Yes, it indeed is slow, but I hear they're working on an update:

"We're working on making the Topaz Adjust previews faster. It should be ready by the end of this month. 10:40 AM August 05, 2008"

See also this discussion (http://getsatisfaction.com/topazlabs/topics/topaz_adjust_speed_issues).

It's a somewhat new release so some growing pains are to be expected.

I don't know if somebody else mentions this before (this is a hell of a long thread that I haven't followed it much and i don't bother to read from start to finish).....September issue of Digital SLR Photography here in the UK published a long 16 pages of interview with Dave Hill. It gives good insight to his techniques and working approach.

People expect clever PS tricks from Dave Hill will be disappointed, there are no mysterious tricks in his PS workflows..he revealed..most of the techniques you and me know already. His lighting is not unique either...he uses "ghetto" White lighting monoheads and a Profoto ring flash, Canon 5D and a cheap Canon 28mm prime most of the time.

He uses 5 point lighting: key, brolly fill, ring flash fill and double kickers.

Probably Dave is laughing his head off when he sees this forum discussion.

who will publish this interview online? yeah, copyright trouble. where can i buy this issue?

Ok I quote the essential bits from the interview:

"I don't think there is one consistent look" claims Dave in response to the enormous amount of blogs and forums discussing the Dave Hill effect. "My Photoshop work has defintely changed over time. I no longer smooth skin I used to, for one and there is no single recipe for what i do either. I am using a bunch of different things, all applied locally using layer masks. Sharpening, dodging and burning with curves and alterations in the hue and saturation of certain colours. I will often desaturate the blacks as well so there is no evidence of color cast there. I will try different approaches for different scenes. I always try to play with the highlights and shadows, and quite often boost highlights by painting locally with lightening curves layers. its all the basic stuff really, masking with the Pen tool then getting stuck in with adjustment layers and their masks.

Its a look that has been popular in advertising for some time particularly in the car industry, where heavy UMS with high radius settings and comparatively low Amount settings is used to increase edge contrast, before saturation is toned down. Highlights and shadows are dodged with separate curves layers and their masks....

Basic stuff you and me know already!!

I personally think much of forum people hype up the mystery of his techniques and will be surprised his techniques are quite basic....the same is true with Amy Dresser stuff before she explained her workflows...people were speculating that some mysterious and complex techniques which turn out to be very simple.

great one. now close the thread :D






just kiddin'...


click (http://www.mariotheimer.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/marcohu32.jpg)
some expensive light :D, skin smoothing (oh my god, dave hill doesn't do skinsmoothing!!!! ;) ), d&b, curve adjustments.

Hello all,

after reading the Dave Hill article in Digital SLR Photography and contemplating for a while, i took some pictures earlier today. The picture i have attached is very simple as far as lighting is concerned, it was one bare flash pointing out of my window onto the street, powerful enough to overpower the sun slightly. The sun was coming from behind. in an ideal world, to get that Dave Hill look i would have had 2 kick lights behind the guy, but unfortunately this was impossible as i am tethered to mains power for the time being and the street was very busy and i didn't want people tripping over wires!

here is a before and after @ 25%:
www.whoissam.co.uk/n_before_after.jpg

What you are seeing:
Dave Hill said in the article that he does alot with layer masks so this led me to process things individually (face and arms, tshirt, jeans, the road and finally the sky) to be honest i dont know why i didnt think of this before as it is so easy to do and improves the quality of the final image (i guess this is all part of learning!) To sharpen the image i used Lucus Art and got it to the amount that suited each individual component of the image, then i dodged and burned for a bit. That is pretty much all the processing for the image!

As you can see with just a guy standing infront of my camera, the image is a bit boring. If i had him wrestling an alligator or something in the street with some kick lights behind him, im sure it would look more 'Dave Hill' :-p. I suppose this is my last point: Dave Hill has a great talent for coming up with ideas and scenarios for pictures, and if you want to take a picture that looks like his you have to have a humorous or interesting subject in the first place!

Dave Hill??? (http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/4332/jimfiscusnewcz4.jpg)

In Digital SLR Photography article, it didn't mention why Dave often uses ringflash as fill light.

His lighting technique is nothing unique...many other photogrpahers use the same lighting. But it is interesting that he uses ring flash as fill on the top of a secondary brolly fill light. Jill Greenburg uses ring light as fill too. I have a good thought about it and can only think of two reasons:

1) ring flash is very effective fill light as it envelopes the subject and Dave often shoots very close to his subjects with wide angle lens to get his typical perspective effect. He would block some of the brolly fill light if he stands that close. So the ringflash is effective in his style of shooting. The brolly acts as secondary fill.

2) brolly fill produces soft light. Ring light is a small size of light source, so it produces a semi-hard light which is more specular---> popping the highlights of the subject skins and clothes. This will help later post-production process as he would have some exsitng highlights to start with, rather creating highlights not there in the first place.

It seems Dave uses very weak ring flash fill, if he shoot the subject at tight distance, he would have to use very low power, so maybe thats' why he put black tapes to cover part of the ring light reflector in his video....to cut down the power further below the minimum power available from the Profoto pack...otherwise he would have to cut a donut shape neutral density gel to cover the reflector, or alternatively bump up the power of the key and shoot with smaller f-stop. I don't know if this makes senses..otherwise i cannot think of other reason why he used black tapes in that occasion.

In Digital SLR Photography article, it didn't mention why Dave often uses ringflash as fill light.

His lighting technique is nothing unique...many other photogrpahers use the same lighting. But it is interesting that he uses ring flash as fill on the top of a secondary brolly fill light. Jill Greenburg uses ring light as fill too. I have a good thought about it and can only think of two reasons:

1) ring flash is very effective fill light as it envelopes the subject and Dave often shoots very close to his subjects with wide angle lens to get his typical perspective effect. He would block some of the brolly fill light if he stands that close. So the ringflash is effective in his style of shooting. The brolly acts as secondary fill.

2) brolly fill produces soft light. Ring light is a small size of light source, so it produces a semi-hard light which is more specular---> popping the highlights of the subject skins and clothes. This will help later post-production process as he would have some exsitng highlights to start with, rather creating highlights not there in the first place.

It seems Dave uses very weak ring flash fill, if he shoot the subject at tight distance, he would have to use very low power, so maybe thats' why he put black tapes to cover part of the ring light reflector in his video....to cut down the power further below the minimum power available from the Profoto pack...otherwise he would have to cut a donut shape neutral density gel to cover the reflector, or alternatively bump up the power of the key and shoot with smaller f-stop. I don't know if this makes senses..otherwise i cannot think of other reason why he used black tapes in that occasion.
I think your analysis of his use of ringflash is pretty spot-on. I often shoot pretty close to my subjects with wide angles and hate having to compromise my shooting position to accommodate my lighting. That's why my next light is going to be the ABR800. Good call on the gaffer's tape as well- I haven't heard a logical explanation for that before, but yours is quite convincing.

Dave Hill??? (http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/4332/jimfiscusnewcz4.jpg)

Wow ! such great stuff
would it be possible for you to share your technics with us here in this thread?

What does he write in the article? Some secrets? Some things we already didnt know?
I dont think so...

Is there a link to the article? I dont think so again:-)

lg Calvin

What does he write in the article? Some secrets? Some things we already didnt know?
I dont think so...

Is there a link to the article? I dont think so again:-)

lg Calvin


I quoted his descriptions of photoshop workflows in the article before. That is very much the main bit!

The article describes many examples of how he create and shot separate elements of each scene to create the composite...its very interesting stuff to read. But if you watch his behind the scene videos, you would have seen some of the stuff already.
I like his ghetto and laid back ways of creating water splash in his bathroom and fire in his parking lot. I am not really interested in Dave Hill's style of retouching but i learn something by looking his behind the scenes stuff. I admire this guy's creative imagination and how he uses minimum resources to create something that looks like big budget production. It is rare that photographers reveal trade secrets to the rest of the world and Dave is unique in this sense.

i'll try to grab a copy.
but not sure i can find it in belgium

http://www.digitalslrphoto.com/magazine/latest-issue.php

Hi all! I'm back! Dave Hill!
Well I know he uses quite a quick post-process, quick, meaning probably less than half a day post per photo. I'm fairly sure he uses Canon and positive he uses Profoto gear, not that that matters. You don't need 22mp med format cameras to do this.

I know it's pretty standard but, try renting a Ring flash (NOT the tiny canon one), two location strobes (1000W+ ) and "scamp"… do drawings of where you think he places his lights. He does indeed use A LOT of lighting but the three i mentioned is a great start for a portrait.

I hope this is okay advice, you won't get his look but you'll get your own. I suspect Dave uses a lot of masking, maybe some HDR, but definitely dodge&burn layers and colour adjust layers. That's what give's you your own magic.

http://www.andybird.net

You're on the right track with the flash.
This photo is quite flat though. Seriously, watch music videos, watch a Michael Bay movie if you can stand it, good movie one sheets also.

Underexposing the background is a good start but this a one's a little too underexposed: Just a suggestion but try this:

Place your lights weather it's two flashes or sun and flash, faceing each other but at 45˚ to your model. The highlight (the light, behind the model) should be a bare head or the sun, the key light is nice if you can make it big and soft and a couple of stops lower (or further away) than the highlight.

If you've already tried this, ignore me:)!! BUt i've found it to be a great starting point for modeling the face : you'll see similar techniques in Bay movies, posters, paintings.

Look forward to seeing more!

Ring flash is so cool as a fill light. I did buy a third Ranger generator just for ring because it always is too powerful at close distance.

I've just bought a ringflash and intend to have a play with it this weekend....I can't wait! With regards to DH's use of black electrical tape, to be quite honest i think he was taking the pi$$ !

@Mtmm...you'll be pleased to hear this question has nothing to do with post processing workflow! How do you arrange your lights in relation to the subject?

After looking at the behind the scenes videos, it woulld appear that DH uses a couple of kickers, ringflash fill plus in some instances brolly fill. He also also uses a number of lights positioned very high in relation to the subject, aiming down on them.

I'm still learning about the principles of light, whilst I understand the purpose behind all the other forms of lighting, this use of high positioned light I find baffling.

Any thoughts?

@Mtmm...you'll be pleased to hear this question has nothing to do with post processing workflow! How do you arrange your lights in relation to the subject?

http://mike.pakkotoisto.com/?p=404

This is a 3-point setup plus 2 kickers for background.

Does anyone konw what Dave did mean by saying "desaturate blacks"?

I haven't read the thread. But the images on Dave Hill's website reminded me of this one:

http://www.dphotographer.co.uk/users/1369/thm1024/tero_digging.jpg

In the mag, Jarmo Glader explains (by my memory):
"I used one ringflash and one strobe. The eerie ligthing is what creates the 3d-like effect."

Now take it into Photoshop and exaggerate this effect further, and we're close.

Mtmm-

Select color rannge - Blacks

With that selection going, create a mask with it and then desaturate that masked layer.

This gives even more contrast.

That sharp high contrast look is what I always wonder, how does he do that. In G-Unit photos that is so present.

what exactly do you mean, mtmm?

Look at those new G-Unit photos. So sharp, clean and contrasty(is this a word?)

Mtmm... you pretty funny..
You come in all the time asking for help and never really help anybody...
Not going to get started on it a again, But when are you going to offer some kind of help to these kind folks?
jeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Snook

Cry me a river.

ah com' on, snook. look at his posts. he definitely helped.

http://mike.pakkotoisto.com/?p=404

This is a 3-point setup plus 2 kickers for background.


those shots look very "dave hill", before he takes them to post production, i am a little mystified as the one with all the lights in the shot should look like a "normal photo" because of where the camera is but i think some post work has been done on this one?!?!

Cry me a river.

I would but then you would probably ask how I did it...:+}
S.

Lol.......

I just picked up a copy of Photo Techniques. One article discusses Tim Tadder (he's been mentioned once in this forum..do a search). His look is very Dave Hill (unfortunately I still can't even get close). The article does a good job discussing lighting and lighting positioning (very similar to what has recently been discussed in this thead). The article goes on to say: "Through a combination of lighting technique using mostly Profoto strobes combined with a substantial post production work in photoshop." So if you've got the lights where do you go next with the work flow in photoshop? Gotta be more than dodge and burn?

FYI Picture number 19 on my site WASNT done with ringflash, it was lit with one light, and only used photoshop to primarily sharpen. http://www.garibaldiphoto.com

Its not overly saturated like DH but my client didnt want that for that particular image

those shots look very "dave hill", before he takes them to post production, i am a little mystified as the one with all the lights in the shot should look like a "normal photo" because of where the camera is but i think some post work has been done on this one?!?!
You mean that setup photo? I have done nothing to it, not even levels. I did shoot it with ring flash. So that photo is a complete raw.

Guys, i think part of the effect is coming from the very specific skin tone and color, apart of the ultra revealing details.

awesome site and photography!!!


wow your site and work is awesome pellpiano, any chance you can share some of your techniques for that super smooth skin loo with retained sharpness and definition, what about your lighting set-ups?


by the way whats the difference between a kicker light and a normal flash head.

I own a 4 head interfit stellar 300 kit with softboxes and brolleys, is there any chance with these 4 studio flash heads i can create lighting which will allow me to to get such results? and how would i position these lights if i was shooting a couple of people?

thanks all and sorry if the questions sound obvious i am a beginner compared to you guys. thanks in advance.

Thank you morpheus1870 for your kind words.

I think there are some photos of one of Daves setups in this thread ( before and after image ) , oh I found it ... http://www.pellepiano.com/thread_images/davehill_ab.jpg

There you see two bara strobes from behind and then you need a minimum of one from front to.

A kicker is not a physical thing but a function. According ti Google its "Directional illumination from the back, off to one side of the subject"

For different types of lighting setups with image examples , see this great and long thread http://www.modelmayhem.com/po_big.php?thread_id=96872&page=

I use a lot of different setups, but most common is with som kicker lights.

For skin I use a mix of different techniques youll find on this fine site.

Hey...pellepiano...long time no see...
How you been doing?
In any case just wanted to say 2 things..
Do not forget to either flag those Kickers or Put Grids on them so you do not have flare in the lens...:+}
Also forget all those stupid complicated contrast masks..
Just get your hands on Color efex pro 3.0 and dig into three filters..
Pro contrast, bleach bypasss, and tonal contrast...
You have the Dave Hill look with a click or 2...
Granted you have the light right..:+]
PS. Mtmm.. your still a bonehead for not helping people...:+]
Snook

Maybe you are not the right person to teach Pelle how to shoot :D And as always, keep crying.

Here is the typical 5 points lighting diagram...typical dave hill's set-up. It is nothing special other than the use of ringflash as fill. Even he admits he gets a bit bored of it.

The key is either an Octa/ softbox or beauty dish. For high contrast low key look, stick grid on beauty dish. The other variation is to place the key in butterfly position with a boom arm.

The kickers or rim lights can be bare standard reflectors, grid spots or strip softboxes. Grid spots or hard lights do better job of bringing out textures of clothing/skin than softboxes. Flags or cutters or barndoors should be used if bare reflector (wide angle coverage) is used to avoid lens flare, depending how steep you aim the kickers toward the camera.

If you don't have ringflash, you can still create high contrast lighting with a harder type of key light, like beauty dish with grid, softbox with eggcrates or fresnel spot. You just have to think outside the box rather than using the typical 45 degree key and fill set-up which is quite boring in my opinion.

just out of curiosity, why are so many of you so interested in his style, why dont you just go figure out something that you like and stick with that? Surprised this threads focus hasnt shifted over to "How to legally change your current name from what it is now, to Dave Hill" or to "What kind of clothes Dave Hill wears and his favorite stores to shop at" or "The Dave Hill Diet"

...why dont you just go figure out something that you like and stick with that?

Thats what this thread aims to do, fugure out how the Dave Hill effect is achieved as many people like this style :wink:

LOL I gothca! then this thread should be called the "Demystification of the lucis art effect" :)

just out of curiosity, why are so many of you so interested in his style, why dont you just go figure out something that you like and stick with that? Surprised this threads focus hasnt shifted over to "How to legally change your current name from what it is now, to Dave Hill" or to "What kind of clothes Dave Hill wears and his favorite stores to shop at" or "The Dave Hill Diet"

LOL, I wonder as well. That's Dave Hill Syndome. Honestly so many people try to copy his style and then you will get tired of seeing imitations and it will look dated in one or two years time. The same is true for illustrated look, a few years ago I would say woww to illustrated look photos, but now I find them very gimmicky and disgusting in many cases.

I get tired of seeing same old regular photography. Its funny how Daves style is now somekind of "boring" stuff. Nobody can copy it and those who cant, will say "its boring". Boring my ass.

I get tired of seeing same old regular photography. Its funny how Daves style is now somekind of "boring" stuff. Nobody can copy it and those who cant, will say "its boring". Boring my ass.


QFT and lucis arts is not Dave Hill style its just a toy filter.

Ya know, its sort of like the chrysler pt cruiser, i remeber when it first came out, its was sort of neat, different, and kind of retro, but now, they are weak looking and played out, and gay, and now alot of cars are trying to be all retro and it just isnt there anymore. With all due respect to Dave Hill and his work, which I do think is very unique and he certainly excecutes it well, it is a shame that many people are trying to emulate the same look instead of trying to do something unique for themselves. I guess thats your average persons human nature for you. Its one thing to like a particular look and use it as inspiration or a building block, its another to just spend all your time on a 70 something page thread on the internet trying to hammer the crap out of it so you can do the exact same thing. You guys should also look at George Fulton too if you need a little break from focusing just on one guy. Pimp my picture!

George Fulton looks good but some of his photos look like they have been put through lucis art, i think a lot of people here would like to know how dave does it not so they can copy him but so they can use that technique, as well as hundreds of others, to come up with their "own style", every hint/tip/tutorial/technique/style you can copy/learn is like adding a weapon to your arsenal, the more weapons you have got the better you will be, imho

http://www.tmax100.com/fashionimages/ml4.jpg

I d rather like to develop my own style:)

dodge&burn, curve layers. here ya go

newest blog entry (http://www.mariotheimer.info/blog/)

dodge&burn, curve layers. here ya go

newest blog entry (http://www.mariotheimer.info/blog/)

Awesome work mate, i love your images they look sharp and refined. a tutorial showing your workflow would be grrrrrrrreat :grin:

it's 'just' the amy dresser technique (well, i think, it is amy dresser). select with a smooth lasso which part you want to darken or lighten and take a curve-adjustment-layer to do that. in this image, there are aprox. 70 curve layers :) before that, i cleaned the skin to get more the drawn-like effect. damn, my english sux :D and also some dodge&burn with just a layer in overlay mode for the quick lazy technique ;)

and it took some time...

Nice Work Ich.MArio...
And thanks for Telling how you did it...
I like the Sharp Look you got going there..
Very nice, keep up the good work!!
Snook

thanks.
and both of you, snook and mtmm: what ever there was in the past, get over it. so much war and cry in the world. this forum is so productive - let us keep it this way!

important: light!

main: beauty dish
fill: ringflash

no light -> no highlight :)

I'm glad this thread has finally started to move onto light!...btw Ich.Mario, great shot and thanks for sharing your workflow!

I asked a question earlier re: lighting setup and am still unsure rregarding something (largely a result of my lighting inexperience).

After looking at all of Dave's video's I notice that he uses lights positioned very high in relationion to the subject, aiming down at the subjects head. Is the purpose of these lights just to create specular highlights on the subject?

Thanks for the help fellas!

yeah i think so, decisely the property of creating specular highlight is a material property so the skin hitted by light at a narrow angle likely creates specular highlights instead of diffuse one i guess that the purpose of Hill using light very high is too illuminate all the side long the boby and controll the shadow fall.

sorry my english :)

If your rear kicker lights aren't placed high enough, a shadow gets cast from the shoulder over the lower half of the face. If not placed high enough it kinda looks odd as there are nice highlights all around the subject, except for the lower sides of the subjects face.

Cli, thanks for taking the time to respond, and don't worry about your english, I understood your message perfectly!

@MacBurg, your explanation makes perfect sense! Many thanks! I now have four off camera flash, including a ringflash, so intend to shoot a self portrait ala Dave Hill styke later this week!

:) we are waiting your creation...

Hi guys,

What a great idea to start this thread!


Does anybody from Europe has experience with the 'white lightning' strobe heads that Dave Hill uses?
I might be purchasing these flash strobes, but I'm not sure if they can be used nicely on the 230V power net in Europe. I know there are converters available, but is anyone of you working this way?

Can I use the portable power packs too? Or 230V net only?

And does anyone know if there are any problems with using white lightning gear in combination with profoto pro ring in terms of color temperature difference?

And what is recommended if you do portraits of 1/2/3/4 people, to buy 2x 1600W and 2x 800W?
Or just buy 1600W for all 4 heads?

Thank you very much for helping me towards my next step!

yeah. but please in antoher thread next time :)
i think dave himself is using a mix of white lighting strobes and a profoto ringflash! so, if you want dave-hill-results: go for it ;)

I have three white lightnings, two 1600s and one 3200 for doing regular bang around stuff when i dont want to shlep into the city and rent, I like them and the best part is, I got the three heads, an octa box, a large softbox, med softbox, grids, 13 ft stands, booms and cases for less than one profoto pack with no heads. Not to turn this into a white lightning thread tho

yeah. but please in antoher thread next time :)
i think dave himself is using a mix of white lighting strobes and a profoto ringflash! so, if you want dave-hill-results: go for it ;)

how do u know what make of ringflash he uses?

You can tell from the "Behind the Scenes" on dave hills website
www.davehillphoto.com

I guess he's using the soft light reflector on his proring right?
Or is it the close up reflector?

You can tell from the "Behind the Scenes" on dave hills website
www.davehillphoto.com

I guess he's using the soft light reflector on his proring right?
Or is it the close up reflector?

how much would that ringflash cost, roughly?

Just look for Profoto proring Pro-7
In europe he's around 1250 Euro incl. VAT.
But you need a batterypack too! 3500 euro's that is :(

Just look for Profoto proring Pro-7
In europe he's around 1250 Euro incl. VAT.
But you need a batterypack too! 3500 euro's that is :(

hold sh*t, that's a lot of money

I'll be back to the lights later. Two things:

1) Going beyond the subject in the picture...look at the backgrounds in Dave's pictures. Very smooth, crisp colors, nice detail. I know the lights help, but there still has to be some interesting post processing.
2) Some have given us hell for wanting to create Dave's look, but as djslyda states we are just trying to understand the technique used to add to our own arsenal. I really see little difference between Fiscus and Dave. They also both tend to shoot the same type of clients. Who copied who and they learned the technique from someone or experimented like hell to achieve their look.

Around and around we go...:+}
As I have stated.. the lights help.. but in no way what's so EVER make the post process.
Cracks me how this keeps going around and around..
The lighting is pretty basic and very common. Nothing new or strange there.
Ficus and other were doing that before Dave hill popped his first zit.
I do have to agree with many here is just try and shooting nice with the lighting.. Not just you in a park or something.. get a interesting looking person or idea like Mtmm did (copying dave hills UFC shots) but at least he tried all around to get something. The lights is just the first basic thing but once you have cool background, cool props, some gangster tattooed dude with Gold teeth and good hair and make-up you will have about 80% the dave hill look.
Then his obviously "Lucis" Contrast masking or how ever you want to do it, you will have a comparable dave hill shot...:+} sort of.
A lot here want to take a pretty boring picture to begin with and press some action and get the dave hill look.. aint gonna happen.
Again this has all been mentioned before by many others.
I really do not think there is a "trick", actually I know it.
In any case most of us like to pick out things here an there to use with our own images. I would never want to copy anybody, specially dave hill...
Talented but more of a one trick pony who will fizzle out.
Most importantly is to go out and try it...:+}
Snook

PS. That was meant as a compliment to Mtmm b/c after thinking about it, he is the only one that has tried to even go out and do some good productions and ideas and has come the closest along with ichmario (sp)?.
That is the most important really.
I have only seen about 2-3 postings with any "real" production shoots with their effects..
All others have some other type lit shot or bad production or actually no production.
Snook

"If i didn't have to spend so much time retouching, maybe i could spend more time getting work!"

"About 70 percent of my time is spent behind a computer, and probably less than 10 percent behind a camera. I used to prefer the retouching more, but now i think it's the shooting; But i can't wait to get home to retouch the images i really like! Aside from that, you've still got to do the stuff you don't like and that's really tedious."

2 quotes fromt the Dave Hill interview in Digital SLR magazine

"If i didn't have to spend so much time retouching, maybe i could spend more time getting work!"

"About 70 percent of my time is spent behind a computer, and probably less than 10 percent behind a camera. I used to prefer the retouching more, but now i think it's the shooting; But i can't wait to get home to retouch the images i really like! Aside from that, you've still got to do the stuff you don't like and that's really tedious."

2 quotes fromt the Dave Hill interview in Digital SLR magazine



People are always looking for the super secret shortcut.

i totally agree with what Snook has just said in his last post. I think this thread is just going to rumble on forever, there really is no secret formula, decent light set up, imaginative shoot idea, and post processing incorporating a ton of dodge and burn and incremental sharpening of the image.

For the love of god, can someone please close this thread!

Have you ever looked closely how they light subjects in movies? Dave is using pretty similar lighting. I have made mistakes earlier trying to lit a subject from every angle leaving not enough good shadows to work with. I just moved to 5-point system using ring flash with much lower power. I bought a third generator just for ring.

Here is a sample.

Key - upper right pretty close with a beauty dish (gold reflector)
Ring - front, minimum power just for fill
Umbrella - upper left, just for fill
2 rear lights with 30 degree grids.

http://www.bodynet.fi/mayhem/nyman5.jpg

Mtmm...nice...would you show the pic straight out of the camera prior to any post processing.

Have you ever looked closely how they light subjects in movies? Dave is using pretty similar lighting. I have made mistakes earlier trying to lit a subject from every angle leaving not enough good shadows to work with. I just moved to 5-point system using ring flash with much lower power. I bought a third generator just for ring.

Here is a sample.

Key - upper right pretty close with a beauty dish (gold reflector)
Ring - front, minimum power just for fill
Umbrella - upper left, just for fill
2 rear lights with 30 degree grids.

http://www.bodynet.fi/mayhem/nyman5.jpg

Very cool I keep thinking about getting the ring light for fill seems it makes some nice highlights maybe worth $500 for that Alien bee one.

Mtmm...nice...would you show the pic straight out of the camera prior to any post processing.

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

it's 'just' the amy dresser technique (well, i think, it is amy dresser). select with a smooth lasso which part you want to darken or lighten and take a curve-adjustment-layer to do that. in this image, there are aprox. 70 curve layers :) before that, i cleaned the skin to get more the drawn-like effect. damn, my english sux :D and also some dodge&burn with just a layer in overlay mode for the quick lazy technique ;)


Ich.Mario - Any chance you can post any straight out of the camera "before" shots of those?

- much appreciated :)

For those who have been paying attention, I'm pretty sure the answers are in this thread.

I´m not posting photos here that you can go and retouch them. So please dont upload my photos to this server. These are jpg versions, if I want anybody to retouch anything, I will post 300dpi version.

For those who have been paying attention, I'm pretty sure the answers are in this thread.

From the tips and the information provided I've been happy with the results I've gotten.

honestly, i think everyones impression on the DH effect is what you make of it. From what I know.... yes, an important factor of the 'look' falls heavily on the lighting, because once you have the lighting down, its much easier to manipulate the shadows and highlights etc, in the post processing.

i gave up on the DH look a long time ago, its a signature look thats already being used.

heres an example of what i learned from the 'effect' so long ago, i stopped trying to replicate it.....

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/3224/dheffectrn3.jpg

Mtmm...went to your link...nothing there....

Mtmm...went to your link...nothing there....
I removed it, I dont want anybody to retouch 72dpi files. I did post only 5-point lighting effect, not any DH-effect.

Guys, You can get more or less the same exact affect with a couple clicks for those lazy people..:+]
If you have Nik Color fx pro 3.0
Copy your image and then use the tonal contrast filter and tweak it.. you will be 85% there!
Then you need to do some Desat and sat and some dodge and burning where you like!!
It is important to have the lighting and the Subject as close to the look you want first.
Just did it with Mtmm pictures and got the same effect in 5 minutes! Literally.
I also think dave is adding some grain to his pictures, that can be done a thousand different ways...:+}
Also either adding Beahc bypass or using Amy dressler select colr range whites and filling a layer with those whites to make the highlights whiter.. very easy..:+}
Snook
Snook

85%...NOT. Lucis or Nik don´t get you there.

the overall-effect is handmade! basta. only to get some tiny little details on the skin or wherever you like you could use plugins like lucis. but use it with abstinence and only locally.

Guys, You can get more or less the same exact affect with a couple clicks for those lazy people..:+]
If you have Nik Color fx pro 3.0.....
.....
Snook
Snook

Other plug ins, you could try: ReDynaMix & Viveza

Why spend money and waste time on plug-ins when you can achieve this look without them?

85%...NOT. Lucis or Nik don´t get you there.

Mtmm I copied your image and did the same effect in 5 minutes.. since you do not want people posting your image I decided not to.
I put your retouched image next to your image retouched by me and got the same exact effect.
I used two plug-ins. The ones I mentioned which are basically doing the same thing you are with the contrast mask way.
I also then through a Amy dressler select whites trick to it and it is pretty identical to yours. Just your skin tones is a little different but that can fixed in 1 second.
It was just for the people that want to get there with out all the tonal contrast masking bla bla bla..
I also used your bleach bypassed you mentioned in an earlier thread and it works pretty darn good. Good enough that is.
Snook

Snook I some how do not believe you got the same exact effect Mtmm is getting with one-click plug ins.

http://www.tmax100.com/peopleimages/pl_images/p49.jpg

A mix og greenberg and Hill. Its all in the light!

http://www.tmax100.com/peopleimages/pl_images/p49.jpg

A mix og greenberg and Hill. Its all in the light!


nice shot, what sort of light setup did you use, a 5-point setup?

Snook I some how do not believe you got the same exact effect Mtmm is getting with one-click plug ins.

Post an image and I'll do it for you..
I am not trying to belittle anybodies work..
Give me the image and I'll post it..
I did spend maybe 4-5 minutes doing some dodging and Burning...
waiting for you image..:+]
Snook

nice shot, what sort of light setup did you use, a 5-point setup?

Lokk here for setup: http://www.fotopia.no/fullnews.asp?newsid=4361

Other plug ins, you could try: ReDynaMix & Viveza

I have Viveza but never really liked it..
I think it it kind of clumsy really... I do not like the selection being a round selection... Unless I am missing something??
What would you do with it to get even close?
Just curios?
Mr. Contrast works pretty well also..
Of course the bigger and better the file to start with helps a lot. I use 30 megapixel images or my 1DsMII images..
The P30 images hold up much more information..:+]
Snook

TOPAZ adjust can get you pretty close also..
They all are getting to the same effect.. lifting shadows and dropping highlights or exaggerating the highlights if you want..
Actually think mine is better than yours...:+]

Why do I need to post an image? Can you not show a before and after of yours or any old stock photo? I mean if its a one click plug-in deal you should be able to take any old photograph and select the Dave Hill preset.

Why do I need to post an image? Can you not show a before and after of yours or any old stock photo? I mean if its a one click plug-in deal you should be able to take any old photograph and select the Dave Hill preset.

There you go...Up in my last post..made with the original from Mtmm
It is actually a couple of clicks only..
Not one...:+]
Then maybe 3-4 minutes Dodging and burning..
Take in mind that was a horribly small jpeg....

I think I proved my point...:+]
Snook

[QUOTE=snook305;204849]I have Viveza but never really liked it..
I think it it kind of clumsy really... I do not like the selection being a round selection... Unless I am missing something??
/QUOTE]

Acutally the Viveza system, which is also used by Nikon Capture, uses autoselection based on the colour and tone of where you place the adjustment dot. The circle selects how far you want the effect or adjustment to go, and is smart feathered. So, for instance, if you placed a dot on a patch of blue sky, you could adjust all the similar blue areas around the dot, but any nearby white clouds (for instance) would not be affected. The adjustment is feathered around the circular selection so that it blends in smoothly. Like any "smart" system, it is not foolproof, but if something is affected that you don't want changed, placing a dot on it cancels the effect of adjoining dots. It takes a while to get used to it, but it is quite effective.

Thank you for the explanation.. I never quite got it..
I have had it since the demo and thought the concept was cool...
Thanks again , Maybe I will try it out again...
Snook

There you go...Up in my last post..made with the original from Mtmm
It is actually a couple of clicks only..
Not one...:+]
Then maybe 3-4 minutes Dodging and burning..
Take in mind that was a horribly small jpeg....

I think I proved my point...:+]
Snook

I'm just saying to achieve this look it requires more then just 10 mins of work. And just because you took one of Mtmm's "raw" photos and did it in a few mins doesn't prove anything. For all we know whatever Mtmm posted wasn't even a raw shot.

I'm just saying to achieve this look it requires more then just 10 mins of work. And just because you took one of Mtmm's "raw" photos and did it in a few mins doesn't prove anything. For all we know whatever Mtmm posted wasn't even a raw shot.

What are you talking about?
You lost me..
He did not post a raw file.. he posted an Untouched jpg...
You really should read before you post stupid post.
I guess having 5 posts to your name we should not expect anymore...:+]
Snook

Guys, i've decided to try something today after work, i applied the most of the adjustments only to the face, because im short of time, the lighting set is build in flash,with my sony DSC-R1.
Before
http://www.mirchevphotography.com/musik/DSC07914-web.jpg
After
http://www.mirchevphotography.com/musik/111-%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B1.jpg
I think is not so bad, for the lighting setup was used.

Hi Snook... glad to see you're here... hehehehe!!!

It's a shame not everybody is willing to share....

However, I have to congratulate Mtmm.... his version just looks right, full of details... not just the flavor but everything except the guy is not Brad Pitt or 50cent!!!

I think in addition to Mtmm recipe, the Man has definitely trained eyes!!!

I have to admit I don't, hopefully, I can improve....

The way I would describe it is that Snook got it let's say 90% but it's that 10% that is missing... not covered on this thread!!!

PS:Snook, your portfolio looks smashing, the one I've seen 8 or 9 months ago!!!

!!!I am just happy to be able to see the Magic some of these/you guys can do!!!


So Mtmm, you know by now that you ROCK... right!!!!!

PM me if you like..... I know good stuff is not for free... not sure if $1000/(your price?) would do.. to guide me through these 10% or more percent based on what I already know!!!

Cheers

Lokk here for setup: http://www.fotopia.no/fullnews.asp?newsid=4361

is there an english version available?

is there an english version available?

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotopia.no%2Ffullnews.asp%3Fnewsid%3D4361&sl=no&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I have Viveza but never really liked it..
I think it it kind of clumsy really... I do not like the selection being a round selection... Unless I am missing something??
What would you do with it to get even close?
Just curios?
Mr. Contrast works pretty well also..
Of course the bigger and better the file to start with helps a lot. I use 30 megapixel images or my 1DsMII images..
The P30 images hold up much more information..:+]
Snook

TOPAZ adjust can get you pretty close also..
They all are getting to the same effect.. lifting shadows and dropping highlights or exaggerating the highlights if you want..
Actually think mine is better than yours...:+]Please stop using my photo. I did not put it here for retouching. I did only post an example of 5-point light setup. Remove it please.

sorry snook, but first of all: don't use the image, when mtmm dont want it. second: it really looks like crap. i know you know it better... just plugins dont get you there. not 80%, not 50%. come on, be serious! handmade stuff is soooooo much better.

Sorry Snook you cannot get away with plugin crap. It looks really bad. Using a tablet and going in there and localizing contrast and tonal values is the way to go.

Hey... get off Snooks ass. If you look at his site he does some fine work. He is one of the few who actually contributes and makes an attempt to provide some information. Many others just critique and show their stuff but contribute nothing as to a method.

Sorry Snook you cannot get away with plugin crap. It looks really bad. Using a tablet and going in there and localizing contrast and tonal values is the way to go.

hahahaha
wait...
hahahahaha
again...
hahahaha
You guys crack me up....:+}
Snook

Hi Snook... glad to see you're here... hehehehe!!!

It's a shame not everybody is willing to share....

However, I have to congratulate Mtmm.... his version just looks right, full of details... not just the flavor but everything except the guy is not Brad Pitt or 50cent!!!

I think in addition to Mtmm recipe, the Man has definitely trained eyes!!!

I have to admit I don't, hopefully, I can improve....

The way I would describe it is that Snook got it let's say 90% but it's that 10% that is missing... not covered on this thread!!!

PS:Snook, your portfolio looks smashing, the one I've seen 8 or 9 months ago!!!

!!!I am just happy to be able to see the Magic some of these/you guys can do!!!


So Mtmm, you know by now that you ROCK... right!!!!!

PM me if you like..... I know good stuff is not for free... not sure if $1000/(your price?) would do.. to guide me through these 10% or more percent based on what I already know!!!

Cheers
Thanks a lot Natasa... good to see someone from another forum...:+}
Let me know if you ever need anything..
feel free to contact me off line.

Hope all is well...

You may have to ignore half the posts in here, but if you weed through you can find some great information.

Snook

Plug-ins will not get you there at all. Perhaps at first glance they look alright, but if you look more closely at the example posted, you'll notice an obliteration of detail, haloing, loss of saturation, and uncontrolled shadows and highlights. No offense to you, snook, as I quite admire your fashion and beauty work, but the version you posted looks exactly like it's been run through a plug-in.

As I mentioned before, the answers are in this thread. I spent about an hour on the example below (which, mind you, is not quite lit correctly for this processing). With the right lighting, though, the difference would be even more pronounced.

I took the original (hope that was okay) and just used Lucis (per some a crappy plug-in - can't wait to get the $600 version) and got this. By no means is this Dave Hill, but I do believe with good lighting as previously mentioned, a good camera, that the post processing with Lucis an interesting similar photo could be achieved.

Plug-ins will not get you there at all. Perhaps at first glance they look alright, but if you look more closely at the example posted, you'll notice an obliteration of detail, haloing, loss of saturation, and uncontrolled shadows and highlights. No offense to you, snook, as I quite admire your fashion and beauty work, but the version you posted looks exactly like it's been run through a plug-in.

As I mentioned before, the answers are in this thread. I spent about an hour on the example below (which, mind you, is not quite lit correctly for this processing). With the right lighting, though, the difference would be even more pronounced.
Well that may be as I stated b/c it is a VERY VERY Low Jpeg.
If you would have read my post you would have figured that out...
But your no different than half the people in here who do not read before they make stupid remarks...
So don't feel bad, you'll get the hang of it...:+]
Snook

Plug-ins will not get you there at all. Perhaps at first glance they look alright, but if you look more closely at the example posted, you'll notice an obliteration of detail, haloing, loss of saturation, and uncontrolled shadows and highlights. No offense to you, snook, as I quite admire your fashion and beauty work, but the version you posted looks exactly like it's been run through a plug-in.

As I mentioned before, the answers are in this thread. I spent about an hour on the example below (which, mind you, is not quite lit correctly for this processing). With the right lighting, though, the difference would be even more pronounced.

Michael, it might help if you do not focus on the background..
Try and focus on the main subject.
Your image is very OOF... time for a reshoot?
Snook

Well that may be as I stated b/c it is a VERY VERY Low Jpeg.
If you would have read my post you would have figured that out...
But your no different than half the people in here who do not read before they make stupid remarks...
So don't feel bad, you'll get the hang of it...:+]
Snook

Actually, Snook, I retouched the exact same JPEG you're referring to and experienced none of the issues you found with the plug-ins. However, I took it down upon Mtmm's request to respect his wishes. At a high resolution, the haloing would be less evident and the detail would be less obviously obliterated, but you would still not be approaching quality results. Your dismissive tone does little to add to your credibility.

Michael, it might help if you do not focus on the background..
Try and focus on the main subject.
Your image is very OOF... time for a reshoot?
Snook

For someone so familiar with the properties of low-resolution JPEGs, I'm surprised at your analysis. The quality/size compromise to upload the image to RetouchPro is the main problem. Here's the photo on my website in a less compressed form, if you'd like to check the focus: http://www.michaelbonnerphoto.com/images/IMG_6843_Edit.jpg

Here's a 100% crop as well, just to be sure: http://www.michaelbonnerphoto.com/photos/6843-100percent.jpg :)

Here's a much larger file with the before and after. As I said before, this photo is not lit properly- there are three soft light sources in here versus the five light setup that's been discussed earlier in this thread. I was simply trying to demonstrate the effects of luminosity masking and dodging and burning. If you'd rather turn this thread into a series of posts sniping at one another instead of a discussion of interesting techniques that can be applied to all types of photography, then by all means, continue. Personally, I'd like to see more discussion of various actual techniques, but to each his own.

http://www.michaelbonnerphoto.com/photos/Before-After.jpg

hahahaha
wait...
hahahahaha
again...
hahahaha
You guys crack me up....:+}
Snook

What? I do not understand what's so funny.

Yes Snook, your commercial/natural (non-conceptual/illustrative) photography is great. I've seen it. Some of your ring flash shots and other fashion stuff is really good. You know photography.

I have been following this thread since it started granted I've only had a few posts. There is a lot of wealth on these forums.

Back when there was a user named Faust was posting and since disappeared, I've learned a lot from what he took away from the forums as well as some of Mtmm tips.

Every single tip that I've found useful did not involve a one-stop filter. To yield the pristine results that Dave Hill is getting requires lots of different localized curve layers, dodge and burn, and various other tonal balance methods. How exactly he goes about doing that hasn't been spelt out here in one post, however some users have touch on some of the big steps.

thats the point. snook does some good stuff. so why the plugin-story? he knows it better.

Here's a much larger file with the before and after. As I said before, this photo is not lit properly- there are three soft light sources in here versus the five light setup that's been discussed earlier in this thread. I was simply trying to demonstrate the effects of luminosity masking and dodging and burning. If you'd rather turn this thread into a series of posts sniping at one another instead of a discussion of interesting techniques that can be applied to all types of photography, then by all means, continue. Personally, I'd like to see more discussion of various actual techniques, but to each his own.

http://www.michaelbonnerphoto.com/photos/Before-After.jpg

Nice work curious of your silky smooth skin treatment is it just D&B?

i'll just throw it in the round. copyright dave hill.

and an older one. copyright by the master dave hill.

start off!

and an older one. copyright by the master dave hill.

start off!

the problem i have with this "before and after" is that for the snapshot with him and john heder, he might not had had his lights setup up or even turned on when that shot was taken, he could have turned all his studio lights off and just turned the actual kitchen light on, that's the kitchen at his studio by the way :)

just one more thing. same picture from lastpost (left), altered with some minor curve adjustments.

oh my god, dave hill does make good lighting and d&b. no plugin? no magic? ;) :D

the problem i have with this "before and after" is that for the snapshot with him and john heder, he might not had had his lights setup up or even turned on when that shot was taken, he could have turned all his studio lights off and just turned the actual kitchen light on, that's the kitchen at his studio by the way :)

look at the shadows (and the lensflare from kicker). its pretty likely the same light setup. why to shut off some lights for making of pictures? that nobody sees his oh-fuck-its-magic light? :D

because you got me wrong, i'll make it more clear, what i wanted to say: its lighting and d&b/curves.

Nice work curious of your silky smooth skin treatment is it just D&B?

It really is. The overall appearance of smoothness comes from the simplification of tonality transitions. Texture is only visible when it interrupts the path of light and creates shadowed areas. That's why the pixel-level dodging and burning technique is able to produce such amazing results when used to retouch skin. All you're doing when you lighten the dark pixels is simplifying the tones in the skin- making the dark tones closer to the light tones. When you dodge and burn on a macro level, as I did on the skirt and the tights in my photo, you simplify all the little shadows and highlights into large, smooth, patches, creating that appearance of silk or plastic. In the photo of John Heder in DH's kitchen, the same thing is going on- look at the folds in the clothing. A lot of times people will try to recreate the "smooth" effect by blurring and then try to bring back detail by oversharpening. This process merely results in ugly halos and mushy details. When you dodge and burn, you retain all the details that contribute to the signature "hyper-realism" of DH's work.

http://www.tmax100.com/peopleimages/pl_images/p49.jpg

A mix og greenberg and Hill. Its all in the light!

In that case, that's bull. Lighting is 20%.

This was the original picture:
http://kundeweb.fotopia.no/users/fotopia.no/råscan.jpg

It's all in the pp.

Thanks a lot Natasa... good to see someone from another forum...:+}
Let me know if you ever need anything..
feel free to contact me off line.

Hope all is well...
Snook

Thanks Snook, you have some tough crowd here... hehehehe!!!

You hold the edge as far as photography regardless of DH effect or no.... at the end I'm sure you don't want your every image to look like DH...:wink:

Honestly it's nice to be able to decode his technique and use it where it applies (therefore I'm willing to pay $1000 or more to Mtmm and learn) but as I said before you don't want your every image to look like DH... Anyways, furthermore if there was huge room/demand for it Pascal D. would be all over it.... right?

Think about demand of Versace 92' shirts and where are they now... hehehehe!!!

Obviously you and others here have good taste....

PS: Your images don't have Jill Greenberg or Dave Hill look... they have classy Sophisticated Look... more important as far as Longevity, Style, etc..... is concerned!!!

Seriously, I am happy that Mtmm can do it... I just wish that he would belong to top photo agency so he can get high end assignments!!!



You may have to ignore half the posts in here, but if you weed through you can find some great information

I know... it's a shame, I hope it will change for better!!!

Just got back from the studio... Long ass day...:+}

Natasa Thanks for the nice comments..
I will say I do not want to do the DH hill look at all...
It is already outdated if you ask me...
Plus I can get close enough if needed.
Here is a shot shot with my little Leica camera and the on board flash I shot during vacation.
This one I did with Dodging and Burning playing around in the studio today.
Plus I used the TK contrast mask action which are sweet.
My line of work is top end fashion and Publicity, Not grungy hyper real DH look.
I could shoot circles around Dave Hill any day.. I am sure of that.
Been shooting for over 20 years and I am always trying new stuff.
Dave Hill is basically a One trick Pony from what I have seen.

That Kitchen shot is one of Dave's earlier works and Looks like crap compared to His newer stuff.

Thanks again for the comments and I can handle these Punks in here no problem....:+}

I just like getting them roused up and I hate people like Mtmm that offer no help other than continuing to talk about the Lighting which any first year photographer assistant could do...

The lighting is important but a basic lighting set-up.. No magic there at all.
Yet you seem to have everyone saying yeh dude it is the lighting.. Yeh that is BS and I know that, so that is all that matters...:+}
Thanks again
Snook
My website is about 3-4 years old and maybe 10% of what I do...:+}

PS.. I never said Plug-ins were the way to go.. I just said you could get a similar look with a short cut using some plug-ins on layers and back them off a little.
Obviously if you can do it all by hand,I would for my shot's, Than for sure you should..:+]

Are you blind? That attachment it not even on the same planet with Daves work.

Hey Snook, i appreciate that your last post was to demonstrate that you can get close to DH with plugins etc but I don't think that the shot you used was the best to demonstrate your case! Just looks like way to much fill light.

I do understand where you're coming from though, a plugin may get you close if applied correctly, but if you want the real deal then you have to put in the sweat and tears of a lighting setup and then patient work in PS with the old d and b

as has been said a 1000 times before "the lighting is important" but if you look at the before and after of this pic (i know it's not the exact same pic but close) then you can see a vast difference, definately a lot of photoshop going on, remember he does say that he spends more than 70% of his time in front of a computer

yay, you got it. lighting has to be right, and then: d&b&curves&d&b&curves&d&b&curves&d&b&curves&d&b&curves. and some skin smooth sometimes ;)

as has been said a 1000 times before "the lighting is important" but if you look at the before and after of this pic (i know it's not the exact same pic but close) then you can see a vast difference, definately a lot of photoshop going on, remember he does say that he spends more than 70% of his time in front of a computer
You know, photos will change dramatically when taken by a camera from a monitor.

as has been said a 1000 times before "the lighting is important" but if you look at the before and after of this pic (i know it's not the exact same pic but close) then you can see a vast difference, definately a lot of photoshop going on, remember he does say that he spends more than 70% of his time in front of a computer

Certainly- the vast difference here is the excellent compositing being done here - sky, mountains, road, asphalt chips. All that stuff is painstaking to get right and necessary to turn a studio shot into a believable composite. Beyond that, there's not a bunch of *CRAZY* photoshop going on- what you see happening to the wrestler between the before and after shots is exactly what you can expect when you spend a bunch of time dodging and burning and spot-adjusting luminosity with curve layers

what you see happening to the wrestler between the before and after shots is exactly what you can expect when you spend a bunch of time dodging and burning and spot-adjusting luminosity with curve layers

Agreed but I think there is one other process that is going on outside of d&b, curves and local luminosity.

Certainly- the vast difference here is the excellent compositing being done here - sky, mountains, road, asphalt chips. All that stuff is painstaking to get right and necessary to turn a studio shot into a believable composite. Beyond that, there's not a bunch of *CRAZY* photoshop going on- what you see happening to the wrestler between the before and after shots is exactly what you can expect when you spend a bunch of time dodging and burning and spot-adjusting luminosity with curve layers

i agree, there has been some great compositing done in that shot and many of his shots but i'm not even looking at the background, i am comparing the wrestler and he looks very shiny and clean/crisp looking in the final one, i'm sure if was JUST d&b then someone here or elsewhere on the net would have come up with similar results by now but i am yet to see that

i agree, there has been some great compositing done in that shot and many of his shots but i'm not even looking at the background, i am comparing the wrestler and he looks very shiny and clean/crisp looking in the final one, i'm sure if was JUST d&b then someone here or elsewhere on the net would have come up with similar results by now but i am yet to see that

Yep, exactly!

i agree, there has been some great compositing done in that shot and many of his shots but i'm not even looking at the background, i am comparing the wrestler and he looks very shiny and clean/crisp looking in the final one, i'm sure if was JUST d&b then someone here or elsewhere on the net would have come up with similar results by now but i am yet to see that

Well there's saturation and color control too, as well as a whole lot of sharpening. Besides that, though, half the reason why you don't see a bunch of people doing it is because everyone wants a shortcut.

Most people don't want to go out, buy a few thousand dollars worth of lights, and learn about overpowering daylight and setting up 5 point lighting. Most people don't want to learn how to *properly* dodge and burn - good D&B layers trace contours so well they resemble figure sketches. Look at Amy Dresser's if you don't believe me. Most people want to get "close enough" with a plug-in, with a 25 minute technique, et cetera. That's why you don't see a bunch of people getting close to the same level.

However, some people take the time and the resources to really pull it off. Take a look at Tim Tadder, for example: http://www.timtadder.com/ Other people in this thread, such as Mtmm, are pretty adept at this style.

The other half of the reason why you don't see everyone doing is because out of the people who *can* do it, i.e., have the resources and the skill, there are several people who simply don't value the aesthetic. Not everyone likes the "illustrated" look. Even more pertinent is the marketability of that look. Several people have already commented in this thread about the "fad" nature of this type of photography/processing. Why would a capable photographer want to emulate the trademark style of someone else? Hell, it's called the DAVE HILL LOOK! :P I can certainly see why someone with the capability wouldn't want to start making photos in this style - you'd forever be branded as an imitation. Even now people call Hill a Fiscus imitation. Would you want to step in after Hill?

My $.02 on the matter. :)

indeed :)
does anyone could explain me how to desaturate the blacks?
i didnt figure it out

indeed :)
does anyone could explain me how to desaturate the blacks?
i didnt figure it out

I'm pretty sure desaturating the blacks is exactly what it sounds like- taking everything black (or, in actuality, near-black) and taking all the color information out of it.

Try going into Select > Color Range with black as your foreground color. Play with the fuzziness until you only have the tones you want to adjust. Then use that selection as the layer mask to a hue/saturation layer set to -100 saturation.

to be honest, tose tim tadder shots look no where near as good as dave hills shots, don't get me wrong i would love to take shots like that but imo they aren't in the same league as dave hill, i think the keywords in dave hills style is clean and crisp, even fiscus shots are not as clean imo, i don't quite know what it is about daves shots but is definately not JUST dodge and burn, they are like shiny and glossy without being greasy looking it's weird?!?!?

I'm pretty sure desaturating the blacks is exactly what it sounds like- taking everything black (or, in actuality, near-black) and taking all the color information out of it.

Try going into Select > Color Range with black as your foreground color. Play with the fuzziness until you only have the tones you want to adjust. Then use that selection as the layer mask to a hue/saturation layer set to -100 saturation.

cheers i'm too stupid.
thanks for this.

that's weird, i don't see a lot of changes anyway.
depend of the pics but that doesnt do a lot of things :)

cheers i'm too stupid.
thanks for this.

that's weird, i don't see a lot of changes anyway.
depend of the pics but that doesnt do a lot of things :)

The only reason I can see for using it is that if you had a photo where there was some color bleed into the dark shadow tones, it'd improve the "clean" look of the photo and the apparent contrast.

yep
i tried again on few pics and looks fine & much clean :)

to be honest, tose tim tadder shots look no where near as good as dave hills shots, don't get me wrong i would love to take shots like that but imo they aren't in the same league as dave hill, i think the keywords in dave hills style is clean and crisp, even fiscus shots are not as clean imo, i don't quite know what it is about daves shots but is definately not JUST dodge and burn, they are like shiny and glossy without being greasy looking it's weird?!?!?

"Good" is subjective. If you ask their respective clients, I'm sure you'd hear equally glowing appraisals of their work. It all depends on what you're aiming for. Same goes for Fiscus. If you mean smoother and less gritty, then what I said earlier about simplifying shadows and highlights applies. When something looks "shiny," it's simply the way it reflects the light that hits it. So to make something that's matte look shiny, you change the way it appears to reflect light. Dodging and burning is a pretty effective way to achieve this. Here's an example to demonstrate my point: http://www.michaelbonnerphoto.com/photos/D&B.jpg

Note: This is not an attempt at the DH look- merely an example to demonstrate a technique that contributes to it. Keep in mind that Dave Hill is embellishing *actual* highlights - even in the low-res screen grab of the wrestler, you can see the distinct highlights from the hard rim lights. Building upon these results in even cleaner, shinier final products. I've attached a copy of my D&B layers as well to illustrate the type of adjustments I'm describing.

One thing I have always wondered. Dave has some pretty damn big clients, but he uses low-end gear. That is a scientific fact, you get better photos with better gear. He don´t even use L-optics with Canon 5D. Low-end shitty lens attached to 5D FF camera will generate shitty photos at the edges. Still Dave´s photos are so sharp, so clean, wtf?

One thing I have always wondered. Dave has some pretty damn big clients, but he uses low-end gear. That is a scientific fact, you get better photos with better gear. He don´t even use L-optics with Canon 5D. Low-end shitty lens attached to 5D FF camera will generate shitty photos at the edges. Still Dave´s photos are so sharp, so clean, wtf?


I believe his way of lighting helps that as well I noticed when I changed to a harder light and started to use hard rimlighting as well my images became all the more sharper and gave greater contrast plus add in ring light fill and bam I bet that's where it is. Also using silver reflectors seems to help contrast and sharpness as well. Then in post you can really have the basis to sharpen it even more.

But that does not help lens distortion or other lens flaws.

Dave Hill has been using a HassleBlad for a while now which will Blow any DSLR out of the water.
Also His lens are plenty sharp to get sharp pictures, especially after all the sharpening he does..

But why don't you go ask in a photography forum as this is a retouch forum.
You can probably go leech there also...:+]

Dave like his photography is moving up.. He is not using ghetto equipment that much anymore..
I think is was embarrassing charging big $$$$ and shooting with a 5D and White lightning ain't gonna cut it..
Now he is shooting HassleBlad and using 30" cinema displays...
Snook

In any interview, video or podcast, he is telling his equipment. And always, low-end stuff. It is not possible to get sharp images from edge to edge with low-end lenses. Cinema display has nothing to do with this.

why would need edge to edge when he is shooting his subjects in the middle.
Your should first know what you talking about before you try to talk the talk...:+}
Again, go check on the photography websites ... then come back...
Edge to edge is usually something a Landscape photographer bitches about.. Not someone shooting portraits for pasting in new backgrounds...:+}
I guess you believe everything dave hill says..
You know there is no such thing as Santa Claus.. right?

Snook

This must be news for you, but there is backgrounds in Daves photos. But if I look at your "hi im snook and I can copy Dave with my plugin" photo, I'm not suprised, that you are so out of league. Cinema display, lol, since when apples monitor has been an issue when taking a photo, lol!

Equipment has nothing to do with it..
And what are you trying to ask..
You asked like you doubt it... If he says he is using Low end stuff and you believe it,
What are you asking?
You state that Low end shitty lens attached to a 5D produce shitty images...
And that is what Dave Hill is using, than you are saying his images are shitty?
I think every time you post, you sound like some Pimply face,chubby little punk who is trying to stir up argument...
DO you even know what you are asking anymore.
Again this is a retouch forum.. Not a Amateur photography forum..
You constantly contridict yourself even in the same phrase sometimes.
Just like your comment about Hypass Bleach filter you said you used then 2 post later you freak out saying you never said that...
Sounds like you have some issues and a Love affair with Dave Hill.
I suggest you start a Dave Hill Fan Club Blob.
You can name it:
How many Dave Hills does it take to screw in a Light Bulb...??
Only one and about 5 others below saying Oooooh How did you do that dave...:+}
Hope you find a cure for your dave Hill syndrome and why he uses shitty lens...:+}

Oh.. yeh it is in the lighting..... LOL, And now thanks to you, apparently the secret is it, you need shitty lens...
Might be a good time to sell all those "L" lens and Buy shitty lens...
Snook:
Let's make a Dave Hill List:

One Shitty Lens
One Shitty Camera
4-5 Shitty Lights
2-3 Shitty assistants
No shitty Cinema Display 30" Better to use the Shitty 5D LCD
No Shitty Plug-in
Shitty Subjects
Shitty Location
One Shitty Ringflash
One really Shitty retoucher (Optional)...

I think that is about it... we got the Magic formula...

You have a serious problem. Relax dude. You can make a new whining forum, that would me a succes for you.

Don't you know a cheapo 28mm f2.8 stopped down at f8 or f11 is every bit as sharp as expensive 24-70L glass and has less flare too?

There are loads of other great photographers in this world and the forums making Dave Hill sounds like the Mighty God of photography and overlooked lots of other fantastic photographers and other styles. Some of you guys probably have shrines of Dave Hill by your computer monitors.

Even he writes down his retouching work flows steps by steps, you can copy his look but cannot copy his talent and creative mind inside his head. It's not just about lighting and retouching; the artistic concept, execution of the ideas, attention to details like color,perspective, composition, the story of the photo..etc are all equally important.

Dave's lighting is really simple. Ringflash and 5 points lighting is not the only way forward. If you want to get massive details and textures, bringing out every single pore and every fibre, try light a subject with all hard lights plus one soft fill light..lighting small areas (use grid spots for key, multi-kickers or local area accent lights). You can use anything from 4 to 7 hard lights to light a single person and bring out maximum textures. It doesn't mean the resulting image looks like the light sources coming from all over the places, it is a question of fine tuning, control and balance of each light. You can only be excellent in lighting only if you throw away all the textbook lighting styles and think outside the box and dare to experiment.

I wish someone would discuss Javier Vallhonrat look in forums...who does far more amazing lighting and intriguing post-production.

I wish someone would discuss Javier Vallhonrat look in forums...who does far more amazing lighting and intriguing post-production.

If more people felt that way about his work I am sure there would. I just did a search and didn't see anything that made me take a second look care to share some?

If more people felt that way about his work I am sure there would. I just did a search and didn't see anything that made me take a second look care to share some?


Its not much point because most people here are drawn into easily accessible Dave Hill comic strip look; if you can't see the poetry and vision of an artist,that means you are not in tune with the same wavelength, you can dismiss Javier Vallonrat's works as rubbish. The same is true with Poalo Riversi's stuff.

Dave's lighting is really simple. Ringflash and 5 points lighting is not the only way forward.
You must be one of the best in the world if you think 5-point light setup as a really simple setup. You know, it´s not only that you have 5 lights, its how you set them up, how you feed them with power and what reflectors you use. 5-point is everything else but simple.

Or are you talking about continuous light where you just feed lamps with full power and then move them around?

Don't you know a cheapo 28mm f2.8 stopped down at f8 or f11 is every bit as sharp as expensive 24-70L glass and has less flare too?

There are loads of other great photographers in this world and the forums making Dave Hill sounds like the Mighty God of photography and overlooked lots of other fantastic photographers and other styles. Some of you guys probably have shrines of Dave Hill by your computer monitors.

Even he writes down his retouching work flows steps by steps, you can copy his look but cannot copy his talent and creative mind inside his head. It's not just about lighting and retouching; the artistic concept, execution of the ideas, attention to details like color,perspective, composition, the story of the photo..etc are all equally important.

Dave's lighting is really simple. Ringflash and 5 points lighting is not the only way forward. If you want to get massive details and textures, bringing out every single pore and every fibre, try light a subject with all hard lights plus one soft fill light..lighting small areas (use grid spots for key, multi-kickers or local area accent lights). You can use anything from 4 to 7 hard lights to light a single person and bring out maximum textures. It doesn't mean the resulting image looks like the light sources coming from all over the places, it is a question of fine tuning, control and balance of each light. You can only be excellent in lighting only if you throw away all the textbook lighting styles and think outside the box and dare to experiment.

I wish someone would discuss Javier Vallhonrat look in forums...who does far more amazing lighting and intriguing post-production.


Here Here :+}
Exactly..
Very nice explanation.
if Mtmm went to some of those amateur forums I told him to go to... He would know a lot of "shitty" lens are just as good most times as the L glass if you know where the sweet spot is.

Again I do not have time to fuss with young wannabe here..
I just like poking in every once in a while to let them know what I feel..:+}

There are so many talented photographers out there..

Dave hill Although really talented of course, is a one trick pony like I said and old news really....

It is all how you interpret a photograph through lighting, emotion, angle, etc..
Not by pushing a button and get a gritty grungy look of your sister neighbor friend....
There is A LOT of creation going on there as I have mentioned a thousand times.
Dave Hill is talented and uses a lot of creative people.. Period.
Going to step out for a while have a lot of work coming up the next couple of weeks..
Snook

Its not much point because most people here are drawn into easily accessible Dave Hill comic strip look; if you can't see the poetry and vision of an artist,that means you are not in tune with the same wavelength, you can dismiss Javier Vallonrat's works as rubbish. The same is true with Poalo Riversi's stuff.

I didn't dismiss anyones work yeesh basically if your gonna talk out your ass why not point to a site where his work is featured or is that to hard????

Speaking of asses. Ever tried google? Or is that to hard????

Speaking of asses. Ever tried google? Or is that to hard????


Of course idiot how else did I respond with I wasn't moved by his shit so if he is gonna come off as a egotistical ahole and take shots at us who like dave hill work the least he could do is pt to the work he is talking about.

Note and learn to fing read before coming out ur ass.

If more people felt that way about his work I am sure there would. I just did a search and didn't see anything that made me take a second look care to share some?

Julian did you take your medicine today...??

Snook

Please, admin close this thread.

Here Here :+}
Exactly..
Very nice explanation.
if Mtmm went to some of those amateur forums I told him to go to... He would know a lot of "shitty" lens are just as good most times as the L glass if you know where the sweet spot is.

http://rickycampbell.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/whine.jpg

Mtmm I understand what you mean... he is using some cheaper gear, especially for some bigger clientele. But perhaps he isn't charging what he could get just so he has that client list. That would be my guess.

I have seen, though, he has shot some shoots with a Hassel, but he probably rented it for that specific shoot?

His work has definitely evolved and has gotten much better especially with his latest shoot with 50cent.

I'm wondering if he has actually gone in and painted colors in... like instead of manipulating what's there he's actually illustrated some of the spots. Its just weird how much detail there is.

I am leaving this Punch and Judy pantomime thread from now. There are much better things to do other than getting sucked into an ulgy exchange of insults and attacks.

Julian did you take your medicine today...??

Snook


Nah dude but by ur posts it is not me that need medicine of any kind.


I hope this post gets back to what its supposed to be about how Dave Hill does work. If you don't like Dave Hill's work why bother post if you like someone else's work better make your own thread. This is about learning how something is done period. Funny thing tho every few posts you can actually learn something well that is if you have an open mind.

Just thought I share my images they are not DH tho but I use tools I have learned from the talking about DH. To me that's what this is all about.

Has it occured to anyone that DH may not have a "technique" as such, but rather an artistic vision or objective, and that depending on how the shot was set up in the first place, combined with the evironmental factors, he does whatever is needed to get the results that he wants for each particular image, whether it be D&B, curves, compositing, plugins or even painting. Thus, you are actually looking for "what DH did to get this particular image" rather than "what is the DH technique".

I am leaving this Punch and Judy pantomime thread from now. There are much better things to do other than getting sucked into an ulgy exchange of insults and attacks.

yeah but in amongst those insults and attacks are some actual good tips and techniques, i have learnt a lot from this thread and i still think there will be more things to learn from it so please don't lock it.

Guys
there is quite good article about Dave Hill in the latest Digital SLR photography Magazine! I just bought it for the first time few days ago in Finland (since we don't have it here in Hungary where I currently live) and I liked both the article about this great photographer and magazine itself!

Of course idiot how else did I respond with I wasn't moved by his shit so if he is gonna come off as a egotistical ahole and take shots at us who like dave hill work the least he could do is pt to the work he is talking about.

Note and learn to fing read before coming out ur ass.

So why did you ask again for pointer to his work? I think you're a bit slow.

And you not caring to take a second look, just proves his point.

To the rest. Sorry for the OT and feeding the troll. Just can't let bull**** and ignorance slip by.

Carry on.

So why did you ask again for pointer to his work? I think you're a bit slow.

And you not caring to take a second look, just proves his point.

To the rest. Sorry for the OT and feeding the troll. Just can't let bull**** and ignorance slip by.

Carry on.



No Jack ass I see your the ignorant little ahole who intrudes on others conversation cause u didn't get enough attention as a child.

Again can u read?
If more people felt that way about his work I am sure there would. I just did a search and didn't see anything that made me take a second look care to share some?
When I googled him I got Results 1 - 10 of about 38,000 for Javier Vallhonrat so I asked for him to point me to pics he thought best represented the artist in question because I didn't find any that I thought was that special short bus rider. Now quit trolling for a fight cause u will get one jack ass. Or just maybe reading comprehension isn't your strong point?








Again:
I hope this post gets back to what its supposed to be about how Dave Hill does work. If you don't like Dave Hill's work why bother post if you like someone else's work better make your own thread. This is about learning how something is done period. Funny thing tho every few posts you can actually learn something well that is if you have an open mind.

Just to get back on point checkout http://www.virb.com/davehill

A lot more of Dave Hill work can be seen with more videos.

i dunno.. i've been trying too
just like everyone else

http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs36/f/2008/250/2/e/cute_moox____by_arizaNur.jpg

it's not that good..

@majapahit...that's the best effort i have seen yet...amazing you have finally nailed how Dave Hill would create a red square.

Admin, you can now close this thread!

@majapahit...that's the best effort i have seen yet...amazing you have finally nailed how Dave Hill would create a red square.

Admin, you can now close this thread!

What are you talking about? It's good however the background looks too composited and too grainy. You did a nice job on keep a good skin tone but overall it lacks quality which I think is largely due to the background.

I'm not for sure why admin would close this thread? Part of this site's revenue is generated by ad dollars and membership. This is the number 1 visited thread on this site... why would they close it? Because they cannot do their job in administrating out some of the bad posts that are spoiling the fun for the rest of us?

Hey Vapour, chill out mate!

When i tried to open the image I just got a red square, could be an office restriction.

Apologies if I upset you.

Reason to close this thread...all the requirements for the Dave Hill look have been discussed, expcept no one has bothered to put them all together....

No Jack ass I see your the ignorant little ahole who intrudes on others conversation cause u didn't get enough attention as a child.

Again can u read?

When I googled him I got Results 1 - 10 of about 38,000 for Javier Vallhonrat so I asked for him to point me to pics he thought best represented the artist in question because I didn't find any that I thought was that special short bus rider. Now quit trolling for a fight cause u will get one jack ass. Or just maybe reading comprehension isn't your strong point?








Again:
I hope this post gets back to what its supposed to be about how Dave Hill does work. If you don't like Dave Hill's work why bother post if you like someone else's work better make your own thread. This is about learning how something is done period. Funny thing tho every few posts you can actually learn something well that is if you have an open mind.

Just SHUT THE FUCK UP, and quit turning YOUR trolling onto ME.
Your narcissistic-forum-heroism is getting old.

Hint. No one will miss you around here.

To recap this thread.

It's 20-30% lighting. You got to get the higlights and shadows right.
Then it's 70-80% Photoshop. Dodging and burning gets alot of mention.

hey mates, take it ez
don't waste your time argumentating on the net (:
;)

pz

Totally agree with Gee, even if someone has upset you, just be mature and ignore them.

There is a lot of seriously foul language creeping into this thread and I for one know that there are a lot of young re-touchers who are inspired by DH who will be reading it's content, who should not be exposed to this kind of content....

Just SHUT THE FUCK UP, and quit turning YOUR trolling onto ME.
Your narcissistic-forum-heroism is getting old.

Hint. No one will miss you around here.

Look your the troll and the tool here period just grow up and let the big boys play please no need for this really since I realize maybe you can't read.

Lets get back to the issue at hand some think everything been discussed me I like to see more of others attempts at the style myself especially without bad plugins that don't come close imho.

-----Getting back on topic-------

What does this effect do to the bigger picture of things...

Duplicate merge...
Convert to black and white...
High-pass...
Set to Linear Light...
Gaussian Blur a little...

Then localize that?

I know its useful but I do not know how to apply it properly.

-----Getting back on topic-------

What does this effect do to the bigger picture of things...

Duplicate merge...
Convert to black and white...
High-pass...
Set to Linear Light...
Gaussian Blur a little...

Then localize that?

Depending on the high pass settings it should up the contrast on the underlying image I believe something Bill simones does similar to that but uses luminosity. He uses a channel basically like the blue channel and the high pass filter.

http://www.billsimonephotography.com/


Next I duplicated the blue channel, and copied and pasted it into a layer on top of the original, ran a pretty aggressive high radius, low amount unsharp mask on that layer and set it to luminosity.

After that some selective denoising using noise ninja was needed as this file was shot at ISO 400. I simply used the lasso tool to draw loose selections well feathered and then removed the noise.

Then began a process of isolating various elements in the photo and brightening or darkening them, and lots of Burning and Dodging using a mid gray softlight layer.


http://www.billsimonephotography.com/wordpress/

Holy crap, Bill's stuff is amazing! Never seen it before. Too bad he shoots with a Hassel... I'm sure that makes up for a lot of the look.

I believe something Bill simones does similar to that but uses luminosity. He uses a channel basically like the blue channel and the high pass filter.]

Hmm could you explain that a little?

Hmm could you explain that a little?


The best way is to check out Bill's blog at http://www.billsimonephotography.com/wordpress/ he breaks down how he uses it on the artist image as well as going into detail on his other work. A great read for sure.


Oh and be sure to read his boxer girl layer breakdown just awesome.

http://billsimonephotography.com/wordpress/?p=28


ill try to describe the layers from the bottom up.

The first layer is not relevant it is simply a merge of all above.

#2 Is the HDR room scene background.
#3 Is a duplicate of the Room Scene Background desaturated and changed to multiply blend mode. Then a layer mask was applied and a hole
“punched” in it with a large soft edge brush. The purpose of this layer is to softly darken the edges, a “vignette” if you will. I like this method as it does not add any weird
saturation.
#4 Is a curves