The demystification of dave hill! let's all help!

[transoptic]

Originally Posted by Mtmm

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

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


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

[Mtmm]

Originally Posted by transoptic

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


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

Does recycle time ring a bell? Try to set up 3-6 lights with full power outside and then take several shots at different exposure without model moving. Mkay, I wanna see that. Somebody here does not know basic fysics.

[transoptic]

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

[Mtmm]

Originally Posted by transoptic

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

Isn´t that pretty clear that if you want to take a good portrait, you´ll need a good lighting? And even without lights(recycle times), sharp HDR is very tricky to do with a moving subject.

[transoptic]

What's pretty clear is that

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

[Mtmm]

Originally Posted by transoptic

What's pretty clear is that

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

a) So you are telling me that if one is about to make a HDR shot, he/she has got to change his/her whole lighting system to continuous light? Very realistic scenario. Hands up who is using continuous light?
b) You are talking about true HDR, not tone mapping.
c) Did I say anything like that? No, so please cry me a river, you are being stupid here.

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

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/4...8e1a15aa_b.jpg

[xfx]

Skin tone example:

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

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

BG example:

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

[Mtmm]

Excellent BG and skin tone.

[superkoax]

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

[superkoax]

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

[transoptic]

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

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

Now who's being stupid?

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

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

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

[Mtmm]

Originally Posted by transoptic

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

Now who's being stupid?

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

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

[Mtmm]

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

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

[transoptic]

"Owned?"

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

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


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

[Mtmm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[xfx]

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

Mtmm:
Thanks for appreciating.

[transoptic]

Learn to read.

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

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



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

[CJ Swartz]

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

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

[zogdart]

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

so how can we get this effect...

[Gary Richardson]

Originally Posted by CJ Swartz

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

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

Thanks CJ.

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

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

[superkoax]

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

[xfx]

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

[Mtmm]

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

[domethiuos]

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

[snook305]

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

[Mtmm]

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

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

[superkoax]

Originally Posted by Mtmm

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

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

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

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

[Sistere]

Originally Posted by superkoax

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

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

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

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

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

Damien

[superkoax]

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

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

[Sistere]

Originally Posted by superkoax

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damien