www.davehillphoto.com

Well, I want to, once and for all, break down the dave hill technique! Who's with me here???
My retouching experience isn't that good, but the thing I can say about the dave hill technique is this:

- All pictures are sharp almost no blur on backgrounds or details. This enhances the whole picture and gives what I would call a side effect the to whole technique...

- He light's all models separately(not in every picture) and takes several picture to put into one...look at the behind the scene photos...on some of the behind the scenes photos you CAN see that they light up only a person at the time

- he enhances shadows, details, highlights, with dodge and burn! Example1: is to look on wrinkles(if i can call it that) on clothing. look at first picture in portfolio 1.
example2:some clothes has been sharpened more to enhance texture look at 2nd picture in portfolio 1 ...example 3: at the same picture, look at the fridge...some burn is used to make a "haloish" effect...even on the wall behind! if you look at the stove, the details are enhanced with d&b...

Many people say: he uses lucis art plugin, but that is NOT true! I'm a true believer of D&B in his technique!

And his equipment is high quality! maybe canon with l-series lens or hasselblad/mimaya camera...I don't think dave hill uses a canon 350d or nikon d50 with 50mm 1.8 plastic lens...

I would say to people, study the details...shadows, where have they enhanced shadows and highlights...if you look closely you can see it!

I have made a psd file on some shadow enhancement! I can say immediately that my psd file isn't the best to look at, but look at the details in the clothes! it's all enhanced! I don't have a wacom board, so my "painting" isn't that good :D

Hopefully some questions are answered, and people are more than welcome to write opinions about the dave hill technique...

Cheers to all!


Gerry

PSD 96mb : http://download.yousendit.com/AE9460840D512CEA

in your psd the layer "layer 1 copy", which is set to soft light / 63%, what is that layer? How did you get to that layer to look the way it does? What is that layer exactly? Thats the only one that doesn't really have a label for it.

also, would you mind doing a quick workflow outline for the PSD you posted?

And thank you for taking the time to post this along with the PSD for us all to look at! Very awesome of you!

Thanks!

eternal: Thanks for replying! Well the layer 1 copy is the dodge and burn layer! If you push up the opacity to 100% you'll see it's all black and white "painting"...This is painting on the picture without destroying it...

My workflof is as follows:

- duplicate original picture...
-get the right colurs you want in curves
- on the duplicate picture i made it b&w in channel mixer. Adjustments-channel mixer. Push the monochrome button. then play with the channel buttons there...try to get more shadows and more light without the picture looking wierd(overexposed or underexsposed) :D

- To make a D&B layer is to go to Layer - new layer - mode softlight(remember to hit the "fill with neutral colour(50% grey))

- then start to burn all shadows, dark lines, the most important is to line out details. Highlights is imoprtant, you can even add your own highlights to "fake" shine or light!

- select all the layers you use, then copy them and merge selcted layers...

-sharpen in small radius, try sharpening in a new copied layer and mask out the areas that is too sharp!

- then add a adjustment layer, brightness and contrast

-if needed copy the d&b layer to get more power from the shadows and highlights

-and in the end use a curve layer if needed...

hopefully this was a good explanation on my workflow her :D

I will try a to make a better psd file and upload it again!

Gerry

Hi Gerry, very interesting what you saying up there, only I have to say one thing, you dit a noise filter over it, but Dave hill's photo's have no noise, they are really smooth, but also Sharp! overall looks nice:)

ruud: thanks for replying here...In the PSD file I have added a noise layer, BUT I didn't use it! the noise you see is probably a mix between sharpening and contrast!

Gerry

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

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

and of course a lot of Photoshop

cms: thanks for replying here...I've seen some of the movies on his page, I haven't seen any hasselblad...Only Canon 5d or 1dmark with either 50mm 1.4 or 1.2 ...But what you say it's true about the hasselblad! I really hope he uses a hasselblad since this will clear up a bit of what I think...But some of the pictures are wideangle shots, do hasselblad have wideangle lenses?

Gerry

INFORMATION ABOUT
http://download.yousendit.com/AE9460840D512CEA

The person who sent you this file has exceeded their download limit
The person who has sent you this has been notified by email. Please feel free to contact the sender of this file as well.

ruud: thanks for replying here...In the PSD file I have added a noise layer, BUT I didn't use it! the noise you see is probably a mix between sharpening and contrast!

Gerry

ah oke, that would it be!;)

Another thing it looks like he uses, and I'm not sure exactly what to call it, is a High Pass filter set to overlay or soft/hard light. That may add to the amound of sharpness in the image.

crex: okey...I'm not sure what to do? It's says that I have 100downloads to this...But where can I put it up now? maybe I can upload it again?

anybody know where I can find a good filesharing site that allows files over 100mb?

You dont need a expensiv cam for the dave hill look

You need 2 or more flashes and the knowledge in photoshop and placing the flashes

We have a photographer in germany named ondro with a close style to fiscus and dave
Ondro is using a nikon d70

Lg calvin
http:www.calvinhollywood.de

calvin: If it's www.ondro.com you mean? I wouldn't say his style is anywhere close to Dave hill! His pictures are glamour and high end fashion photography! The retouch he does is purely beauty retouch! Dave hill has his own unique style! It's similar to fiscus, but at the same time not...it's like the amy dresser retouching style! you know it's hers when you see it...ondro is good with retouching, but not in the same way dave hill is :D

Gerry

@superkoax
Ondro have 4 or 5 Pics in this Fiscus Style
Dont even watch his Portfolio
Watch his Blog
Of course not the Level like Dave Hill or Fiscus
Amy Dresser is a friendly person.... Ask her... Same what i did
She work really simple, no Tricks.
I dont think you can get something new of the fiscus or amy style

But well see*g*

Lg Calvin

cms: thanks for replying here...I've seen some of the movies on his page, I haven't seen any hasselblad...Only Canon 5d or 1dmark with either 50mm 1.4 or 1.2 ...But what you say it's true about the hasselblad! I really hope he uses a hasselblad since this will clear up a bit of what I think...But some of the pictures are wideangle shots, do hasselblad have wideangle lenses?

Gerry


He is using a hassy for the big jobs.Like all photographers he has different cameras for different jobs.All important jobs he does it with Hassy.One of his secrets is that he uses power generators on location and so he has plenty of power and can close the aperture more.But i consider that he has a talent to see perspectives, angles, lines etcccc.The lighting he uses is not a secret... every experienced photographer can tell you few hints regarding light.
He light his subjects in a way that is useful in Photoshop to create volumes and depth.HIS PHOTOSHOP WORKFLOW WOULD BE NICE TO SEE !!!!!!!

cms: his workflow would be great to see! about the lighting it's nothing spectacular...But look at the videos! I don't see any hasselblad cameras there...It's only canon, but have only seen it from distance in the vid..maybe a Mimaya?

Gerry

Hi Gerry,

I'm with you to demystification of Dave Hill, IMHO CMS has right, the matter of DH scenes: details -as i see- and surelly he uses some of the HDR techniques. May be he doesn't want to show everithing about his work, showed a canon on the werk to let us thinking about: how did he do by just a canon??!!! But what i really like in DH works that he can imagine the whole and does it from parts.

sorry about my english

saby

nice picture saby! WHAT DID YOU DO to the wood texture? It reminds of a dave hill shoot!


gerry

it is a raw - what i took at my worktime so my boss:angry: - created a HDR from, and tonemapped in qtpfsgui 3times: 1 for color, 2 for lowpass, 3 for highpass blended in photoshop

saby

saby: so you took only 1 picture tonemapped in what? qtpfsgui? what's that?

yes i did Gerry

http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/software/17522-qtpfsgui.html

saby

thanks! what iso do you have on the picture? the noise on the wall is a bit high :)

Gerry

thanks! what iso do you have on the picture? the noise on the wall is a bit high :)

Gerry

iso:200
actually this is a cause of tonemapping- quick job

saby

ok, the program qtpfsgu, is it a standalone program or to use within photoshop?

It's standalone, but U need to install qt-mac-opensource-4.2.3 for the system

saby

cms: his workflow would be great to see! about the lighting it's nothing spectacular...But look at the videos! I don't see any hasselblad cameras there...It's only canon, but have only seen it from distance in the vid..maybe a Mimaya?

Gerry

look at pictures from behind the scenes for Chevrolet.That's a Hasselblad with the digital back.

cms: OH? that is good to know...thanks! it seems we all fight an expensive dream here with the gear and what results he pushes out from the hassy! man, one day! one day. *SIGH*

Gerry

I can't get the PSD. Perhaps someone can repost it.
In any case, what is the BW layer for.
Does is get merged with underlying color layer in some way?

TIA

Lew

traveler: it's a softlight layer with 50% grey...this you can use together with dodg/burn without damaging the picture...

Gerry

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

--Ron
www.ronaldntan.com

Gerry,
Does this help? www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/72157594577686705/ (http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/72157594577686705/)
Ray

no, did not help me...have seen that months ago...why use higpass filter to get dave hill effect? I want to know how he really does his HDR picture and get them so clean...

Gerry

I'm trying to acvhieve hdr, but I have come to the conclusion that you need balanced light in the picture...the difference between dark and light is really destroyd when shados are being lightened...


Gerry

Words from Dave Hill personaly:

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

lg Calvin

As he mentions, Dave definitely depends on lighting for his fantastic images but for those that don't have that option you can easily get lighting effects in PS. I used my Illustrated Look on this flat image.

http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/critiques/9066-glamour-first-attempt.html

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v203/mcennis3/?action=view&current=cspringerapplegate.gif

Tonemapping? That is basically making lights darker and darks lighter so even though you might not be familiar with the term we have all used it.
Do you need a 3rd party plugin such as Photomatix or Lucisart? No... but they can produce the exact same effect as PS filters so just because someone doesn't use them doesn't mean they should be ruled out when asked, "How do they do that?". The better question is, "How can I get this look?" because there are many ways to get the exact same results in photoshop.

You might want to make a Contrast Mask action which is a tonemapping technique. This example is not a finished edit but only meant to show an instant edit that is a good beginning to the process. Notice how the original top triangle is Dark and the bottom triangle is Light. My contrast mask action reverses the luminosity.
Note how the (overexposed) shirt and right cheek now have more detail and the (underexposed) hair is brought out.
As with many tonemapping techniques, you need to correct for halos. I set my action up with the Gaussian Blur filter at the bottom to control the effect.

You can google instructions but this is how I made my action...
1. MERGE to NEW Layer (This allows you to run the action at anytime in the editing process vs. Copy background layer which many tutorials recommend).
2.Desaturate
3. Invert
4. Set to OVERLAY
5. Gaussian Blur

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

--Ron
www.ronaldntan.com



why...why...One Dave Hill is enough...
please try to work out your own style and dont's copy

but...if you like Dave Hill, take a look at this dutch photographer
www.erwinolaf.com

I am aware of Mr. Olaf. I like his dark photos. =)

Regards,

RNT

aaah...good old erwin! Love his lighting! his work is all ny the lights!
Well I can say, find my style don't copy, but why not learn something on the way by trying different styles??? I have learned so much by trying other styles...When I'm good enough I think my style will come :D


gerry


CALVIN: where did he post that?

I'm still trying :D

That looks great. Nice edit. Like it alot.

So a question for Dave Hill...what specific lights are you using for your shoots? What is in your "light bag".

I agree with Superkoax. To learn the methodology of all styles just expands one's understanding of the possiblities..whether it is hill, olaf, fiscus or others. I know we've talked about many photographers/artists in the past and I have yet seen a post that's nailed the methodology to anyone of them. Thanks for the challenging questions and discussions Superkoax.

There are many examples of the lighting in the Behind The Scenes section of Hills site. He always seem to use a ring flash, either on the lens or even off the lens ( someone else just holding it ).

Pelle: Tack så mycke/thank you so much :)
SKYdog: thank you for replying, yes to achieve greatness is to learn from the greats! Why not dare yourself in a journey trough others...I think it's one of the best ways to learn, because you get to visualize your target and that is important to me...How can learn I from my self? I don't know what style I want?! Therefor the journey is important...

Gerry

I think this works a bit better...A bit more "framed in"...maybe towards the "dave hill feel"?


gerry

Gerry..for the last photo you posted..what did you do?

skydog: I used dodge and burn to get more wrinkles in the clothes! good tip is to make shadows darker with burn highlighst lighter with dodge...then shapened only the dark colours in the picture...got more depth in th ehair with dodge and burn...and added shadow to his face...THEN adde a curve layer that I took down the blue and adde some red...

Gerry

Gerry,

It seems you have been working hard to learn and understand how to effectively use dodge and burn. I also believe this is a good technique to know. When you dodge or burn, have you decided when its best to choose highlights, midtone or shadow?

When thinking about Hill, Fiscus or others, they had to learn their technique from practice and a combination of little tips and tricks they learned from others a long the way. I certainly haven't seen a cookbook from Adobe when Photoshop versions were released.

Skydog: Well, learning the dodge and burn is what I see as a lifelong commitment...The most difficult part is to understand shadows and higlights...therefor I usually visit hill, fiscus and olafs web pages to see how they direct light from different angles...I haven't seen any books on the matter of dodge and burn to get higlights and burn! Im currently working with gradient tool on softlight layer to add white and dark spots to see how effective this is! because in some picture hill and fiscus have they have added strong highlights, that I haven't been able to get only with dodge tool...so white and gradient tool is something I'm working on know :D


GErry

Maybe there is a book in your future...

Hi Gerry,
This is my humble try.
Ray

not bad - what did you do?

crex: okey...I'm not sure what to do? It's says that I have 100downloads to this...But where can I put it up now? maybe I can upload it again?

anybody know where I can find a good filesharing site that allows files over 100mb?

you can upload the file in http://in.solit.us, I would love to check this PSD to see the results :)

here is th enew link for the psd! I took down the size so the psd file wouldn't be so big!

http://in.solit.us/archives/show/55633


Gerry

How's that Gerry?

alfred: it's nice...you can see some dave hill in there...it's a bit "greyish" in color and a bit flat...more contrast and sharpening maybe?

gerry

alfred: it's nice...you can see some dave hill in there...it's a bit "greyish" in color and a bit flat...more contrast and sharpening maybe?

gerryThanks, I will give it another shot tomorrow.

One more try, rather subtle but I like it :)

Can someone repost the PSD file from superkroax... Both his post are no good. First one dead and the second never loads and I have HIGH spped DSL
Would appreciate to be able to evaluate the work and post my repsonse..:+}
Thanks
Snook

snook: I will check it out now...it should be available from the second link! will check it :D


Gerry

http://in.solit.us/archives/show/55633

this links till works...

just tried it...

gerry

hi this is my fist time on this site ....
i am a photografer and not very good at post process....
but i think this is pretty close to the "style" your talking about and actually i only did some shapening, blur,dodge and burn ....... most of the effect is done by light setup

o yeah and some liquify for the freaky effect....

mcupido: thanks for adding! add more shadows to the wrinkels on the clothes and add highlights to the top of the wrinkels...I'm giving my try on this picture later on :D

gerry

thanks,

ill give it a try later on aswell
i was looking more closer to image's like hill,fiscus,dragan,olaf,etc but.......
any idea how to get that sort of plastic feeling on the skin ... i dont think this is a "light thing"

it's probably due to some curves adjustments! I have tried experimenting with curves and blue channel :D

But maybe som other retouching stuff...

gerry

i wonder! How big Hill's photos are printed ! I do not thing they use it for banners, mesh etc.I thing that is an important issue in understanding his work.
Personally i do not thing you can get rezults like that without a small amount of noise from oversharpening.

Does anyone have a link to a 100% retouched picture.I came across this idea when preparing photos for my new website and realize that picture that normally you view in detail , on the web looks better and you do not see the small imperfection.????????????????????????

cms: almost every picture looks better in smaller size...But I have tried to figure out a good speech about the size...When viewing a big picture, you see imperfections better...the noise for example...But how near do you want to stand looking at a picture? for sure if you want details, but staring too long on a masterpiece some faults will surface. I saw an add campaign a while back in a magazine with Hillary Swank advertising for a perfume brand...In the magazine(half A4 sized picture) the picture looks very good...But one day I walked pass a perfume shop and I saw the picture on a BIG poster maybe 50cm X 70 cm...The details become clearer...The pictures that are retouched are better of viewed in smaller portions...I have NEVER seen retouchers who show their pictures in all it's glory...

It's like music( i've been a producers for some years as well):

People who enjoy a song for just the song is the target the msuic biz are looking for really! Because alot of listeners doesn't hear the drum, bass, effects or how much echo there is in the vocals or how much reverb it's in the lead melody or even what type of instruments are used! They hear only the song for the song...With me here?

Ok, when I started to produce(at age 16) i was that kind of listener...I was astonished after some months when I started to hear old songs and could break down parts in the drumline, bassline or even vocals! After that every song I liked was dissected into bit's and pieces...Over-analyzing everything...Sometimes we all do! In the pictures as well! We should have one eye for detail and one eye for watching pictures as just a picture...

Hope that I wasn't writing toooooooo much here...if so....sorry :D

cheers

Gerry

anybody know where I can find a good filesharing site that allows files over 100mb?
I use http://rapidshare.com/ it works for me.

thanks,

ill give it a try later on aswell
i was looking more closer to image's like hill,fiscus,dragan,olaf,etc but.......
any idea how to get that sort of plastic feeling on the skin ... i dont think this is a "light thing"



is this plastic enough?

http://rapidshare.com/files/50295419/shootthephotograper.jpg.html

is this plastic enough?


It is nice but kind of lifeless.

IKAGAMI: Nice, the face is a bit greyish and dead, but if you add selctive colour layer you can give the skin more color...Work in the small lines of highlights and shadows to give it more "spunk" ...


gerry

here's my try. i think it's more dragan, less hill though.

http://gregdalrymple.com/studies/388376_9085_after.jpg

http://gregdalrymple.com/studies/388376_9085_before.jpg

http://gregdalrymple.com/studies/388376_9085_half_res.zip [PSD zip 7mb]

I have been trying to learn his technique for quite a while now, and I still can't figure it out. No matter what I do, they always come out a little on the flat side. That being said, here is a photo I just worked on...Not close to Mr.Hill's level of excellence, but not too shabby. I have also used the same technique in another photo I have posted on here somewhere, but I tweeked the effect so it is less noticeable.

Here's the photo:
http://daniellahaiephotography.com/blonderedbackground.jpg

Sorry I am hosting it off my site, as it is a rather large side by side with the original photo.

IKAGAMI: Nice, the face is a bit greyish and dead, but if you add selctive colour layer you can give the skin more color...Work in the small lines of highlights and shadows to give it more "spunk" ...


gerry

Thanx..I give it a try later
But this is how I wanted it..dead and lifeless...perfection and imperfection in one pic
For the specs..its made with a Hasselblad with leaf back

GSD: NICE touch here, but the beard on the left side should be followed trough...it's suddenly stops on the chin there...maybe more burning or copying excisting beard...also the shadows are very big...maybe work in smaller scale?

Gerry

schultzy: Nice picture, I can see that you have use shadows/highlights filter here...it pushes up the noise as well...maybe on the key parts on the picture( tattoo and cheeks...) you can use the effect, but mask down areas surrounding them?

Gerry

I have been trying to learn his technique for quite a while now, and I still can't figure it out. No matter what I do, they always come out a little on the flat side. That being said, here is a photo I just worked on...Not close to Mr.Hill's level of excellence, but not too shabby. I have also used the same technique in another photo I have posted on here somewhere, but I tweeked the effect so it is less noticeable.

Here's the photo:
http://daniellahaiephotography.com/blonderedbackground.jpg

Sorry I am hosting it off my site, as it is a rather large side by side with the original photo.

This stuff doesn't work on females. You guys shouldn't even try. High pass and sharpening don't do well with the female's skin. And when you sharpen something,mask itout to avoid halos.

Dodge and burn it all you need.here a 2 minute example

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/4854/villageac3.jpg

This stuff doesn't work on females. You guys shouldn't even try. High pass and sharpening don't do well with the female's skin. And when you sharpen something,mask itout to avoid halos.I agree in principle with this, but you hit on a much more critical issue without realizing it. Those halos indicate that, recipe specs notwithstanding, for this image, the settings are inappropriate. Sharpening, however it's done, is always welcome, and using sharpening to provide contrast-inducing halos is also a useful technique (Margulis calls it HIRALOAM for hi radius low amount sharpening; it's also called local contrast in some articles). Here, it's just wrong. Who cares how it got there, it's a bad result. That's my problem with Action oriented approaches to any effect: every image is different. In this case, all you need to do is step back and look at the dirty grunge and compare it with anything by Dave Hill and you know you took a wrong turn.

i want to try it too ^^

http://img529.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hilltrytj1.jpg

Does anyone know how to edit like this? I am looking for a tutorial. I know for a fact lucisart or any thirdparty plugin isn't involved, just Photoshop. HELP! :)

http://www.adambartas.com/

Well, might as well give it a try. I'm sure i'm not even in the ballpark on this, but I tried to get the high contrast that he has in his images. Lotta curve adjustments...

http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/9466/dhtake2pthhln9.jpg

Hi from Germany

Here is my Part
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/6892/nachtschichtvm5.jpg

lg Calvin
http://www.calvinhollywood.de

calvin: really nice work there...


gerry

Thx.... done with 2 lights.... a soft light on the female and a hard light on background
then a lot of dodge and burning and sharpen techniks with unsharp mask

sorry for my bad english

lg Calvin

Nice work calvin, that's the closest to Dave hills look i've seen yet! Very Nice.

When you say that you used two lights did you mean two lights when you where photographing it or the two light blend modes?

Is there anyway we could see the before photo? I am dying to see how much of it is from the lighting!

very nice, Calvin.

Here is my best attempt to date ...
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s200/FaanPret/DSCF0391-comp-d.jpg

FAANP: The effect is good on the shoes, but around it looks very odd to me...too much of something...

Gerry

Thanks .... still struggeling ... will get it right someday ....

but to achieve the dave hill look...remmeber to have EVERYTHING in the picture in focus and pin sharp...blurred backgrounds doesn't give you and help...

gerry

I used 2 flashes in photography to get every detail.
The most important thing is the photography.
Rest i did with dodge and burn and unsharp mask

lg Calvin

My try:)


http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd295/funkyboy4/04ecuthbertcopycopy.jpg

i like the style very much. what did you do, funkyboy?

Eyes
I burned the pupils to make them darker and then i went round the iris wih dodge making them lighter.

Background
For the background i used some channels to make a mask then inverted it, using a gradient fill to make the red darker. I also lowered the opacity to blend it in but you can choose which background you want. Heres a link to the channel masking if it helps, give it time to load it takes ages its very tempromental- http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/AdvancedMasking.mov

Skin
The skin is quite easy once you get the hang of it read this - http://www.photoshoptutorials.ws/photoshop-tutorials/photo-retouching/airbrushing---natural-smooth-skin.html

Its a big read but its worth it in the end, i also lowered the saturation to make the skin slightly desaturated

Teeth
All i did for the teeth was cut it from another tooth and placed it in the gaps lowering the opacity and making a new layer painting the teeth white and putting the layer in soft light and lowering the opacity

Hair
I used hue and saturation and went into the yellow channel and lowering the saturation, using the clone tool i alo got rid of stray hairs

Lips
I dodged the lip highlights and made a new layer painted the lips pink put the layer in soft light and lowered the opacity

Hope this all helps if you want to know anything else just message me

Variations of this smoothing technique are all over the place. I'm not fond of the version you referenced, for a number of reasons. However the most important is that the best decription of how it works is right here in the RetouchPro tutorials section. Two articles byRo go into far greater depth, offer a much more useful set of parameters and provide a workflow flexible enough to fit any image, accomplish the purpose and minimize evidence that it was used at all. Check out These links:

http://retouchpro.com/tutorials/?m=show&id=147

http://retouchpro.com/tutorials/?m=show&id=149

A shortcut version, by the same author, known around here as the Degrunge Technique has been mentioned and described recently on some of the beauty retouching threads that are still current. I personally prefer the long version, as it is customizable to a far greater extent. Read 'em all. It's worth it.

reading from this thread and other sites...i try to emulate dave hill's effect on both fashion and other type of photography.

Here is my take...

this photo was taken using a off cam external flash, used an ultra wide lens. My friend wanted a different portrait...

used the tips given in this thread...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1412/814905652_45d0fef34d_o.jpg


this one on a pool of fishes...


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1237/793563545_2bdc3340b8_o.jpg


One thing i notice is that it does not apply to every image, an image with good quality light and sharpness is needed.

Dave Hill has a photo illustration style similar to Jill Greenberg, known as "The Manipulator." They have a formula that works. You mean that's not the original image that comes directly out of the camera? no, just kiddin', but, to me some of the images almost look like slick comic book line drawings that are colored in, same technique. Of course the image quality, lighting and composition are first rate.

steve

I have often wondered myself how they are achieving these techniques in PS

in the photo side:

for sure there's an underexposure of the ambient light maybe 1 entire stop or more and a wel lit subject by the use of flash for the base shot do you agree with me??
he close a lot the may be f16, f22

steveB: Jill Greenbergs pictures are often retouched by Amy Dresser...so....her pictures isn't really hers since everyone loves the effect of the pictures...


gerry

steveB: Jill Greenbergs pictures are often retouched by Amy Dresser...so....her pictures isn't really hers since everyone loves the effect of the pictures...


gerry


Jill has a lot more control over her retouching than you think.

steveB: Jill Greenbergs pictures are often retouched by Amy Dresser...so....her pictures isn't really hers since everyone loves the effect of the pictures...


gerry

I'm sure that is very possible about Amy Dresser working on Jill's work. I first heard about Greenberg when I read and saw some of her images featured in an article in a digital photography magazine. I will review that article and for anyone interested in learning more about Greenberg's work, it appeared in Digital PhotoPro, Sep/Oct 2005 p 60-70. Doesn't seem to be any mention of Amy Dresser at that time, but now in 2007, who knows what she may be doing and hiring to do her post work. I do remember it said Jill still worked a lot with film cameras and then did the retouching herself with masking, D&B. Also in other interviews with Jill, she is asked questions about her post work and stylistic look

Whatever and who ever does the post work, it is quite interesting and now I may have to jump in and experiment with some of these techniques many of you have tried out

steve

KR: You are right in the control, but I feel that the retouching amy does on Jills picture are so good that the picture itself get's more in the background...Hard to explain in words, but when I see jill greeneberg pictures I see the effect more than the picture itself...


gerry

amys not her only retoucher, and she enhances that effect herself.

KR: r u sure? I've heard other things...everytime Jill greenberg is mentioned amy dresser is also mentioned, so I have drwan my own conclusion really...that she has retouched most of her work...but I haven't been 100% sure...are you?

Cheers for answering

Gerry

having worked on some stuff, i'm pretty sure.

she shoots a ton of stuff, so it is spread out.

that was a cool movie though, almost didn't make it through the 1st halfhour.....once i see freaks, and mutants and all kinds of nonsense i usually skip town!

KR: You are right in the control, but I feel that the retouching amy does on Jills picture are so good that the picture itself get's more in the background...Hard to explain in words, but when I see jill greeneberg pictures I see the effect more than the picture itself...


gerry

Superkoax, here is a link about Jill Greenberg's workflow and her photography and her retouching

http://www.digitalphotopro.com/art/the-look-of-greenberg.html

See what you think

steve

Hey =]
I think CMS is definatly correct =] and im no expert but from what i can see im pretty sure in one of his photos you could see the reflection of a Ring Flash in the guys glasses, this already makes the photo jump out and give a cool effect. Then in photoshop he would probably do alot of Painting with Light technique =] sort of like Jill Greenberg, she also uses Ring Flash. So yeh like CMS said he takes multiple shots and combines them to get an overall sharp image.

hope this helped a bit?

-Angelo

Although I am just a model, I do alot of Photoshop editing too see all of what I can create. I have tried my hands at the Dave Hill effect and would love to hear what you guys thing. This is an image (of myself) where I am dressed like a guy. Basically what I did with the image was this: The image was on an all white background, I cut myself out and placed me on this street/graffiti background. I adjusted the lighting a bit on myself and on the background and continued on with the dave hill effect. :-)

Sharene P
www.freewebs.com/sharenep

Hey =]
I think CMS is definatly correct =] and im no expert but from what i can see im pretty sure in one of his photos you could see the reflection of a Ring Flash in the guys glasses, this already makes the photo jump out and give a cool effect. Then in photoshop he would probably do alot of Painting with Light technique =] sort of like Jill Greenberg, she also uses Ring Flash. So yeh like CMS said he takes multiple shots and combines them to get an overall sharp image.

hope this helped a bit?

-Angelo

A photography student I know told me that Jill Greenberg was scheduled to give a talk and when Q&A was opened up from the students to Jill about her PS retouching and workflow, she was very vague about how she accomplishes her look. In interviews, she will just say, "I just use a lot of masking, painting and dodge and burn." Man, that answer really helps doesn't it?

But then again they still keep the top secret recipe for Coca-Cola locked up in a vault as well as McDada's "Secret Sauce." steve

Why must it be a secret recipe that everyone should be able to do if they just knew the ingredients?

I believe that dodge and burn requires an artist touch as normal painting would. Many of the good retocuhers has a artistic backgrounds ( greenberg, dresser, jeffery scrott, michael rosen etc ).

I have big troubles with the art of Doge and Burn =) I find it difficult knowing beforehand exactly where add or subtract to get a certain effect.

Not having a real style yet this is the look I am at now, using a lot of lights when shooting.

http://www.pellepiano.com/studiobild/images/imagef6.jpg

Why must it be a secret recipe that everyone should be able to do if they just knew the ingredients?

I believe that dodge and burn requires an artist touch as normal painting would. Many of the good retocuhers has a artistic backgrounds ( greenberg, dresser, jeffery scrott, michael rosen etc ).

I have big troubles with the art of Doge and Burn =) I find it difficult knowing beforehand exactly where add or subtract to get a certain effect.

Not having a real style yet this is the look I am at now, using a lot of lights when shooting.

http://www.pellepiano.com/studiobild/images/imagef6.jpg

I've dabbled trying to learn and understand the D&B technique, but I could never really catch on how to master it. If there was a DVD available showing step by step demo on this style, maybe I could see how it's done in real time. I think there are some links here somewhere on the D&B tutorial and it is a good thing to know about

Unfortunately there is a bit of secrecy in the trade, but there are also a ton of resources available out there to pick up a lot of tricks and techniques. I still think Katrin's books are some of the best material to get started in pro retouching. Any secrecy is what to sift through to get on the right path in the least amount of time, haha, just kiddin' though.

BTW, this forum is a bit of a "secret" from the general community and even I found it by sure accident, but I'm glad I did, because it's like an online school and free scholarships access. steve

thats why we use lighting to reduce or increase dynamic range

my attempt at dave hill

brafla6: it looks like you have taken my retouch and altered it...it looks blown out in the forehead area...

gerry

I thought I had taken the "original" i apologize!

here is a link to a very close to Dave hill by our very own rp.com member...

http://www.retouchpro.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=4813


Gerry

Nice Picture.... and he lives 10 min away from me*g*

lg Calvin

Here is a photographer who is right up there with the dave hill look: Click portfolio and then next till you get to pic #9.

http://www.taylorchristianjones.com/

Here is a photographer who is right up there with the dave hill look: Click portfolio and then next till you get to pic #9.

http://www.taylorchristianjones.com/

On thing I noticed about some of the work on this site was many of the subjects are posed dead center which doesn't use the rule of thirds principal. If that is the guy's style and look then that's the way it is, but I like to see more variation of composition. Some of the images are ok, as far as subject placement

Now I am seeing more and more references to the Dave Hill and Jill Greenburg look, but that style has been copied so many times, it is loosing its uniqueness, for me anyway. I would rather see a new direction of originality in photographer's work. Now they have actions you can buy to just push a button and get the "Jill Greenburg instant look."

See, it's like being an original songwriter. You play your song for someone and they say, "oh, that's sound almost like the Beatle's "Dear Prudence" or something similar or hey, sounds just like Madonna."

It's ok to be an imitator in the beginning, but after many experiments and hard work to establish a unique look, it would be good to be an innovator as well

These concepts and styles are interesting as long as 10,000 new shooters don't keep copying it. JMHO

@Steve

You cant tell me 5 people who can do pictures like Fiscus, Dave Hill or Jill.

So many try that... but only a very few can do it.
That makes the style special, cause its not easy.

lg Calvin

Clients most often wants a style they can relate to, be it a George Hurrell hollywood glamour shot or a Dave Hill style jeans ad.

Learning different styles, lightingwise or retouchwise is good for business. And copying a certain style is what this thread is all about.

If a Greenberg action exist and works, I would buy it in notime.

@Steve

You cant tell me 5 people who can do pictures like Fiscus, Dave Hill or Jill.

So many try that... but only a very few can do it.
That makes the style special, cause its not easy.

lg Calvin

No, don't get me wrong, I enjoy the Jill Greenburg style. I hadn't seen anything like it until I read an article about her workflow in a photo magazine. When you see an image by JG, you can be assured she did it. Wish I had thought it up, haha and cashed in the chips

The point I am making is that it's fine to learn and experiment and copy things. I do it myself to learn. But they have a formula that works for them and may or may not work for everyone. Many photographers go out and shoot their subject and try to make it look like Jill Greenburg in Photoshop and then get disappointed because it just doesn't match what they do. And yes, there are actions and plug-ins that are available online to imitate some of these effects, anything is possible. That's why she is so vague about her techniques at student lectures, it's her personal style. But also, she is using digital med format and sometimes scanned film with a ring light and shooting at various focus points for sharpness and then masking it all together for a near perfect image directly from the camera, then the PS post work.

But I am certainly seeing more and more attempted JG clones in magazines, because that's what is in at the moment. In a few months, something else will catch on and another hot thing will surface and we'll all be asking how are they doing it? It;s like what's hot now, what's selling, I'll copy it and cash in. That may happen, it may not

JMHO, neither right, nor wrong

I don't know if anyone here reads the strobist blog but there is a good post about a photographer/retoucher named Joey Lawrence who seems to be doing pretty well for a 17 yr old and has the Dave Hill style down pretty good.
There is a link to his site on which he is selling a DVD describing his workflow and techniques. Here is the strobist link
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/10/young-blood-chat-with-photographer-joey.html

What I don't get is that most people refer to it as the Dave Hill or Jill Greenberg look. Maybe its been done before but not in such a mainstream environment. I believe that any attempt made will be instantly labeled "resembling Dave Hill effect/style". What exactly constitutes a picture being of the "Dave Hill style". Everyone sees a photo differently, therefore we could have 100 people doing the same effect and not notice.

Speaking of dave hill, he just put a bunch of new images and behind the scenes videos on his site, some of them give a closer look into his workflow...

Dave Hill is a true master of retouching. Question is, are we in need of several Hills? No we are not. We all should find our own style to make photos. There can be only one Dave Hill. His skills are over the top.

www.pakkotoisto.com/mike

Mtmm

I dont get it. As a photographer you learn to light the subjects in a variety of styles. It may be classic hollywood lighting a la George Hurrell, Playboy lighting. Why should it not be the same for retouching.Learning differrent styles.

When someone does something unique that gets popular, it will be become a style or genre and used by many others, exactly like some great innovators in music. It makes things go forward, as many people will add to what they learn,

The purpose of this thread is to get the grips on a certain style ( like you obviously have gone thru yourself, with good results ).

Learning about styles is most often the start of something, not the end.

I mean that direct copying isn´t so cool anymore. Like in music, Hill is an artist and he has an unique style. Copying that style is like ripping off music. We cannot compare lightning setup to retouch workflow. Light goes from point A to point B and is stricly fysics. You cannot light the subject by so many different ways than you can edit photo in photoshop. But in the end, if person is inspired by Hill´s work(I definitely am), it is a positive thing.

That look is not that popular over here - looks too over the top at the moment. With the exception of movie posters. I also think its unfair to credit Dave Hill with having invented or really pioneered that look, I've seem similar things done for years. I think its a good shtick to have though, and very often its beautifully done by his studio, but sometimes a little too mechanical. I think it really starts a long way back here (http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/1998/close/)

Here's my try at it, just a mixture of D&B, desaturation, Curves, and luminosity blending.

http://www.pbase.com/gmonkeh/image/87579940.jpg

Hi guys,im looking for more than 3 weeks to achive something similar to the Dave look,im not intrest to folow his exact model of retoching ,butin the time ofthe digital photography i think evrebody need to see somethink new and fresh,here is my try
original image
http://www.flickr.com/photos/menandar/1589663445/
affter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/menandar/1590405566/

Hi guys,im looking for more than 3 weeks to achive something similar to the Dave look,im not intrest to folow his exact model of retoching ,butin the time ofthe digital photography i think evrebody need to see somethink new and fresh,here is my try
original image
http://www.flickr.com/photos/menandar/1589663445/
affter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/menandar/1590405566/

Sweet. Can u tell us a bit more abour your PS work?

It is VERY bad , but this is my very first try. Me (far right) with my friends. Starting picture is not so good (Ixus) so .... be gentle : )

5 minutes job, HDR with lucis, but with more , more and more work it can be close

obosila, thanks.
What i've done with the picture was,two HDR conversions,one normal conversion from raw ,and i blended them ,after that i applied some blur to get rid of some overexagerated details like dark places on her skin or some noise as well,because the model couldnt prepare well for the shot,and after that i copied the same layer with the surface blur and apply to it high pas filter,and to the end some dodge and burn ,i didnt have time to apply any cosmetic corrections .
But i'm realising the importance of the output image,i apply the same method to other picture but with different lighting ant background and the result isn't that good.First you need to get good HDR details,but for this you need to control very well your lighting,thats my opinion (any way this picture was't with good lighting) ;)

lxgalang, can you explain how to do luminosity blending?

I love Dave Hills Pictures

here my first try

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1716544386&context=datetaken&size=o

:-)
manuela

Looks like good old PWL to me.

http://retouchpro.com/tutorials/index.php?m=show&id=249 (#4 on a Google search, BTW)

http://photoshoptechniques.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22768&highlight=painting+light

http://www.my-photoshop.com/bydesign/painting-light/paint-light.html

And others.

Some good examples posted here!!! well done!:)

Anyway - i have made a dave hill PS action - you can download it here: LINKY (http://james.padolsey.com/blog1/wordpress/?p=1)

hey the site of dave is been filled with new stuff, now the retouch is more heavy, photos become almost cartoon style what yours...

padiQ: your action isn't very helpful here...The action gives only a global change with sharpening and some other enhancements...but it's not close to the overall effect DH gives...the highlights are uncontrolled, but the highlights in th dave hill photo's are controlled...Would work more on the dodge side of your tutorials instead of using adjustment layers all the time...

That action is not even close. I can get a lot closer without it. I would even go as far as saying that is one of the worst actions I've ever seen.

@hexi: i like your method, please comment on how you achieved that result

That action is not even close. I can get a lot closer without it. I would even go as far as saying that is one of the worst actions I've ever seen.

I get what you mean... But its useful for learning purposes.

I can get further without the action too. But the fact is, because of the vast potential differences between photos its impossible to make an action which could even come close to an emulation of Dave Hill...

So basically... Yes i know. But its still good for people who want to know how certain things are acheived in Photoshop.

IMHO its more productive than just listing out a why of doing it cos that way will change constantly depending on the image.... the action was created in an attempt to generically offer a 'solution' as opposed to getting it SPOT ON... which it seems, is all you are interested in.

TO be honest... about Dave Hill... His photos look asesome. But i bet they looked awesome before he post-produced them. Its all down to execution - plus all that lighting to bring out the highlights!!

here my first try

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1716544386&context=datetaken&size=o

:-)
manuela

it's close , but the highlights on the face are too strong. I like the hair and the texture of the cloth. The ray of light doesn't fall right on the person, but I like the mood. U should rethink the lightning, especially on the face.


I honestly think that to achieve the look one must work on a high res. , very well lighted photo. :)

here is my attempt, only spent 20mins so its just rough:

http://flickr.com/photos/chris_kenny/1715421031/

I get what you mean... But its useful for learning purposes.

I can get further without the action too. But the fact is, because of the vast potential differences between photos its impossible to make an action which could even come close to an emulation of Dave Hill...

So basically... Yes i know. But its still good for people who want to know how certain things are acheived in Photoshop.

IMHO its more productive than just listing out a why of doing it cos that way will change constantly depending on the image.... the action was created in an attempt to generically offer a 'solution' as opposed to getting it SPOT ON... which it seems, is all you are interested in.

TO be honest... about Dave Hill... His photos look asesome. But i bet they looked awesome before he post-produced them. Its all down to execution - plus all that lighting to bring out the highlights!!

Actually I am not all that interested about acheiving the actual Dave Hill look. I do however feel that there is alot of other cool things that could come from knowing a little about his workflow. I have said it many times that his pictures are superb from the get-go and I believe little pp is done. I am more of a fan of the picks found over at studiobild or joeyl. THere is another photo-artist I know of whose work is awesome but its an adult oriented site and I am unsure of the rules here so I won't post a link.

i wanted to have a go on the original image in this thread but it's no longer available so i tried on this one :)

Here is my try :
I've uploaded it on my retouch profile , in a interactive flash so u can see the original too. http://nimfabeberetouch.deviantart.com/art/CG-style-68429734

I'm aiming for the CG look. Please tell me what I could improve. Comments and critique very welcome.

Heres something I did in 10 minute with a small jpeg from a Catalogue shoot today.
Not sure if you think it looks Dave Hillish, But similar.
A little time spent and the technique is not hard at all. In my opinion.
Ignore all the Stamps on the image and wings, I was showing a client some brushes I had....:+}
Snook
http://homepage.mac.com/ekphotography/DH2/images/Francisco%20Arg%20copy.jpg

i yet dont have the heart to move on adding in a background, but this is my first picture that came out pleasing my own standards :)

feedback...anyone? :)

(ps: i'm not doing this to become a copycat. i'm doing this to one day mastering this field. and copying and understanding always gets one ahead pretty good)

subx: hmmm...looks good, the skin is a bit flat...no good details of skin there...if you get that and some small color adjustments this is going somewhere...by not using background you get good results as well...remember if adding background let it be IN FOCUS...

any chance to see the original as well

subxaero ... this I really like. The soft illustration look. Looks really great in my eyes. If you get consistent results like that its a great technique , whatever you did.

subx: hmmm...looks good, the skin is a bit flat...no good details of skin there...if you get that and some small color adjustments this is going somewhere...by not using background you get good results as well...remember if adding background let it be IN FOCUS...

any chance to see the original as well

sure. has been my first ever light setup (i only got my 400d few weeks ago), so i'm pretty much a n00b on this...and well...there were no skin details just a lot of mush ;)

subxaero ... this I really like. The soft illustration look. Looks really great in my eyes. If you get consistent results like that its a great technique , whatever you did.

it's my second try to combine a few techniques me and a friend of mine came across the last weeks. and this second try now is a huge step for me.
(just for the record: took me about 3-4 hours plain retouching)

@ subxaero

nice painting :P
study some anatomy first because the shadows on the neck are invented by u :) if there wasn't any skin detail, it doesn't mean u can't add it. There are some errors on the hand and face too, the way u placed light. And don't exagerate painting over the photo, especially if u are not sure of what to add and remove. This technique requires a real painter's view, something like Amy Dresser has in retouch. :) Just my opinion. Hope it helps u . :)

@ subxaero

nice painting :P
study some anatomy first because the shadows on the neck are invented by u :) if there wasn't any skin detail, it doesn't mean u can't add it. There are some errors on the hand and face too, the way u placed light. And don't exagerate painting over the photo, especially if u are not sure of what to add and remove. This technique requires a real painter's view, something like Amy Dresser has in retouch. :) Just my opinion. Hope it helps u . :)

i'm jsut a starter so i'm glad for any opinion and advice.

so how do i enhance detail in the skin (the basic texture is really just mush. no way to recover). and what errors are there exactly (i know about the jaw bone tho).

and that do you mean with the exegerated over-painting?

cheers!

ps_ i just discovered that youre the one that posted the different retouch-styles. could you maybe give some hints how you d&b those, cause on devart you just post the pictures. i esp like the purple dress one...well i know it's always some kind of secret, but i just helped some random peep that pmd me ;) btw - nice composings on y0ur other devid

From a tutorial I picked up somewhere. I made this into an action with stops.

It sometimes works out pretty good:

Make sure the levels and color are fixed on the original before you start.

Duplicate the layer on the LAYER pallette
Go to FILTER - OTHER - HIGH PASS type 4.0 for RADIUS
on the LAYERS pallette choose vivid light for the blending mode
Now flatten the image.
step1


Second Step
Duplicate the layer on the LAYER pallette
Go to FILTER - OTHER - HIGH PASS type 6.9 for RADIUS
on the LAYERS pallette choose color for the blending mode
Set opacity to 40%
Now flatten the image.
step2


For this step you need to do the following
DUPLICATE LAYER on layer pallette
FILTER - BLUR - GAUSSIAN BLUR 9.4 pixels
FILTER - NOISE - ADD NOISE 3%
from the top menu select LAYER - ADD LAYER MASK - HIDE ALL
using the lasso tool select only the eyes and choose SELECT - FEATHER about 6pixels
Choose SELECT - INVERSE
now use the brush on the tool pallette and set the brush opacity to 30% - brush over the entire image
Now FLATTEN the image
step3


the final step is to sharpen the image.

Go to FILTER - SHARPEN - UNSHARP MASK

use the following settings:
AMOUNT 100%
RADIUS 30.0 pixels
THRESHOLD 0
step4

Most of the look is due to the multiple lights used to create highlights. To get that Shiny skin apply lotion on the person before taking the picture.

edit: This tutorial is for High Resolution images. If you are working on a low res photo you'll have to decrease the suggested amount on most of the steps.

@ subxaero
I'm glad u liked my works , but I always try to explain that there is not secret. I dodge and burn just like everyone else does. The difference is I'm an art student, I know anatomy, painting , drawing and that helps me alot in retouch.
I've attached a file with writing so u can see what I mean.


U should check her out. She is one of the best and u can see what I'm talking about with adding texture and detail ( even if there isn't originally in the photo ) . http://www.amydresser.com/retouch.html

NimfabebeAida, love what you have done in the retouched photo with the CG 300 look. what are the main tools you used? any tips for a beginner???

@ ProjectLam
Hi!
I'm really glad u liked that style. :)
As I always say , there is no secret. I use the dodge and burn technique. In the forum you can find great tutorials. I've learned cool tips from there. I started working in PS two years ago, inspired by pop art and I did artworks using brushes and my friend's photos. ^^ Check the first link from my signature( my photomanipulation profile) ,there are my artworks posted cronologically . Browse for the last ones and see from where I started. As u will see photomanipulations are a good practice.
So my advice would be to experiment and search for tutorials, especially the ones that have video so u understand the program better. :)
Have fun in the Photoshop world ! :)

thanks for the info. i guess my specific question is how did you get that skintone color on the model in the pic? i do see a hint of desaturation, but the skintone is changed drastically to become extreme smooth w/ that change of color? (referring specifically to the CG 300 photo)...

@thumbslinger:yeah seems like you read one of the same tutorials as i did...only that i forgot all the specific stuff like step 3. have to try this again tho! :)

@Nimfabebe: thanks for your effort on this. and yeah i truely do need practice on anatomy (i had nude drawing in my studies too. practice practice practice) and montages. cheers! :)

ps: is there a place for a tutorial, where i can learn how to alter the shape of the anatomy of a person, without destroying the texture and the general natural noise of the image (smudging really cripples any image and stamping is kinda redundant for the creation of "new" bodyparts)...

here's my attempt. not perfect but just my first try.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2232/1813468876_8a1d4a7545_o.jpg
and the original
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2110/1812517037_51793ec5bb_o.jpg

Hey guys, my first post on the site and it may come across as a controversial post. Ive been in the photography business now for a few years, looking, listening and learning.

I could probably 100% say that the Dave Hill style is most likely down to his ability with studio lights. If you look at his work, he lights the subject and dials down the backgrounds. He probably lights every subject individually to prevent light fall off.

It does look like HDR in many cases but lighting your subject correctly is basically what we try to achieve with HDR in the first place.

Sure you can get close with Lucis and Photomatix but without control over the lighting, your never going to nail it like Dave Hill and the like.

Gav

hey everyone... i think i might be getting close. what do you think?

http://www.lilephotos.com/album_photos/Wow/_MG_5452-Edit.jpg

and

http://www.lilephotos.com/album_photos/Wow/_MG_5443-Edit.jpg

very cool! what kind of methods are you using?

very cool! what kind of methods are you using?

1. open in photoshop and create a duplicate layer.
2. on the copied layer, run "NeatImage" plugin to smooth out the skin.
3. then run "LucisArts" plugin and use the "sculpture" effect.
4. turn the opacity of the top layer down until i get a good balance between the "cartoon" look and the "real" look :)

I must say though... everyone keeps saying that the lighting is what it's all about and that is definitely true. I've tried the same technique on numerous photos and some of them turn out horrible. i think the only reason that the ones that i did of the people in the pool turned out ok is because i was getting some extra lighting bouncing off of the water in the pool.

i agree. the lighting certainly does make a big difference. i can't imagine the same effect on a photo that's not well lit. thanks for the tips, i've been trying it forever. even the tutorial on flickr from the strobist group didn't work well for me...

my try at it, but not perfect. it's ok, i'm always trying to improve..

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2329/1840643504_17c34bc612_o.jpg

here's another one i did... i think this one turned out pretty good too. what do you think?

http://www.lilephotos.com/album_photos/Wow/_MG_5427-Edit.jpg

it's awesome. the only difference is dave hill has light foregrounds on darker backgrounds, but that's just how he sets up the shoots...

lucis art isn't close...if you compare the dave hill effect and the lucis art effect...it's fragments of similarities, but the dave hill effect is much, much,much cleaner...

lucis art isn't close...if you compare the dave hill effect and the lucis art effect...it's fragments of similarities, but the dave hill effect is much, much,much cleaner...

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

Hi guys ,there is some good examples here,yesterday i went out and i have tryed on one of the photos i took
http://www.flickr.com/photos/menandar/1847078571/

Belive me my friends..... its more than just LucisArt or HDR.

You have to paint with light.... dodge and burn.

lg Calvin

I dont like to say its the Dave Hill Look.... its just a Look that will be the Result of dodge and burn
51945

calvinize? hehe...nice on....your style is getting there,man! Marclile: Don't even think he works with lucis art! give me the video where you heard it and I'll believe you!


Gerry

calvinize? hehe...nice on....your style is getting there,man! Marclile: Don't even think he works with lucis art! give me the video where you heard it and I'll believe you!

Gerry

here is the video... granted the guy might just be joking but he definitely says it. it's toward the end if i remember right. right before the guy that jumps with the balloons and popcorn.

http://www.davehillphoto.com/behind_the_scenes/nationwide.mov

lucis art isn't close...if you compare the dave hill effect and the lucis art effect...it's fragments of similarities, but the dave hill effect is much, much,much cleaner...

Exactly.
That Lucis stuff isnt even close.


Here is my latest work... its not all that Hill-esque, IMO, but some people have said it is.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2393/1797462656_9d1816cf8d.jpg


______________
iHartPhotos.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/1colin/

Prizo: care to share high res of the pictures you posted? I think everyone can benefit to work on these...the feel is awesome, but the technique could be better...but this is what people should get to know and work with if they want to feel the dave hill effect...

I beer is sent trough mind control to your fridge! maybe it's there!

Cheers


gerry

prizo: I think the main light you used high camera left presents a problem. It seems it needs to be closer and larger, to eliminate shadows.

Dave Hill uses a huuuuuge brollybox or octobox lookin thing, and often a hard hair light... Not to forget the ringflash.

I mean good start trying to get the wrap-around lighting, but your main light needs correction.

Hi Folks,

Great thread!

Last year we were shooting some Green Screen shots for commercial use. Here is a candid I snapped in between the actual shots. I played around with it a few months ago not really trying to look like Dave Hill, but experimenting with the D&Bing and using contrast and sharpening. Just my little contribution to the conversation.

From what I can tell by studying DH's work...it really is in the lighting and the post work is only used to accentuate and 'edge up' the lighting.

So this photo will look flat when compared to Hill's. But I think he uses some of the same techniques. Or maybe not :happy:

Damien

Link to larger Version (http://www.digitalsistere.com/myDHtry.jpg)

looks like she has some very demonic and scary 'bout to burst out of her stomache!

Hi Folks,

Great thread!

Last year we were shooting some Green Screen shots for commercial use. Here is a candid I snapped in between the actual shots. I played around with it a few months ago not really trying to look like Dave Hill, but experimenting with the D&Bing and using contrast and sharpening. Just my little contribution to the conversation.

From what I can tell by studying DH's work...it really is in the lighting and the post work is only used to accentuate and 'edge up' the lighting.

So this photo will look flat when compared to Hill's. But I think he uses some of the same techniques. Or maybe not :happy:

Damien

Link to larger Version (http://www.digitalsistere.com/myDHtry.jpg)

that's actually very good. i like it. i don't think it looks flat at all. looks a lot closer to Hill's than some others i've seen. can you go into any detail about the techniques that you used?

looks like she has some very demonic and scary 'bout to burst out of her stomache!

:D LOL!!

Indeed she does!

I guess I should have stated that since this was a candid shot, I didn't get around to doing any major retouches like stomach bulges...lol

Seriously, this girl has a killer figure...I guess she was exhaling (Hence the hair blowing) mixed with bad posture; I don't know. But you should see some of her combat sports ads we've done; great figure.

Damien
http://www.digitalsistere.com

i know it was just a messing around file/shot, i was just joking!

i think we are wrong about dave hill, he almost adds to half of his backgrounds...watch the videos...especially the band flying through the air. If he is doing all of this background work, why wouldn't he be doing anything else? Also like a previous poster said, in one of his videos he joked about all you need is a lucisart filter. He is good, don't get me wrong, but he is doing post. lets just accept it, and drive on.

aj

here is my submission. all i did here entirely was dodge and burn. then added an unsharp mask filter after all that was complete.

stock: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/316755

Hi Guys...im really new at this retouch-production but i try to get this effekt in some pictures, idk if ya guys like it or not....

greetz RedRum

Very nice images from both of you ( plasticjack and RedRum ). Different methods but both are very enjoyable.

this thread has coem a loooong way now! I must admit I'm impressed with all of the submissions here...Every picture looks different and all with different techniques...on the way here I have learned a great deal!

Thanks to all!

one more before and after. more dodge and burn/unsharp mask with luminosity. hill may possibly use lucisart as a reference for dodging and burning but i would highly doubt, in fact i would say with almost 100% certainty that he doesn't even bother with it. one thing for sure is that when using lucis art your photos get extremely grainy. i personally find it one of the more useless filters out there. especially when you can get far superior results just dodging and burning. Another key aspect is working with 16-bit images and not 8-bit images pulled off of the web. The difference is astounding. Far greater tonal depth and gradations which is essential for pulling this surreal style off.

EDIT: Added a toned down version of the latter.

this thread has coem a loooong way now! I must admit I'm impressed with all of the submissions here...Every picture looks different and all with different techniques...on the way here I have learned a great deal!

Thanks to all!

agreed... thank you to everyone. i've learned a lot from this post :)

I did an image using the things I've learned in this thread. I'm no photographer so don't have the skills or equipment to have a good starting image so I'm more stuck starting with point and shoot snapshots. This is what I was able to get for a first try. any feedback is welcomed.

i actually like redrums... what did you do to achieve those results? here's my latest... not necessarily too cartoon-like... also, flickr took out a lot of the color. my final retouched photo has a bit more color to her skin...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2080/1957343621_0241bc169e_o.jpg

original:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2187/1958130064_70bb1d7fba_o.jpg

Again:
I AM NOT TRYING TO COPY DAVE HILL

But he, amongst others, does influence me. Here is one of my latest.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2055/1976541154_3509edbd18.jpg


I know not everyone here has lights so if there is any interest I may post a large outtake from this session.

i'm a little late to the game, but here's my attempt:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45178172@N00/1978191645/

I know not everyone here has lights so if there is any interest I may post a large outtake from this session.

Would be nice to see.

Greets learza

PRIZO: I know what you mean with the copying, I can also so you are influenced by his comic feel around his pictures! I really like yours! I would be very happy if you would share!

Thanks for being here to let us all be inspired!

Again:
I AM NOT TRYING TO COPY DAVE HILL

But he, amongst others, does influence me. Here is one of my latest.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2055/1976541154_3509edbd18.jpg


I know not everyone here has lights so if there is any interest I may post a large outtake from this session.


Yes, please post whatever you are comfortable with; lights, set-up, post...

Much Appreciated
Damien

Ok... see this thread for an untouched pic from that session.

http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/photo-retouching/19559-ok-here-untouched-shot-mine.html

Lighting + Post Processing.


http://www.g2foto.com/sample/g2_marcelo.jpg

Looks very good xfx. How did you do it? Even after reading this thread I`m still not sure how you guys do it....

I answer for xfx, he say to me: Lighting and Color contrast thru curves, selective coloring. (Post processing meaning editing in photoshop...color correction, unsharpmask...etc.)

I have it :-)

@xfx; can you push the original Picture online to show the difference? I will like to test with your original image my knowledge. So I can see what are the differences


Sorry for my bad english :-)

Thought you guys might find these few comments in Dave Hills new blog quite funny and interesting;

http://photographyisrad.com/2007/10/13/new-website-updates-and-new-blog.aspx#comment-611670

Thought you guys might find these few comments in Dave Hills new blog quite funny and interesting;

http://photographyisrad.com/2007/10/13/new-website-updates-and-new-blog.aspx#comment-611670

Does Lucis Art shoot the pictures as well? :) Implying that Lucis art is all one needs for this kind of images is the same as saying that one only needs a plane to be able to fly.

Thought you guys might find these few comments in Dave Hills new blog quite funny and interesting;

http://photographyisrad.com/2007/10/13/new-website-updates-and-new-blog.aspx#comment-611670

Yikes!

We he being serious or was that a bit of sarcasm? IF he was serious...that's gonna bite a lot of photogs and retouchers right on the a**.

Damien

what i just noticed is that he has shown lotsa pics from his holidays on coney island and all of them are slightly retouched and you WILL NOT tell me that he sat down and put so much effort into pics that will just be seen by some nerds on his blog ;)

agreed. personally, it doesn't matter. lucis art is a fine plugin and it doesn't take anything away from the beauty he creates.

Thought you guys might find these few comments in Dave Hills new blog quite funny and interesting

enigmaphotos (Dean?), thanks for the heads-up!

In other news, I followed your sig link for the "Lucis Arts 'Whyeth tutorial'" and have a few thoughts:

1) The proper name of the plug-in is "LucisArt (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/lucisart.html)". It's tricky, I know; I kept spelling it wrong too. It's one (composite) word, unlike their Lucis Pro (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/lucispro.html) (two words!).

2) You came up with some good techniques for emulating •a• LucisArt effect. I say "a" because LucisArt is capable of an entire range of effects, from the Dave Hill look to others that are entirely different and unrelated–from the wildly artistic to straightforward enhancement of medical and forensic images. It is more than "a simple filter".

3) Your tutorial technique for that particular effect can be good if the user has the time, inclination and patience to manually work through the steps. Otherwise in LucisArt you click a button and are done fast (see a screenshot of my own usage to achieve this particular effect here (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/ezine.html) in issue #10, as well as other issues).

4) The price is a bit steep, but discounts are available for those who don't already have it (see above links). And yes, I bought my copy ;-).

5) This is nit-picky, but if you reduce the font size of your web tutorials, they will be easier to read. Image size is great though, better than most!

Thanks again!

enigmaphotos (Dean?), thanks for the heads-up!

In other news, I followed your sig link for the "Lucis Arts 'Whyeth tutorial'" and have a few thoughts:

1) The proper name of the plug-in is "LucisArt (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/lucisart.html)". It's tricky, I know; I kept spelling it wrong too. It's one (composite) word, unlike their Lucis Pro (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/lucispro.html) (two words!).

2) You came up with some good techniques for emulating •a• LucisArt effect. I say "a" because LucisArt is capable of an entire range of effects, from the Dave Hill look to others that are entirely different and unrelated–from the wildly artistic to straightforward enhancement of medical and forensic images. It is more than "a simple filter".

3) Your tutorial technique for that particular effect can be good if the user has the time, inclination and patience to manually work through the steps. Otherwise in LucisArt you click a button and are done fast (see a screenshot of my own usage to achieve this particular effect here (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/ezine.html) in issue #10, as well as other issues).

4) The price is a bit steep, but discounts are available for those who don't already have it (see above links). And yes, I bought my copy ;-).

5) This is nit-picky, but if you reduce the font size of your web tutorials, they will be easier to read. Image size is great though, better than most!

Thanks again!

Yeah.. it's me Dean. Cheers for the feedback. I think I do mention that it's the Whyeth filter I'm concentrating on. I'll definitely take the other stuff them into account and update the tutorials.

I'm pretty sure he was joking.

I'm pretty sure he was joking.

hehe...I think more and more of in the direction of "maybe" he is joking...COuple of months back I would say yes he is, but now I'm not sure...Maybe he generates HDR of his pictures and then uses LUCISART as a final effect???

Anyone with LUCISART care to try?

hehe...I think more and more of in the direction of "maybe" he is joking...COuple of months back I would say yes he is, but now I'm not sure...Maybe he generates HDR of his pictures and then uses LUCISART as a final effect???

Anyone with LUCISART care to try?

well i think lucis gets pretty close.

if you take a pro shot, play with it, run lucisart seperatly for cloth, skin and background and then play again (especially with manual coloring, d&b and stuff), you really can get pretty close.

(despaite the fact that if you run ANY crappy image in lucis, the preview already gets kinda hill'ish)

I do not think he was joking. Keep in mind that his photos look pretty unreal from the moment he shoots due tot the lighting he uses( many,many lights). The original photo and lighting is pretty important. I think he uses lucisart as a basic step in creating the effect. There is a group on flickr called lucisart and some people got close to the dave hill effect by using it. Some of them even got the effect to look more unrealistic like this one I found http://www.flickr.com/photos/pizzo/529342377/
Pretty cool, eh?

this one's quite nice: http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/videos/download.php?file=lightroom_creative_edgy.mp4

(works only with special good lighted images, but gets a nice selective contrasting in the ways of mr hill)

yes, it goes also in Photoshop RAW properties.

Here is my atempt. :square:

Heres the link to a big one.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2401/2054736532_0b5f9b37e3_b.jpg

well i think lucis gets pretty close.

if you take a pro shot, play with it, run lucisart seperatly for cloth, skin and background and then play again (especially with manual coloring, d&b and stuff), you really can get pretty close.

(despaite the fact that if you run ANY crappy image in lucis, the preview already gets kinda hill'ish)

I wish I have LUCISART, but sadly I don't have it! That's why I can't experiment with this nice plugin!

I do not think he was joking. Keep in mind that his photos look pretty unreal from the moment he shoots due tot the lighting he uses( many,many lights). The original photo and lighting is pretty important. I think he uses lucisart as a basic step in creating the effect. There is a group on flickr called lucisart and some people got close to the dave hill effect by using it. Some of them even got the effect to look more unrealistic like this one I found http://www.flickr.com/photos/pizzo/529342377/
Pretty cool, eh?I agree to that! Maybe he uses LUCISART...I have seen picture from semipro's and amateurs that look very "HILLISH" and I have been more and more convinced the last couple of months...So maybe he uses this! I would love to see how it looks like combined with a hdr/tonemapped picture...then maybe he's style surface :D :D :D :D :D

Here is my atempt. :square:

Heres the link to a big one.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2401/2054736532_0b5f9b37e3_b.jpg

GOdt jobbet! Nice work! Didi you do this with LUCISART?

Here is my atempt. :square:

Heres the link to a big one.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2401/2054736532_0b5f9b37e3_b.jpg

I also think you did a great job! Can you please tell us how you did this by detail and if you used Lucisart, how did you use it and how many times. I tried applying Lucisart and indeed it gives the hill look if you have the right photo but still the details look real bad to me.

Here is my atempt. :square:

Heres the link to a big one.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2401/2054736532_0b5f9b37e3_b.jpg

hey impressive :happy: and the style of light is not so close the light of Hill... Tell us, tell us :)

try working with Shadow/highlights plugin...It gives nice results on good lighted portraits...

Does anyone know what basis or inspiration they made LUCISART from? Is it S/H? Maybe to learn S/H gives you more control...I've seen that the Lucisart layout is based on preset buttons and a fader? That's not control in my eyes...maybe I'm wrong...

...maybe I'm wrong...
you're not.

control is something lucis missed implementing ;)

It takes a lot of work but you can use Lucis.. Lucis really is harsh on skin gradients and shadows and highlights on the face or Skin area.
I usually run it a couple times and mixing a Noise reduction inbetween to smooth the skin a little. actually before I run Lucis also...
Then you have to rework the skin a little as lucis roughs it up too much for my work.
Do not know how to post images here but here is one done really quick:
http://homepage.mac.com/ekphotography/DH2/images/Francisco%20Arg%20copy.jpg
Snook

Here is my atempt. :square:

Heres the link to a big one.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2401/2054736532_0b5f9b37e3_b.jpg
You really don`t want to tell us how you did it?

I can post the workflow monday, tuesday. With an example picture.

I did not use lucis art.

I can post the workflow monday, tuesday. With an example picture.

I did not use lucis art.
Thanks!!
Looking so forward to read :D Feed our brains! We have been trying to crack the code for ages :tongue:

Does anyone know what basis or inspiration they made LUCISART from? Is it S/H? Maybe to learn S/H gives you more control...I've seen that the Lucisart layout is based on preset buttons and a fader? That's not control in my eyes...maybe I'm wrong...

superkoax, here is more info about the inner workings of LucisArt (http://plugsandpixels.com/lucisart.html) from their website: "[LucisArt is] ...based on a revolutionary, patented image-processing algorithm called Differential Hysteresis Processing or DHP.