 at 1/32 for a bit of fill.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27365208@N08/2545462107/

Hey it looks interesting. What was your technique?

Thx.

Edit:snook305 youve got a private message.

For the record. My photos are not so close to DH that everybody thinks. Daves lighting technique is pretty hard to copy. He uses very precise lighting and he always has strong shadows, even in a models face.

For now I´m learning more about lighting, because I have found that to be the most important thing.

For the record. My photos are not so close to DH that everybody thinks. Daves lighting technique is pretty hard to copy. He uses very precise lighting and he always has strong shadows, even in a models face.

For now I´m learning more about lighting, because I have found that to be the most important thing.

Here I've added one from one of his more normal images and one from one of his clown images.

Look at the histogram, in any of his images. If he does use all this fabulous lighting then that histogram comes totaly in post.
Am I right or wrong?

@moo:

Sure man, and thanks! My lighting really helped make the shot the way I visualized it b/c I had enough strobe power 1/200 at f/11 to overtake the sun - thus it looks darker than it really is outside. I did alot of corrections in Adobe Lightroom but they were just initial. In LR, I basically just increased my fill light by about 50 and my blacks by about 20/30 since it tended to be hard on the midtone/shadows. I really liked this b/c it did alot of the shadow/h