Here is a total raw image, only lighting. Now Snook will say that this is not a raw(not edited) file?

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

This is very nice. I like how you show the use of the cold lights!

I think many of the others that think along these lines have left because of the insults. Most come to learn and contribute.
Yeh and I am one of them.. Or should I say was....
By the way yeh your Raw Jpeg looks like a RAW jpeg just like dave Hills Raw's look like....
Looks Nothing Like Dave Hill post processing....
I am out of here....
I could care o less about the Dave Hill Look..
I am just dissappointed in Members just like Mtmm..
They are what you call forum leachers...
Always asking but never giving...
He knows exactly what I am talking about and so do you Tree..

Hope you guys work out your Dave Hill look....
:+}
Snook

Go on Believing it is his "Special" photoshop built in Flash Lighting...
Didn't you all know that the ring flash is what gives it that over retouched cartoon look
That is all you need... The secret finally revealed...
hahahaha

I've been following this thread for a while and it looks like ping pong competition. this thread is not encouragin anymore. people here are repeating comments and not giving real answers. o'kay we do not need final instructions how to get final result.

Hey MTmm as an country fellow maybe it will be good to give an example even from your early stage, not from your present skills. just open a little bit your knowledge a little sample. just go a one year back etc. do not show us your present skills.

giving that information, maybe some people are quiet from insulting you.

Mtmm's shot with some post.

I have not read the entire thread, and I'm too busy to. Can someone tell me which page of this thread is most helpful so I can read it????

I have not read the entire thread, and I'm too busy to. Can someone tell me which page of this thread is most helpful so I can read it????

...ROLF...

...ROLF...


What's so funny?

Its that U are to busy to do something just for your self, so dont think, someone will find time to do it for you. Sorry, its You that want to learn something, and it's You the one, who needst to pay for it -> and Yours payment is yours time.

nyxxie I Dont blame you when you say your too busy to read all 700 plus posts. Most of them are a waist of time and lately the post have become mockery and insults. If you are looking into making a look similar to his. I can help, funny thing is, this style of photography is not a signature of just Dave hill. Its just Dave has "come into the light" and he as made this style of photography his trademark. I would recommend visit his site, and looking at his blog. watching his videos will help you learn how he photographs his subjects. When editing your images, work on getting rid of depth of field. Also make sure colors are over saturated, and your color spectrum is tight, dont allow color bleed, and color offcast. these are some simple steps to get your self on your way to making images close to his style. Remember part of the reason his look is popular is he has an artistic feel to the images. If you look at the images on his site, they are not all done in the same editing style. I hope this is a good start for you.

Thanks so much Matthew, I really appreciate it. I wasn't really trying to be lazy or anything or make someone do something instead of doing it for myself. After I read this comment

"I've been following this thread for a while and it looks like ping pong competition. this thread is not encouragin anymore. people here are repeating comments and not giving real answers. o'kay we do not need final instructions how to get final result."

I kinda figured that I didn't want to read through a bunch of nonsense posts. I didn't want to find a needle in a haystack especially when people that have been following the thread know where the needle is. Is it too much to ask for some help?

I will use your advice. Thanks Matthew.

Been following this thread from the start. It began as an interesting topic, pleasant and informative but has now gone down hill drastically. Lets stop bitching and about this and that, and unless we are giving a solution with examples and methods then why bother slatting someones attempts. Peace

Ha, you said "down hill" that's funny. :)

here is a picture you can work with...not the best of pictures, but hey...just trying to give something back for the people who want to practice DB...

I will find a website were I can upload the raw file to so you can download it...

Here is a setup without a ringflash filling. And lower is a retouched one. I have used "select color range" for a while now, but now I found a cool way to use it with a multiply blend for skin manipulation.

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

Here is a setup without a ringflash filling. And lower is a retouched one. I have used "select color range" for a while now, but now I found a cool way to use it with a multiply blend for skin manipulation.

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

So, how is that method put into use?

Actually i got to study more on that. So false alarm, sorry.

Mtmm nice shot.

but your link doesn't work anymore.

Any chance we can get some info on your post-processign?
I saw that you applied it to both picture. can we see a before process?
Do you achieve this look with lightroom by changing some of the numbers on the Scott Kelby Tutorial?
Do you use just a bit of the Lucis Art?

I would love to know!

Can you give Us something......Anything......Please.

If youre wondering about Mtmm's "select color range" method, what you do is to add a final touch of highlights, you go to select color range, select the whitest point on the subject and bring the fuzziness down so that the color range is limited only to the areas you want to be highlighted, press okay. with your selection, create a new layer, feather the selection a little bit and then fill the area with white and select your choice of blending mode, usually softlight or overlay, then use opacity to decrease amount of highlights.

http://rapidshare.com/files/123251034/raaw.tif.html

My try.

1) Extract the luminosity from the channel palette. This would result in a BW image. For this I decided to use the R-Channel. You can even use the G channel if you wish. If you look at the B-channel, things are getting muted and muddy (there isn't contrast).

2) To this extracted R-Channle luminosity, put in overlay and run a high pass at raidus = 2. (Again, this is image dependent--you'll just to remember to make the edges pop subtlely.)

3) Click OK. Use the eyeball to see the effects of it. Another is to extract the B-channel luminosity in put on luminosity blending and run your USM at 50,30,0. Again, this will make those edges pop out.

4) close all the layers by pressing your eyeball and using your BG, copy the B-channel and run a "Find Edges Filter" on the duplicated B-Channel copy. You are making an edge mask here.

5) CTRL Click that edge mask and load it onto the R-Channel that you ran your HP settings.

6) Sharpen that R-Channel extract layer by using USM, 500% and R=0.2-0.3

7) Use your color picker took to select the highest pixels, I sampled mine from the face and set this to the foreground color.

8) I then went to Select, color range, and drag the fuzz until only the highlights on the skin are selected.

9) With the marching ants on the highlights already, add a color fill adj. layer and select 255,255,255 as your fill color.

10) Go into the mask and do a 1-2 Gaussian Blur filter to sort of smooth out the highlight.

Mtmm nice shot.

but your link doesn't work anymore.

Any chance we can get some info on your post-processign?
I saw that you applied it to both picture. can we see a before process?
Do you achieve this look with lightroom by changing some of the numbers on the Scott Kelby Tutorial?
Do you use just a bit of the Lucis Art?

I would love to know!

Can you give Us something......Anything......Please.

Scott Kelbys lightroom tutorial is a fail. It does not work on humans, it generates terrible halos. But I believe that Scott was doing a tutorial for background shots.

I can say, that mastering and controlling a tonal contrast(low, mid, high) is the key for finishing photos. Before that it´s lots and lots of lights, d/b and layer blendings. But in the end, lighting is what rules. Skin tones and textures are still a mystery to me.

Selecting color range with white and sometimes with blacks is a neat way to ad some cool effect to photo. But you must be carefull, do it just a bit, so that it´s not so visible.

Thank's for giving us something =;+)

I find this guy http://www.flickr.com/photos/7401855@N08/page2/ and he say's he acheive this almost 90 to a 100% with lightroom. I love the treatment. Wonder what is setting's are? It's not Dave Hill but he defently has a nice flavor!

For the lighting part I have no probleme with it. it's quite simple when you have the right tool's and know what your doing.

My probleme is more in the post-processe of those image.

Any of you have a idea how it's done!!!!

he say's he acheive this almost 90 to a 100% with lightroom.


"LOWONLANDS says:
50% LR and 50% PS .. .. .. "

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7401855@N08/2393432141/in/set-72157604346063212/

See here: 90/10.
I think He is shure using "crank it all" method (but not 100% as it was described before), but process skin in seperate (PS part), then use two postprocessed images, then connected and masked (als PS part)... so "crank" works there, where he wants, and just as much as he needs.

Or in other words -> this is how I can get to this kind of result ;).

Just found that too actually.
And this 100% LR apparently:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7401855@N08/2476959774/in/set-72157604346063212/

Just found that too actually.
And this 100% LR apparently:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7401855@N08/2476959774/in/set-72157604346063212/

Had noticed that photo on flickr too, great photo.

My guess would be its Lightroom 2.0b with lots of dodge/burn and some clarity. And mayby hsl adjustments for total toning.

Dig your stuff Mike, it stands out. Keep it up. Hyvältä näyttääpi. :)

My take on things:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3173/2601392207_ed0d2f90c3_b.jpg

Lit using four off camera strobes, for wrap around lighting effect. Finished with quite a bit of PP!

Comments more than welcome!

My take on things:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3173/2601392207_ed0d2f90c3_b.jpg

Lit using four off camera strobes, for wrap around lighting effect. Finished with quite a bit of PP!

Comments more than welcome!

hmmmm...the front right tire needs air...his left foot is stuck in the concrete...overall a nice attempt, but needs A BIT more work on finding the right angle and footwork...Didn't see the DH look at all...Would try on a different idea here...

thanks for sharing

Gerry

Here is a before and after of Dave Hill. I think its been posted before, but should not hurt to show again.
It shows some really nice post work.

How much do you think is invested in lighting and misc other equipment? Any idea of the lights used?

Actually the lights he uses are pretty inexpensive monolights: White Lightnings, made by Paul C. Bluff. Assuming he has used anywhere from 3-8 lights in a shoot, each light is 670 for the highest model, and 480 for the second highest model, so.. 3840-5360 on his monolights, plus another 1000 or so for light modifiers and another 2500 for his profoto ring flash and pack.

But I can assure EVERYONE the expenses aren't a special ingredient, it just tops it off really.. In the photo below, off of Hill's website, this shot has no special lighting, no special tricks, but retouch work.. No kicker's no ring flash fill.. Looks like a big softbox and he just took a candid shot, but he still made it work. So figure that one out..

Here is a before and after of Dave Hill. I think its been posted before, but should not hurt to show again.
It shows some really nice post work.

Yeh Like many bone heads in here think..
It is the lighting...
hahahaha

..look at my post snook.. clearly there isnt any type of kicker or ring flash.. the lights help.. if you plan on being just like dave hill.. but im pretty sure we're trying to demystify his retouching, which with the example I have shown.. can be done to photos with minimal lighting.. not the whole two kickers two soft boxes, over head beauty dish, and ring flash deal.

Hi guys,

I took time to improve my earlier shot. I'm very happy with the results would appreciate some feedback....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3021/2609006470_b7e09f7bee_b.jpg

Thanks!

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=304298&page=4#post6516764

The last post is theFirst Decent post since the beginning...:+}
Snook

i agree, I'm doing a shoot this weekend (using wrap around flash) so intend to process the image as per the Model Mayhem Tutorial above.

I'll post the results next week....

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/reviews/2008-06-30-g-unit-terminate_N.htm

Dave made USA today. Looking closely at the picture...lights are important, but a lot of post processing. Look at the building and doors...

There is also five new photos at Daves web site.

Mtmm..
we are still waiting for the tutorial.. Must be really good it is taking so long...
we are all excited...
When do you think you have it ready..?
Snook

I haven´t promised any tutorial. Sorry, not gonna happen. I can show my lighting setups with videos, but retouching, nope.

Mtmm,

From your last post are we to assume that their is in fact more to your post processing then simply Dodge & Burn, as you implied earlier in this thread?

Longside..
Mtmm is what you call a leecher in many forums..
Just comes in and ask ask ask takes all the information and then Bluntly says he won't offer any help on how he get;s the effect.
The lighting as we all know is basic , helping in the final process, and can be seen all over the web and even on Daves own website.. No trickier there. why do you think dave shows his lighting set up.. Duh, b/c it is rather basic on a professional level lighting.

The people ringing in light Mtmm saying it is just lighting and D&B are basically Full of it.
we all know that...:+}

Sounds harsh but it is reality, if this was my forum I would even allow people like Mtmm in here...

The funny thing is, There are many, that I think Mtmm is from like some where in BFE country that why would he even care to share some of his info, after all he is copying some technique that many do , and many can have done if they need for a client from any "well" rounded retoucher.
Plus the look is really old already unless your going to shoot some gangster rap wannabe or Pokeman punk band in the VERY near future...:+}

Just my honest feeling on the post...:+}
Every day, do not know if it is old age or not..:+}, I am getting more on the thinking too help people as much as possible and that is the most important thing in life, I think it goes in every aspect of life. I feel better these days helping out people rather than be paranoid about people copying you...
It has all been done and can be done, there is no one trick pony that no-body cannot copy.

By the way when I used to get that , I call it more like the Jill greenberg, jim ficus, etc.. look, it is all pretty similar...:+}
too get that sheen and saturated look to the clothing I would go into Nik Color eFX plug in and do a Midnight Blue or Sepia action on them and then erase where I did not want the effect re: skin and some hight lights in the clothing etc..
The sponge the colors to liking...
That give everything that Sheen shine look as the filter has like a blurring option which can also be exaggerated with Highpass glowing tech.

Hope Mtmm comes up with that leecher Tutorial real soon...:+}
Snook

Mtmm,

From your last post are we to assume that their is in fact more to your post processing then simply Dodge & Burn, as you implied earlier in this thread?

Of- course there is...
That is what makes me angry about people like him...:+}
He/They think we/you all are "Stupid"...:+}
Just like all the "It's the Lighting" crowd...
Sure the lighting helps with Dave's look of Burned out rim lighting on the side and Ring for fill to give more depth to the image..
Snook

What about "Kevlar Vest Girl" tutorial did anyone try it out.

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?th...=4#post6516764

Yep..I hate posters like Mtmm...who show something interesting to basically say "look how good I am", but then never show s#%*! as to process!

Snook...in one of your earlier threads you said you figured how to get certain looks like Ficus etc...when I asked for you to post the process you've figured out...you never responded...where basically are you in the quest and what can you share?

SkyDog sorry never saw it.. I pop in and out and really too busy to go through all my Post..:+]
What you need?
Just let me know or direct me to that post and I can help as much as possible..:+}

I sometimes have a shooting binge of 2-3 weeks straight and too tired to look through here..
The look is not that hard it is knowing when to stop or Pull the opacity 's to your liking etc...
Bust basic Desaturating slightly the image to your liking and the Dodging and Burning.. The I used to do Lucis in Small increments and then put those on a Luminosity Blend mode as not to get the Skin shadows to Orangy, If you have used lucis you know what I mean, Then back off the Opacity and then running (smoothing) de-noising if some sorts and then doing Contrast Sharpening Mask to liking.. You kind of build it up until you feel it is right.
Now I always did these on Pictures that I have Shot that were actually in a Cool environment or background.. I never had to do Compositing..
In order to get the Look right Dave does tons Of compositing...
Anyways what I posted before was that dave ha the Sheen/ Over saturated Colors unlike other guys muted colors..
I got close to that with after doing all the above I would use the Nik Color FX filter Midnight sepia or Blue depending on if you want the Color Cold or Warm.
Then would mask that off most of the skin until it look right.
You can see quite Clearly all the D&B strokes in Daves work and how he has Exaggerated the Highlight on the clothing etc...
Have you ever Dodged and Burned on Jeans and then Saturated them... they look the same as DH.

Recently I have been playing with S&H instead of Lucis and getting a similar effect..
Also there is a great filter called Mr. Contrast that is really quite cool also if you do not know about it.
In any case just thought I would add some stuff here as Sky Dogs got left out maybe on some of my post...:+}
I rarely use this technique cuz it is pretty old already and the "Look" Nowadays is going towards Clean UN TOUCHED Tendency...
SOme times do the "Dragan" style where you take the Blue channel and send it to Multiply or Overlay etc... also adds to the look if you need..
Snook

Snook...thanks....

this is what you said earlier:
"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"

I was just wondering what you have figured out in your quest thus far with regards to Fiscus type look.

Snook35 can you show one of your images using the above workflow when you have time.
Skydog can you show your DH look on one of your images with workflow if possible.

Thank you in advance.

Hi guys,

Sorry to be a pest but I would really appreciate some feedback on this shot below:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3165/2611737460_5401489b4f_b.jpg

Incidentally, the model is my pops!

That's my problem...I don't have a DH look, but wish I could create one.

Longside...like the car...like the background...don't like the skin.

hey longside1 your photo looks good. this is my feed back.
if we go to dave hill I think it is not only lighting that lot's of people here are talking about.
when you look his photos you can see that buildings and other background issues are also manipulated. with extra lights your can not affect buildings which are hundred meters away from main subject. so my opinnion is that he uses a lot of picture manipulation. maybe he use lights for main subject but background etc. has been manipulated.
this is my amateur opinnion.
please study kid rock's career, he rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi guys,

Sorry to be a pest but I would really appreciate some feedback on this shot below:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3165/2611737460_5401489b4f_b.jpg

Incidentally, the model is my pops!

Though not necessarily a compliment, I could believe it was taken by Dave Hill. What did your Pops & family think about it.
BTW.. When I said "not necessarily a compliment" It is very good, It's just that I personally believe in inspiration over imitation.

*bookmark*

wow...still running*g*

lg Calvin

Just if anyone is interested, the shot of my Dad is a composite, with him and the car being superimposed on a different background.

I'm really pleased with the result and it's glad to know that all the cash I've pumped into off camera flash is starting to pay dividends because as we all know, the DH look cannot be achieved without flash!

@JD SPears....thanks for the "compliment" I totally agree with you, inspiration is better over imitation. Dave Hill has inspired me to get off my arse, start studying flash photography...invest in my camera gear...begin to study Photoshop like never before.....

In an ideal world I'd have the creative ability to come up with my own style, buts sadly I don't have the ability to do this YET. As is I study more and more the styles of different photographers, as I'm doing now in this thread, I'm sure my own technique will evolve.

Another point to remember, is that if your commercially involved in photography, what would you do if a potential client approached you and said, "I love the style of this photographer called Dave Hill....I want my shoot like that". Would you respond with, "Nope sorry pal, I'm afraid I don't imitate the work of others!?" I don't think so!!

Longside...what equipment are your using?..What lights...what camera.

Just if anyone is interested, the shot of my Dad is a composite, with him and the car being superimposed on a different background.

I'm really pleased with the result and it's glad to know that all the cash I've pumped into off camera flash is starting to pay dividends because as we all know, the DH look cannot be achieved without flash!

@JD SPears....thanks for the "compliment" I totally agree with you, inspiration is better over imitation. Dave Hill has inspired me to get off my arse, start studying flash photography...invest in my camera gear...begin to study Photoshop like never before.....

In an ideal world I'd have the creative ability to come up with my own style, buts sadly I don't have the ability to do this YET. As is I study more and more the styles of different photographers, as I'm doing now in this thread, I'm sure my own technique will evolve.

Another point to remember, is that if your commercially involved in photography, what would you do if a potential client approached you and said, "I love the style of this photographer called Dave Hill....I want my shoot like that". Would you respond with, "Nope sorry pal, I'm afraid I don't imitate the work of others!?" I don't think so!!

Good point! And no, I wouldn't say that. I would say "Show me the money!". But thats only because I'm in a very unique situation that I need more money.

Dave Hill has inspired me to get off my arse, start studying flash photography...invest in my camera gear...begin to study Photoshop like never before.....
Word!
.......

>>>>>>> .begin to study Photoshop like never before.....

That's what all people are doing who study other artists.

If you play guitar, you listen to guitar players and try to see if you can play like them. Everybody does it - learning Beatles songs, Jimi Hendrix solos. Then, if you want to take your act on the road, you develop your own style. You might incorporate some those styles into your own. Ever hear someone say, "That band sounds like the early Rolling Stones"?

Nothing wrong with trying to imitate the best when you are learning.

Thanks for the comments guys, much appreciated ;-)

@Skydog...I'm using a Nikon D300 with a stack of lenses. Flash wise, I currently have six Vivitar 285HV flash for wrap around light, however two of these have been bought for the purpose of making my own ringflash.

I know my lights don't pack as much of a punch as those used by DH but they are more portable and affordable, which is to my liking. Get those Vivitar's cranked up and I have no problems overpowering sunlight, which makes for some really surreal stuff!

Longside1...will to share your work flow or are you just another Mtmm?

Longside1...will to share your work flow or are you just another Mtmm?

Politeness goes a long way in life!.....

Longside1...will to share your work flow or are you just another Mtmm?

hahahahaha
WORD!

That was funny...:+}
Mtmm already has a reputation..:+}
I am surprised he still pops in making comments...
If you noticed it is the only thread he ask questions in!!
Troll...
Snook

I am in. I would like to find out how Mr. Hill does his processing.

--Ron
www.ronaldntan.com

This is the Camera Raw and Light Room settings how Mr. Dave Hill processes his image. The post processing steps are also mentioned there.

http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/1094

ah c'mon...

This is the Camera Raw and Light Room settings how Mr. Dave Hill processes his image. The post processing steps are also mentioned there.

http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/1094

That has been posted a million times...
Does not have the best results... So I doubt Dave is using it..
But he does however never mention that he does not like he say about Lucis and HDR..
See his last videos...
Big Dave ain't shooting a little 5d anymore...:+}
Hassleblad and 30" cinema display...:+}

There is no one trick pony and you have to treat every picture differently.
Now dave hill saying he is not doing some kind of HDR on his backgrounds He is lying....:+}

I think if you follow this thread and have the right lighting,props, backgrounds,punk or singers with a look already, etc...
You will get closer...
Or you could always fall back on Mtmm's Technique...:+}

See his last videos...
Big Dave ain't shooting a little 5d anymore...:+}
Hassleblad and 30" cinema display...:+}


Sometimes. But watch his videos for the wrestling series which is one of the
most recent and he's still using his 5D for all of that. He's said on his blog
that for some jobs they require him renting a medium format, but he still
doesn't own a digital back as far as he says.

You get yours looking amazing though snook. Forget DH, your stuff kills. ;)

@Snook I've gone through this thread from start to finish and although you've contributed a great deal commentary wise, I Haven't seen any examples of your take on the Dave Hill look (your earlier links are now dead).

Taking on board the last post by CaptainHook, I would like to have a look at your efforts. Apologies in advance if I have missed one of your images, after all, this is a long thread to wade through!

Eagerly anticipating...

longside ~ my comments were not about snook's attempts to copy Dave Hill. Sorry for
the confusion. I was referring to his beauty images, which are i think are really great.
Along with his retouching of them. Having said that, i haven't seen his attempts at DH
so they could well be great also.
Cheers.

longside ~ my comments were not about snook's attempts to copy Dave Hill. Sorry for
the confusion. I was referring to his beauty images, which are i think are really great.
Along with his retouching of them. Having said that, i haven't seen his attempts at DH
so they could well be great also.
Cheers.

Hey, no worries! Snook, that makes two of us....

Okay longside1...would you PLEASE post your wonderful work flow...sorry for being so cynical...but since you read all the posts you know that many show their work but very few show their work flow...

Okay longside1...would you PLEASE post your wonderful work flow...sorry for being so cynical...but since you read all the posts you know that many show their work but very few show their work flow...

lol, no worries, I'm at the office at the moment, when i get home I'll explain all, however, just to warn you, much of what i did is already covered in this thread and over on the strobist thread on flickr...

Hey Guys, Sorry but I thought it was in my signature..:+]
I do not know how to post images here as when I normally do it they come up really small..
Here is an old website of mine..
It may have some DH looking stuff towards the end. Like I said this look is really old and I did something similar before Dave Hill...
Here is an older website of mine for any that want to see it...:+]
http://homepage.mac.com/ekphotography/2005/
if you change the 2005 to 2006 there is some newer stuff.. but nothing newer than a year or so as I am too busy to mess with my website really...+]
Thank Gosh!
Thanks for the comments by the way..
snook

ah, look at the skin from the man:

http://homepage.mac.com/ekphotography/2006/pages/029.html

great one. i would appreciate it, if you could tell us a little bit about your (skin-)retouching :)

Yup. i'd be interested to hear too.

Is it a result of using the Nik Color EfeX filter you mentioned earlier in the thread, a workflow would be great....;-)

Hi guys. This is my first post here in this topic as well as in the entire forum. I gotta say that Dave's pics are stunning :) I just sat dawon to my photoshop, took a random pic (i know i know, lighting is most of the success) and ended up with something like that:

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/4575/mg36131dhps7.jpg

next time i'll try to PP a picture with a good ligting ;)

It came out very good. Hope you share your workflow one day.

The image someone posted from my website has hardly any retouching at all..
It was a Big SoftBox and then I did basic cleaning of the skin then desaturated the skin tones a little then Sponged the clothing or color everywhere.
Then I usually do a Contrast Sharpening with something like 20/40/0 and ease it off a little bit..
I used to have an action that I called Dragan. not the typical one but one I did which was the green or blue channel on an overlay mode or softlight depending on the image and then back it off a little to liking also..:+]
The Nik color efex filter are on the images that look more retouched like the Junkyard pictures which are a mixture of Lucis and Nik color efex Midnight sepia..:+}
Snook

Snook can you comment on this photo:
http://homepage.mac.com/ekphotography/2006/pages/323%20(1).html

Snook...amazing shots...in fact, I like what you are doing more than DH. Not only do I like the color and texture but I like your composition and you did a great great job in model selection. What camera are you using? What % do you contribute to lights and what% to photoshop? I assume you got your look from bits and pieces you picked up from others and a whole lot of trial and error? Much dodge and burn? Good stuff.

Snook can you comment on this photo:
http://homepage.mac.com/ekphotography/2006/pages/323%20(1).html

That shot has no retouching.. It is a ringflash...:+}
They already give a nice light and poppy colors.
There is just Contrast Sharpening, again I use that a lot...:+]
It is for contrast not sharpening, but it happens to sharpen as sharpen is contrast if that makes sense..:+]
Again a lot of the stuf you guys are looking at is a couple years old atleast...
Technique back then was always desat a little and then Sponge what I wanted more Saturated.. adding a Nice Midnight Sepia Filter and then erasing it where you do not is pretty cool..
I work in steps really and usually can end up going heavy and that is always the where do you stop.. I usually go a little stronger then back off the opacity at the end cuz I usually chicken out b/c the trend really now is less retouching or full composite stuff like "DH" which I prefer Ficus and the such better really.
I really do not know how Dave starting getting so much credit for his look as it has been done by many long before DH was doing it.. Just about 98% of the HipHop stuff has been like that.. Bling Bling and Composite shots with Money and guns and alley ways composited in there..Nothing New...:;+}
I am just learning how to Composite and I am pretty sure 100% of my site has all the original backgrounds...
I have a Godzillion pictures and just try and throw up a variety when I can..
Again this is a Dave Hill thread, not a mine..:+}
Snook

PS.
I have use a Mamiya RZProDII with a Phase One P30 back...
But all the stuff on that site of mine is just about 98% Canon 1DsMII or 1Ds.
Just recently got the Digital Back...:+}

This is another site of Mine with more select images...
May have some stuff you have not seen yet...:+}
Snook

http://www.ericknorpp.com/

And Yes all Pictures and retouching are done by me on these sites...
Thanks!

I have use a Mamiya RZProDII with a Phase One P30 back...
But all the stuff on that site of mine is just about 98% Canon 1DsMII or 1Ds.
Just recently got the Digital Back...:+}

It's the stuff done of late on your phase one back that i was referring to. :)

Snook, totally offtopic to what everyone else is asking

I really like your gallery software on ek.com, what gallery is it?

Thank you for the info Snook

Snook this is not a DH thread it's a style thread which you also got in your own way.

Snook..you have some serious money invested...unless you got this stuff used.

Software is photoshop web galleries with flash... really easy.
And yes I have a lot invested..:+]
I have over 100.000 in equipment for sure..:+}
SNook

Hi. Now i have some time, to give some tips and howtos ;)...
here is an easy one, just to try for the begginers ;):

- create three copies of the same layer (ctrl + j two times)
- make a middle one desaturated, or use black and white adjustments layer (more control)
- make the top one on "soft light" blending mode

looks nice? then go for some more ;):
- make a "color balance" adjustments layer and try to set colors of image to yours taste (starw with red +80 and blue -80 just to see how it works)
- make the new adjustments layer sof light
- play with opacity to taste :)

want some more? :
- create another copy of background layer and put it on top in overlay blend mode
starting to looks cool? or maybe to much?
- play with opacities, or better use some of masking to show or hide the effect.

That was some of the easy steps ;).

Some that requires more practice:
- create luminescence masks from channels R,G,B and use them as masks for previously created layers
- create a new layer and fill from it as luminescence mask (select the best channel ctrl+alt+shift+(1,2,3) - fast shortcut), then play with blending modes (aka Dragan style).
- use levels or curves on masks to get better result and put correction in to highlights or shadows, or anyway U like)

This is just the beggining... combine for best result. When done start d&b.

Cyberek... Glad to see you came back from the Darkside...:+}
Tell Mtmm to get out of there...:+]
Snook

Stop whining, get over it man.

longside1 ...surely you haven't forgotten...

SNook... not that kind of big deal. I'm still thinking, that one should be creative and get to his/her own style by trying and trying and trying. But one thing is for shure... one have to know the basics that leads to something ;). I remember, when i was learning all this stuff and how i was excited :)... also i know, that even now, i know little about PS, and still i have the times, when im freazing in front of monitor saying... "wow... i didn't know that" ;).

Heres some more tips for those, who didnt read earlier ;)
- after preparing the image this way, u can proceed to LightRoom and try to set recovery, fill light, contrast, vibrance, clarity to 100%, then reduce saturation and set blacks to taste. But wait... its just copying... so from this moment start to going in other directions (reduce impact of this settings), and try to find the point, where image looks just ok :).
- another good way to do something in image is to create luminescence mask (ctrl+alt+shift+(1,2,3) in Ps3, or ctrl click on channel in earlier) from one of channels (for example from most contrasty one), then make a level or curves adjustements layer and aply mask to it. But its just the begginning. Select only mask (alt click on mask in layers), than do on it levels or curves to mask what u like (for example highlights). Now play with adjustments layer, that now works on specific "luminescencity" of image. Also U can invert mask to get to other point of luminescencity.

I think, that last one is not for begginers, becouse they proppably will not know how to do those steps, but... try :).

Ps... Question for megginers and middle experts... have You know, that You can create a drop shadow effect on an object, and then separate it from its "mother" object, and then for example free transform it to get better result (for example create a good shadow on floor)?

longside1 ...surely you haven't forgotten...

Nope, I haven't! Basically, with regards the pimp my dad shot, it was broken down into two separate shots, one dealing with the background and one with the foreground (my dad).

The foreground shot was lit using wrap around flash see shot below:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/2658197328_93db51b173.jpg

This shot was then edited to my liking using lightroom, nothing spectacular, just got the exposure looking how I wanted and then exported in CS3.

In CS3, the only things that I did to the shot was contrast boost using curves, skin softening, highpass layer and then some USM, gradually building the effect up on various layers at different opacities, before finishing the image with D @ B.

The foreground image was then removed and placed on the background shot which is of a ten pin bowling alley near where I live. The background shot was achieved by taking my camera out of the bag, switching it on, removing the lens cap, putting the camera to my eye, adjusting the focus, and the pressing the shutter release ;-). I do intend to write a tutorial on this.

Unfortunately. I don't still have the PSD for this shot, but here is a screen dump of the layers used in another shot I have just finished. Apologies for the low quality of the Jpeg used, but the purpose of the shot is just to demonstrate how many layers, and how much time was required to get the shot looking as it is now.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/2658200858_398d8fb678_m.jpg

Here is the finished shot for which the above screen dump relates:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3052/2652922007_26350e2e16_b.jpg

Incidentally, I've had no training in PS, and am by no means an expert. I achieved my look through a lot of hard work and trial and error, with days spent in front of the monitor figuring everything out, and to be quite honest I've loved every minute.

I personally believe that this thread has got quite nasty in nature with regards what people should provide in terms of guidance, workflows etc. There is absolutely stacks of info in this thread to get you going in the direction so why don't people just start putting stylus to tablet or mouse to matt and start finishing this story for themselves?

I hope I'm off the hook now...

longside1...thanks for the info

How do I make a mask for the R, G or B channel? I've never done so.

Change to Channels palete, where You can see 4 channels: RGB composite, R G and B. click one of R,G,B channel to make it active (only this one should be visible). You will see bw version of that color intensity. Now control click this layer. You should see so called "marching ants". Now go for example to layers, with still "marching ants" on screen click create adjustements layer, and this is how u get adjustements layer with luminescence mask :).

You can also create normal layer and fill it with black (still with "marching ants") (and then change blending mode to soft-light or overlay, or any other).

Heres some more tips ;).

Check this site:
http://goodlight.us/writing/luminositymasks/luminositymasks-1.html
there Tou can learn something about advanced creating of luminescence masks, adjusting them to get what You want and other things.

I have also found some interesting thing in interview with Bill Simone, that can be found on LightSource Studio Photography Podcast:
http://www.studiolighting.net/e067-simone-lightsource-photography-podcast/

Go, check it out, then try, try, try...

Cyberek

Many thanks for sharing these tutorials, they are extremely informative. I agree...try try and try again.

For everyones benefit, here is another shot that I have just finished working on. Feedback would be greatly appreciated!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3015/2664771581_19af1016da_b.jpg

longside1

i must say, that i like your's work. Its quite subtel, and still works as a picture (for me some of DH photos are far more than photos... like in to painting or something).
As i can see, You have used two light setup (correct me if i'm wrong), that gives just enought light to get good result ;).

Nice work :).

I've been reading this thread all through.. I think I'm gettin crazy...

Gotta sleep... Zzz...

Here is my try on mmtm's pic:

Mr. Contrast!

does anyone have the lucis art plugin for sale?

does anyone have the lucis art plugin for sale?

I am sure someone that is upgrading WOULD sell it, But I would be cautious if I were you. The license for the software, like most, does not transfer ownership. So even though, you may get it sent to you, you may not be able to activate it.

I am not sure of this, but I would be careful and get other input prior to making such a purchase!

Don, that's an interesting point. If one uses their old license to get an upgrade price, I don't think they could then turn around and transfer that license. Depending on the time of their original purchase, the upgrade discount offer may not apply, but the $70 coupon code (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/lucisartpro.html) would work.

Don, that's an interesting point. If one uses their old license to get an upgrade price, I don't think they could then turn around and transfer that license. Depending on the time of their original purchase, the upgrade discount offer may not apply, but the $70 coupon code (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/lucisartpro.html) would work.

Well, I think it even goes further than that. When you click agree to start the installation on all (I think) software, you are agreeing that you do not own any title to it and cannot transfer it under any conditions.

I am going to have to read and SAVE them from now on to see what I am really agreeing to!

I have Lucis License and it only works on one computer I have through CS3 in Rosetta.. It does not work on any of my other computers with CS3 through rosetta.
Is this normal?
It only works on my g5 Tower running CS3 in rosetta. The MacBook Pro it won't work... Photoshop crashes everytime!:+{
In any case you should tried Mr. Conrast as it is even better in my mind, cost less and has more options...:+]
Snook

snook ~ i tried mr contrast a while ago and didn't like it. Although i based that decision
on approximately one minute of play time. :D
Maybe i should revisit it. What are you doing with it that you like?
Also, no advice on which one of the mamiyas? ;)

Lucis works on my macbook pro under rosetta. But it's an older macbook pro..?

I have Lucis License and it only works on one computer I have through CS3 in Rosetta.. It does not work on any of my other computers with CS3 through rosetta.
Is this normal?
It only works on my g5 Tower running CS3 in rosetta. The MacBook Pro it won't work... Photoshop crashes everytime!:+{
In any case you should tried Mr. Conrast as it is even better in my mind, cost less and has more options...:+]
Snook

Do you have a link for Mr. Contrast?

LucisArt was never made to function on the Intel machine so it only functions when PS is run under Rosetta,

Do you have a link for Mr. Contrast?

LucisArt was never made to function on the Intel machine so it only functions when Photoshop is run under Rosetta,

GOT IT!! Downloaded the trial from Flaming Pear! Thanks for the tip.

Don't have link but it is easy.. Flaming Pear plug-ins..
I to did not like it at first, but if you tweak it right you can have great results..:+}
I hate uploading pictures here as they look way to small...
I just did a montage and used mr. contrast and it came out pretty cool.

Snook
I think there is even a trial period.. not sure. I bought mine a long time ago and it still works with CS3 intel no problems..:+]
Snook

show it please :)

cant believe mr contrast gives "great results" ;)

I don't get the warm-fuzzies from Flaming Pear. Their plug-ins are great, but the developer simply does not respond to emails (and many on various forums have expressed dissatisfaction with post-purchase tech support as well).

I tried for a few years to contact them (even through a third-party) and gave up--that's why you don't see any of their stuff listed on my website.

As for the upcoming Lucis Pro 6, it is designed to run on Intel processors. That's part of a number of modern improvements to the original LucisArt plug-in.

Mr. Contrast Unlike Lucis works already for CS3 and Cost pennies compared to the WAY over priced Lucis Plug-in.
You really think people are going to buy Lucis at that price..
Seriously...?
Not trying to bash it at all, but the price is just ridiculous.

Lucis is Nice but no way is it worth that kind of money.
Snook

None of us (including myself) have seen the final new version of Lucis Pro 6 (I do have a demo with two-slider and individual channel capability, though), but I understand it's much more than just a simple update of the old LucisArt plug-in... As soon as I can get my hands on it I'll post more details.

Check out this one.

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/07/rembrandt-lighting-um-no.html

And even when Snook hates me, Snook, cool and pure photos at your portfolio. Keep it up!

I guess we will never see the "old software business model" where your first purcahse was the investment. Then as long as you upgraded every 2nd upgrade, the cost was minimal (maybe 10% of original cost). Todays model is more like a repeated cost of 80 plus of the origianl cost to upgrade. It is becoming like a subscription rather than an investment in productivity. I dislike it.

I have a complete "On One" plug in package ($$$$$$) and they just came up with an upgrade that adds some focus plug ins and they expect you to pay full price for the whole suite to "upgrade", Riiigggghhhhttt! As they say in the used car business, "there is a butt for every seat", or put in the words of P. T. Barnam, "There is a sucker born every day"!

Check out this one.

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/07/rembrandt-lighting-um-no.html

And even when Snook hates me, Snook, cool and pure photos at your portfolio. Keep it up!

very nice, one can see that his look is 99% there before it ever gets to photoshop...

Dear God man. 58 pages attempting to copy someone's worn out look? This is not retouching. Learn how to color correct skin first.

Dear God man. 58 pages attempting to copy someone's worn out look? This is not retouching. Learn how to color correct skin first you geeks. Back to restoration for you all.

For some of us this is just a fun distraction. Don't you get bored of highend
all the time? You're from NY right? Go take a break and see Bon Iver live or
something. May help to de-stress. :D

don't feed the trolls...

Dear God man. 58 pages attempting to copy someone's worn out look? This is not retouching. Learn how to color correct skin first you geeks. Back to restoration for you all.


For 58 pages,,,you haven't said shit you haven't given any good advice on anything! Some people(you) are born in to this world just to complain! Stay away! Please...if you don't have anything remotely creative that can help us further, why even bother to lash out! Jeez!

BTW: Thanks MTMM, for that nice link! Really nice to see the before and after!


Gerry

Don, one can purchase the new FocalPoint (http://plugsandpixels.com/focalpoint.html) on its own without re-buying the whole suite. It's an individual product.

Don, one can purchase the new FocalPoint (http://plugsandpixels.com/focalpoint.html) on its own without re-buying the whole suite. It's an individual product.
Seriously, do you need 159 dollars to get your photos look like shit? Camoon, please go away with your ads.

http://plugsandpixels.com/images/revfocalpoint3.jpg

Mtmm: true, true ;).

Mtmm: true, true ;).

lol, I totally agree, my experience with such plugins is that they seriously undermine the quality of a photo, even if used in tiny increments.

If your going to go through all the hassle of slowly building up an image using that $hit then why not use that time to proerly d & b your shot.

Try it, you might actually be impressed with the results!

lol, I totally agree, my experience with such plugins is that they seriously undermine the quality of a photo, even if used in tiny increments.

If your going to go through all the hassle of slowly building up an image using that $hit then why not use that time to proerly d & b your shot.

Try it, you might actually be impressed with the results!

The whole concept behind plug-ins is simply to quickly add a look or element to work that you have to get done with a minimum effort. If the customer is happy. . . . . . . .

The whole concept behind plug-ins is simply to quickly add a look or element to work that you have to get done with a minimum effort. If the customer is happy. . . . . . . .

I agree with regards the speed, plugins are quicker to use, but the point of this thread is to try and work out the Dave Hill effect.

We know it's down to lighting, and some PP. However, Dave Himself has stated that he does not use Lucis or any other plugin and I thinks that's quite evident from his work. I have no reason not to believe the guy.

If you can't be arsed to put the effort in then you're never going to get near DH's work.

Someone remind me again, why are we even discussing over priced plugins?

I agree with regards the speed, plugins are quicker to use, but the point of this thread is to try and work out the Dave Hill effect.

We know it's down to lighting, and some PP. However, Dave Himself has stated that he does not use Lucis or any other plugin and I thinks that's quite evident from his work. I have no reason not to believe the guy.

If you can't be arsed to put the effort in then you're never going to get near DH's work.

Someone remind me again, why are we even discussing over priced plugins?

Sorry. I drew us off course. The diversion was because Lucis Art comes up as a plug in that can contribute to "the look".

It is easy to link from that to my rant about software business practices. Then others start talking about being lazy etc. My point is still valid in my mind, but I concur. We should stay on subject. . . . I guess.

Mtmm.. you back in here..
When you going to help some of these peple out ith a little insight as to how you are getting your look?
No body ever asked you for a complete layout of your work?
What are you afraid of..
No one is ever going to say , wow that looks like the Mtmm look...:+]
is that what you worried about...?
Your the only one that has come some what cose to Dave hills look in this post..
Why don't you help some people out.
Snook

My gut feel, is that it is a VERY long and slow process that starts with capture. Perhaps folks like Mtmm do not have it documented because it is so detailed and long and that is part of the hesitation. The only other reason might be that once someone gets "there". they are hesitant to share what took them a long time to develop.

I guess if that is the case, and it is based on commercial interests, that can be understood. But in those cases, I would think that they would just state it as so!

I am just interested because, I like all these various looks. I like HDR, even the halo effect at some level, Lucis Art, (I use it commercially in Portraits), the so called Dave Hill effect which for all the talk here, looks quite similar to what others have achieved.

But then, I love it all, from a Wyeth like literalism to the impressionistic!

From what I've gathered...

1. Excellent and surgical lighting (kickers, soft boxes, beauty dish, ring light)

2. Basic retouch/cleaning of skin and environment

3. Luminosity Masks
-see: http://goodlight.us/writing/luminositymasks/luminositymasks-1.html
-see: "Kevlar Vest Girl" speaks of this here http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=304298&page=4#post6516764

4. "Dodge and Burn" in 'soft light' or 'overlay'
-see: Amy Dresser's PSD http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/photo-retouching/13931-what-kind-technique-4.html#post128285

5. Color Correction

There is probably a missing link... but that's what I've gathered from this monster thread.

Snook is saying that I´m the closest one, but I´m so far from Hill. I need more lights.

http://www.bodynet.fi/kuvat/gazoz5.jpg
http://www.bodynet.fi/kuvat/tuhkis2.jpg

I´m now trying to use kickers with more precision and learning about local contrast brushing.

Mtmm

Are you using any of the methods I describe in the list above? If so, which ones? Anything different?

Thanks

I´m big fan of D/B, local blending and lighting.

Have messed with the Luminosity Masks? They seemed to be nice for some of the mid-range. But here again, its all about have the information there from the beginning... which means... here it is... you have to have a good photograph with good lighting to begin with.

Yes and you need to generate enough good highlites to work with. You can always do more shadows, but from a flat image, its pretty hard to do more highlites.

I have mentioned about luminescence masks before, and yes, it is good way to do local (in luminescence level meaning) contrast increments, or any other correction based on luminescence. And also, if You can do masks like they describe, You can do much more (of them), to control more or less that you like :). Its depending, what You want to get :). But its just a tool. Using the tools in correct way, correct tools to work, that they are best fitting it... and maybe we should talk more about, which method gets us where, not like: do this, and this, and that, and set this like that and this will work :P. It always depends on image, and on how far and which dirrection You want to go ;).
Here is something, that I was working recently:
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/4461/mg2574edit2yo9.jpg
Spent about 4-5 hours on correcting the skin (clone stamp on lighten/darken on very low opacity, some other techniques), then correcting whole picture, masking, and corrrecting again, and so on... just becouse last needed it (beleve me, that with original, just correcting to this color/mood was lookind very ugly).
Oh P.s.... and photo was taken in full sun light, couse that are the frends of mine, and i didnt had any other equipment than my camera with only one lens... we did some grilling together (yes, no bogos, no flash units, no reflectors...).
PsPs... anybody want to share his/hers feelings about this photo?

I guess the questions is where is the saturation and grain coing into Dave's Pictures..
~He has the shiny sheen to the clothing and skin.
Mtmm I like the way your skintones are coming out but I still feel you are leaving out some info which is fine.
Again no one is forcing to answer this.
I guess your trying to save the huge BodyBuilding market in Slovakia that we are thinking about invading this year...:+}
Just a little humor...:+}
IF your doing just lighting and DBing can you post one of your images in psd or with layers showing that somehow?
I think one of the helpful retouchers there are are like Amy Dressler who even post one of her images with layers showing people. then she added her "trick" technique of filling leyer with white ect...... That is cool..
That is someone who cares o less if people know what she is doing and like to help.
with your contrast or luminosity mask are you darkening the darks and lighting the lights or opposite?
Snook

I have mentioned about luminescence masks before, and yes, it is good way to do local (in luminescence level meaning) contrast increments, or any other correction based on luminescence. And also, if You can do masks like they describe, You can do much more (of them), to control more or less that you like :). Its depending, what You want to get :). But its just a tool. Using the tools in correct way, correct tools to work, that they are best fitting it... and maybe we should talk more about, which method gets us where, not like: do this, and this, and that, and set this like that and this will work :P. It always depends on image, and on how far and which dirrection You want to go ;).
Here is something, that I was working recently:
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/4461/mg2574edit2yo9.jpg
Spent about 4-5 hours on correcting the skin (clone stamp on lighten/darken on very low opacity, some other techniques), then correcting whole picture, masking, and corrrecting again, and so on... just becouse last needed it (beleve me, that with original, just correcting to this color/mood was lookind very ugly).
Oh P.s.... and photo was taken in full sun light, couse that are the frends of mine, and i didnt had any other equipment than my camera with only one lens... we did some grilling together (yes, no bogos, no flash units, no reflectors...).
PsPs... anybody want to share his/hers feelings about this photo?

Yeh and you mushed all the contrast and information in the image..
looks pretty muddy.
I have been doing luminosity masking for contrast for years.
if you command click the image in the channels and then load that to curve mask, I use pigment not percent and bummped the midtones up 10 points and then invert the slection or mask and do the oppisite you will get a "perfecty" contrast image as you are not affecting the colors just contrast in the luminosity channels.
This is pretty old school technique that I still use today, but that does not produce the DH look.

I think that some are not mentioning and I am not totally sure my self but where is all the saturation coming from.. sponging...:+}

Also would like to add that dave does not ever say he does not use any plug-in and when he says he does not HDR I tink he is full of it as it is impossible to get his backgrounds images with out HDR odf some sorts.
I don't beleive a word ~Dave hill says as he is obviosly worried about holding the secrets of his post work.
Maybe he is not HDR his backgrounds, but his retouch or the person doing his backgrounds is and that is obvious and he is a fool for saying differently.
Snook

"With your contrast or luminosity mask are you darkening the darks and lighting the lights or opposite?"

Not sure if there is a correct answer to this. All photos are different. There are many different levels of Lum Masks you can have. 'Darks', 'Super Darks', 'Lights', 'Wide Lights' etc.... so you adjust to taste.

With Lum Masks you are basically emulating HDR to an extent. HDR has info in the darks and info in the lights because you have different exposures that has capture that information. With Lum Masks you can bring up pixels in the shadows and bring down the lights giving you a balanced luminosity.

BUT if that information (or pixels) isn't there to begin with... well then your kind of screwed.

Mtmm, do you have an online gallery of your work? The only work I've seen are the tidbit posts here and there on this thread? I would love to be able to browse through your work. I'm impressed.

BTW adding noise can cover some sin, not all but can help if used in small amounts.

Mtmm, do you have an online gallery of your work? The only work I've seen are the tidbit posts here and there on this thread? I would love to be able to browse through your work. I'm impressed.

BTW adding noise can cover some sin, not all but can help if used in small amounts.

http://www.pakkotoisto.com/mike/

Yes and you need to generate enough good highlites to work with. You can always do more shadows, but from a flat image, its pretty hard to do more highlites.

That and its hard to bring up lower-midrange without generating noise so a good fill light (like a ring flash) will help.

http://www.pakkotoisto.com/mike/

That is some pretty awesome work! You deserve all the accolades you get (and you deserve to make money on it all as well), Bravo!

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.

??
And please do the same..:+}

S.

I have no glue how Dave does his photos, so I have nothing to reveal.

??
And please do the same..:+}

S.

Where can I find his videos?

Mtmm why you keep beating it down.
You keep beating around the bush.
We would like to know how you are getting that Dave Hillish look you are doing..
Does that sound better.
No one wants your exact steps..
Your doing something besides D&B ing and your 3 light set-up
I just saw this response you left and wonder why don't you do as you asked to others so many times and give a little more information.
Like you said it all depends on the subject anyways.
Can you be a little more specific.. you working only in PS. what bleach pass you talking about? which one. Nik color fx one?
I think even dave gives more info than you...:+}
Snook..

I use 4 lights and I need more. I can only say what I do use and it depends on a photo. I will not give any details.

d/b
local contrast
local multiply blending
highpass/gaussian smoothing in linear light blending (very effective and clean with right numbers)
duotone blending
local clarity and exposure (raw)
black channel sharpening
color correction by numbers (CMYK)

Don´t ask for details. One thing is a must - ringflash as a fill light, I love it.

disclaimer:
This is valid only today, tomorrow I can use another methods.

I use 4 lights and I need more. I can only say what I do use and it depends on a photo. I will not give any details.

d/b
local contrast
local multiply blending
highpass/gaussian smoothing in linear light blending (very effective and clean with right numbers)
duotone blending
local clarity and exposure (raw)
black channel sharpening
color correction by numbers (CMYK)

Don´t ask for details. One thing is a must - ringflash as a fill light, I love it.

disclaimer:
This is valid only today, tomorrow I can use another methods.

I have everything else, I just need a ring flash! More money and mostly more time doing all this PS work! Thanks anyway!

Thanks..
Will stop bothering you...
95% of the people will have no idea what you wrote anyways..
But atleast you said something..:+}

Snook

Thanks..
Will stop bothering you...
95% of the people will have no idea what you wrote anyways..
But atleast you said something..:+}

Snook

Gee Snook! You have a very low opinion of your fellow RetouchPRO compatriots! Maybe the others are just not as intense as you are. Some are playing, some do just enough to make a buck! But the interest is there, nonetheless!

d/b
local contrast
local multiply blending
highpass/gaussian smoothing in linear light blending (very effective and clean with right numbers)
duotone blending
local clarity and exposure (raw)
black channel sharpening
color correction by numbers (CMYK)

Thanks Mtmm, I know you said you will not give out any "details" so consider this a statement in response.

D/B - Pretty self-explanatory.

Local Contrast - Seems like another way of doing Luminosity Masks.

Local Multiply Blending - Not for sure exactly what you mean by this... perhaps duplicating a merged copy of the project, changing the layer mode to Multiply? I guess you would do this to give a little bit of depth.

Highpass/Gaussian Smoothing in Linear Light Blending - I'm assuming this was taken from Christy Schuler's skin retouching? See: http://www.christyschuler.com/retouching.html

Duotone Blending - I have no idea what this is? I assume for color correcting?

Local Clarity and Exposure (raw) - Interesting... copy a merged and open it in Camera Raw, boost up some clarity and adjust exposure to taste; paste that in your document, mask it, and then brush in to taste?

Black Channel Sharpening - I know I've read how to do this somewhere... anyone have a link on hand?

Color Correction by Numbers (CMYK) - By "numbers"... what does that mean? Curves? Selective color?

Thanks again Mtmm for sharing the work flow.

mtmmm you go too far sometimes... it's just my opinion ;)
there's few works of u that i really dig, and few others ones sounds too much, too much, i go as far as i can blabla... and finally that doenst look that good.

;)


also about your explications, yeah, okay, maybe i cannot understand everything, first of all i don't speak english as first language, neither do u and i my guess it's the same thing for a lot of users.... but pls, people, don't say:
"whatever they don't get it anyway". my view of this website is learn a lot from others ppl? some don't wanna drop their "tips" , or, at least, all the details in it and i totally understand, but the headlines could be great & small description.


ez,
gui

Something.....
Thanks Mtmm, I know you said you will not give out any "details" so consider this a statement in response.

Local Contrast - Seems like another way of doing Luminosity Masks.

- Yep, maskin contrast where you want it to be

Local Multiply Blending - Not for sure exactly what you mean by this... perhaps duplicating a merged copy of the project, changing the layer mode to Multiply? I guess you would do this to give a little bit of depth.

- You can multiply your current layer and then mask it where you want it to be

Duotone Blending - I have no idea what this is? I assume for color correcting?

- Just another way to ad contrast

Local Clarity and Exposure (raw) - Interesting... copy a merged and open it in Camera Raw, boost up some clarity and adjust exposure to taste; paste that in your document, mask it, and then brush in to taste?

- Lightroom 2 rules, it has a new feature where you can mask clarity

Color Correction by Numbers (CMYK) - By "numbers"... what does that mean? Curves? Selective color?

- Curves, keeping yellow over magenta for print

Gee Snook! You have a very low opinion of your fellow RetouchPRO compatriots! Maybe the others are just not as intense as you are. Some are playing, some do just enough to make a buck! But the interest is there, nonetheless!

Sorry I of course did not mean to offend anybody.. really..
Just the terms that Mtmm used many might not even know what he meant or how to manipulate them.. me being one of them...:+]
Duo tone blending for example....?
Sorry it sounded that way...:+}
Snook
Some one will ring in here with some explanations for sure..

Thanks Mtmm, I know you said you will not give out any "details" so consider this a statement in response.

D/B - Pretty self-explanatory.

Local Contrast - Seems like another way of doing Luminosity Masks.

Local Multiply Blending - Not for sure exactly what you mean by this... perhaps duplicating a merged copy of the project, changing the layer mode to Multiply? I guess you would do this to give a little bit of depth.

Highpass/Gaussian Smoothing in Linear Light Blending - I'm assuming this was taken from Christy Schuler's skin retouching? See: http://www.christyschuler.com/retouching.html

Duotone Blending - I have no idea what this is? I assume for color correcting?

Local Clarity and Exposure (raw) - Interesting... copy a merged and open it in Camera Raw, boost up some clarity and adjust exposure to taste; paste that in your document, mask it, and then brush in to taste?

Black Channel Sharpening - I know I've read how to do this somewhere... anyone have a link on hand?

Color Correction by Numbers (CMYK) - By "numbers"... what does that mean? Curves? Selective color?

Thanks again Mtmm for sharing the work flow.
By the numbers means when you put down a eye dropper point on the (non-Blown) highlight on the skin then in the info palette change it to CMYK and the numbers should line up:
Cyan
M= 3-5 times Cyan
Y= just a little more than M
good number might be:
5
15
18
for example.. that is telling you the skin tones are ok and not to green or yello or red...:+]
It is a basic color or skin tone correction method I use on my starting image and then at the final stage to make sure it has not shifting too much during manipulation...:+]
Has nothing to do with the DH FX in any case...
Snook

Mtmm you mentioned in a couple post that you are using a Bleach bypass on your images...
In fact you posted and image that you stated that you only put a Bleach bypass
Are you using the one in Nik color efex pro 3 or Lightroom preset Bleach Bypass?
I think the image you posted with just that effect looks pretty darn good and could be the little "trick" that is missing?
Then on that setting the Amy drexler trick up select color range whites and fill a blank layer with some gausian blur.

The High Pass Gausian on linear light is for contrast also or to smooth out the skin from the harsh contrast bleach?
Thanks
Snook

Sorry I of course did not mean to offend anybody.. really..
Just the terms that Mtmm used many might not even know what he meant or how to manipulate them.. me being one of them...:+]
Duo tone blending for example....?
Sorry it sounded that way...:+}
Snook
Some one will ring in here with some explanations for sure..

No offense taken! I spoke "tongue in cheek", so to speak. I really do think that you will never see anything but a laundry list of tools and techniques which are used. Each image has differing goals and needs to make the adjustment agree with the artists vision. And in some cases, the artist may develop not only his/her process along the way, but the end game itself as they work.

Its a little like Grandma's apple pie. She gives you the recipe, and when it does not turn out like hers, she says something like "OH, I might have used more butter", etc and so on each time you try it.

edit: outta here, thanks to Snook.

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 you forget alot of what you say...:+]
you also blamed another member for not helping out that you forgot about also.. again I quoted you..
here you say again you did not say you used bleach bypass...
What is it?
Some else writing for you?
Snook

In fact you posted and image that you stated that you only put a Bleach bypassNot only, but I´m outta here. No mather what I post, Snook is running his mouth.

Dude you defintely have some problems..

You come in here asking for all kinds of help..Even stating to others that they are holding out, then when called on your own post you do the same..
then I am trying to get what you say clear. I simply state what you have already stated. you even posted and image showing it. On this image I used only D&B and bleach hypass.
Then I ask you what bleach bypass you are using and you say you never said that.
So I quote you and you seem to have forgotten or do not want anybody to know that is what you are doing.
Who is the wise guy here...??

By the way your select range with white is the Amy dressler trick that she so un selfishly told everyone.
She even posted a psd with an actual image showing it on her layers.
People that are secure in what they are doing and are un selfish are the ones that help out and are not worried about peope copying them.
Like I said, no one is going to say... Wow that is the Mtmm look..
Dude when you grow up and want to play with the Big boys come on back,
but if you come in here only ranting to others then doing the same thing is not cool.
If you look at you history state here , you only have come in to pick out this thread.. So your leaving is going to be your loss...
Snook

Here is my take on things...

First, a bit about myself. Im 21 and i live in the UK. Started stills photography about 2 months ago. My current day job is a cinematographer, editor and compositor. Part of my job includes filming shoots for magazines such as FHM and Maxim. Naturally whenever i watch a film, i am always finding myself thinking about the way shots are lit. This also happens when i am walking down the street, it seems i am always thinking about lighting. This tendency led me to look at the way the stills shots for the magazines were being lit. I found it very interesting and i wanted to have a go. When i decided this i started looking at lots of different pictures on the net, the different styles of lighting and retouching. As i was surfing i came across lots of different names, Dave Hill being one of them. I decided to have a go at trying to make a 'Dave Hill Style' photo and this is my result

http://whoissam.co.uk/pool_low.jpg

What i have learned in the past 2 months about the Dave Hill Look:
- 90% is achieved with the lighting. You have to shoot for the look.
- There is no magic 'Dave Hill Button'. The more time you spend on your image, the better it will be
- Dodging and Burning
- Alot of people dont realise that Dave Hill is giving lots away about the way he gets his image. The behind the scenes videos are great because they show the way he lights.

The image that i have done is far from perfect, i would say that i am about 40% happy with it. I spent about 40 minutes lighting it, and just under an hour in photoshop. There is still lots for me to learn and at the end of the day, i feel the quality of your images will increase the more you practice

Here is my take on things...

First, a bit about myself. Im 21 and i live in the UK. Started stills photography about 2 months ago. My current day job is a cinematographer, editor and compositor. Part of my job includes filming shoots for magazines such as FHM and Maxim. Naturally whenever i watch a film, i am always finding myself thinking about the way shots are lit. This also happens when i am walking down the street, it seems i am always thinking about lighting. This tendency led me to look at the way the stills shots for the magazines were being lit. I found it very interesting and i wanted to have a go. When i decided this i started looking at lots of different pictures on the net, the different styles of lighting and retouching. As i was surfing i came across lots of different names, Dave Hill being one of them. I decided to have a go at trying to make a 'Dave Hill Style' photo and this is my result

http://whoissam.co.uk/pool_low.jpg

What i have learned in the past 2 months about the Dave Hill Look:
- 90% is achieved with the lighting. You have to shoot for the look.
- There is no magic 'Dave Hill Button'. The more time you spend on your image, the better it will be
- Dodging and Burning
- Alot of people dont realise that Dave Hill is giving lots away about the way he gets his image. The behind the scenes videos are great because they show the way he lights.

The image that i have done is far from perfect, i would say that i am about 40% happy with it. I spent about 40 minutes lighting it, and just under an hour in photoshop. There is still lots for me to learn and at the end of the day, i feel the quality of your images will increase the more you practice

Hey Sam!

Thanks for your up front post and your comments. We need more forthright comments like yours!

Here is a before and after for those of you who are interested

http://www.whoissam.co.uk/before_after.jpg

Thought i would also talk a bit more about the lighting as i realise in my original post that i didnt say anything. I used 2 Bowen QuadX flash heads shooting into 46" umbrellas to the left and right of me, as close to the wall as possible and a Bowen ringflash to the left and slightly above the camera, all powered from a QuadX 3000 Generator. The umbrellas were about 1.5-2 stops above the ringflash if i remember correctly. Camera was Nikon D300 shooting Raw.

Sorry Mtmm...I agree with snook..you are just a tease. You basically post to say "look at me" show everyone what you are capable of doing, but when asked specific questions you dance around the question or don't respond at all.

Sam...I'm quite impressed..especially at 21! I agree with your approach...closely watching others that are good with their craft and you have a great opportunity. I too agree that lighting is the key. I'm sure photoshop is part of the workflow, but you've got to have a good shot to begin with.

I understand what you guys are griping about, but Mtmm did list what he says is his workflow... I have been the only one that tried to critique the workflow while you others have spent time not looking at his workflow but running your mouths - sorry for being so blunt.

Again, I understand the frustration, what Mtmm gave wasn't very descriptive and even elusive but what you are doing here isn't helping the greater good... and that is demystifying the Dave Hill look.

you've got to be kidding...

Sorry folks, what is this thread about???
This "magic effect" can be done within 15 minutes...

http://www.jeffsimage.com/temp/gb.jpg

Jeff.. cannot beleive it..
after over 100,000 views to this thread you finally did it..
and it was so easy...
Thanks
Snook

you've got to be kidding...

Hey man, just saying...

Sorry folks, what is this thread about???
This "magic effect" can be done within 15 minutes...

http://www.jeffsimage.com/temp/gb.jpg

haha wicked mate,
u just made my day :p

Close/similar?

LINK (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/2686483981_a3719f6754.jpg)

Here is another before/after that i have just finished now. Shoot time was about 30 minutes, was struggling to find inspiration in my office so settled for the kitchen. I spent about an hour in photoshop retouching it. If i had longer i would remove the ringflash reflection from the microwave and sort out the cupboard on the right. I also need to work a bit on retouching skin, but for now im happy

Here it is
http://whoissam.co.uk/before_after_2.jpg

This is a test I was doing on a green screen subject. I accidently came up with this pic. No D/B,HDR,or sharpening was done. It was done in about five steps. What do you guys think?

jjativaj

thats a pretty typical case of too much high pass or some kind of contrast based sharpening with a strong radius.

This is a test I was doing on a green screen subject. I accidently came up with this pic. No D/B,HDR,or sharpening was done. It was done in about five steps. What do you guys think?

It would be interesting to see the steps!

It would be interesting to see the steps!

no, please no.

no, please no.

What am I missing? Do you not like it "that much"? I find the whole look, whether lightly done or "heavy handed", interesting. It all has a place in the very wide range of what is acceptable to my eyes.

As I have said before, I love images from the sharp exacting Wyeth like detailed to the vague impressionistic!

It would be interesting to see the steps!

trees his steps are highpass and too much of in fact...
Do a huge high pass on overlay and you'll get that effect...
Snook

not a huge, a massive one

not a huge, a massive one

haha. tis true.

trees his steps are highpass and too much of in fact...
Do a huge high pass on overlay and you'll get that effect...
Snook

But he/she said no D/b, no sharpening, so I asked . . . . what then?

But he/she said no D/b, no sharpening, so I asked . . . . what then?

I think the bigger point is... why would you want to know?

Why is that a bigger point? I have a right to ask a question and that should neither offend anyone. nor indicate anything about me but an interest in the answer to my question.

Hey man, I don't care if you ask or want to know. I was only wondering why would you want to know how that person achieve a halo-ed highpassy image? It doesn't look a thing like Dave Hill.

I digress, and sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean to, or the poster of that image.

OK, no offense taken.

For the record, I use a touch of Lucis Art in portraits and find that folks will pay more for the result. When I sell landscape images at fairs, people will choose HDR 12:1 over straight single exposures.

As a result, I am interested in anything that affects the image even if it seems heavy handed, because I am always interested in something I can use, albeit on a layer at a reduced opacity.

Hey Don.. It is done by:
goto highpass on the image and put it on the blend mode softlight/overlay etc.. each one will make it a little stronger. I learned a little trick the other day so you can see it in the preview..
Try putting your image in Overlay or softlight first then bring up the `Highpass filter and then whe yo push up the effect you can see it right away on the image instead of having to wait and see what you did after you press OK...
The only thing is , is at 0% your image looks like it would on overlay so you cannot really see wat the image looks lie with no effect..
Hope that makes sense.
Put the duplicated image through all this.. not just a layer...:+}
DAve Hill says he uses a lot of sharpening which he may do high pass but in small steps b/c all at once can look really ugly like the image the poster posted..
of course that is only my opinion.
Either way looks nothing like Dave Hill.
Most people here do not realize that a lot of their over worked images may look good here or on the web, but printed they will look like crap if your not careful...
Hard to print blacks and shadows very well.
Snook

You can always mask the halos out if you love the high-pass look.

I had taken at face value that the poster used No sharpening as he/she said. The High Pass Filter is commonly used for sharpening and has some advantages. I thought maybe this person had come up with some other approach.

Thanks for your inputs!

Don

Dude you defintely have some problems..

You come in here asking for all kinds of help..Even stating to others that they are holding out, then when called on your own post you do the same..
then I am trying to get what you say clear. I simply state what you have already stated. you even posted and image showing it. On this image I used only D&B and bleach hypass.
Then I ask you what bleach bypass you are using and you say you never said that.
So I quote you and you seem to have forgotten or do not want anybody to know that is what you are doing.
Who is the wise guy here...??

By the way your select range with white is the Amy dressler trick that she so un selfishly told everyone.
She even posted a psd with an actual image showing it on her layers.
People that are secure in what they are doing and are un selfish are the ones that help out and are not worried about peope copying them.
Like I said, no one is going to say... Wow that is the Mtmm look..
Dude when you grow up and want to play with the Big boys come on back,
but if you come in here only ranting to others then doing the same thing is not cool.
If you look at you history state here , you only have come in to pick out this thread.. So your leaving is going to be your loss...
Snook

Amen......

How many of you have actually tried to see Dave Hills behind the scenes and tried to compare the behind the scene pictures with the pictures in his portfolio? I'm not sure if someone posted this before, but if you look at the "early November Promo Shoot" and find the band picture in portfolio nr3(top right corner) and look at the two guys sitting with the table...They are the same in the before an dafter shot...Wouldn't we all agree on that it's PS that made the effect? Look at the difference in details when you look at the clothing and table...

Photoshop... Now way..
It is the lighting...
you did not see the video where he shows the black electric tape strips on the his ringflash.. that is what does it.. Special lighting...:+]

There is hardly any post....:+}

Alos as we all know by now that dave is also lying a lot..
He laughs about using HDR trying to be sarcastic yet all his backgrounds or most are HDR...
I guess he means he personally does not HDR but obviously his retoucher does.
Or maybe he smoking the same the Mtmm is and really cannot remember how he does it or what he says..:+}

Hey Mtmm.. what up...
Snook

To me... its very obvious he is using some sort of HDR on the background, then he is compositing each model into the scene.

See in this before and after shot. He lights each set of models individually, layers them, masks them in. At least in this shot.

Before and After Shot (http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l480/sleepingatlast/dhba.jpg)

The only way that makes me think it isn't HDR (at least not an extreme HDR) is that the windows are blown out.

I was obviously joking about the lighting...

Also That is not HDR probably..Does not look like it.

I was referring to a lot of his other shot's where he has composited a whole new background...
As soon as I see that before and after together it screams Lucis even though he does not use it.. Little doses of lucis and smoothing it out and then some more will get you close enough for sure
Or doing the Lightroom trick but in steps.
Lightroom and the contrast mask are getting at the same results. Just Contrast masking is more controlled and precise.
Shadow and Highlights is trying to do the same also.
Lifting shadows to give in others words impossible lighting scenario. SO it tricks the mind a little..
Snook

Snook, do you have a reference that explains the CMYK skin color thing?

Snook, do you have a reference that explains the CMYK skin color thing?

rystro I will try to find one today...
I used it every time I open an image to make sure the skin tones are nice before I work then I check after I am done retouching to make sure they do shift too much.

Maybe Mtmm will ring in an help out... I seriously doubt it.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=6638682
http://www.planetphotoshop.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5043

I did a google and they showed up right away.. many