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

[lehmannudo]

Hi,
I am a new member of this forum and comming from Germany so please excuse my bad english.

I am a fan of this "high contrast images" and i love the work from Dave Hill but also from Calvin Hollywood.

A few steps ago I fond realy nice original images which I can transorm in a "FineArt"


Udo

[mrbeagle]

can't believe it's been going on for so long and no one's come close

[pixelzombie]

none of us will probably have the lights that DH uses and most of us don't own the Lucisart plug-in...

[mrbeagle]

"Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

(movie trivia test)

[pixelzombie]

animal house

[zogdart]

I bought Lucisart and and after trying it on different images i really don't think that he use this to get his result. i have mixed result with it. It's hard to get consistant result with it. on some images it's good and on some it's bad. it work's best with under exposed images.

[adrianwilcox]

I have made some progress in dismantling this technique, although it is not 100% yet. I have found that it is really all about the lighting. There is a lighting technique that is called "surreal lighting". This creates 90% of the look for me. Then it is just some tedious retouching, and tons (and tons) of adjustment layers in photoshop.

[namphoto]

Ive been absolutely disappointed with this entire thread. Hill does not use lucis art. its all about his technical work he's learned, thus becoming a PROfessional photographer. Techniques, we all need to think learn about, compositing, stuff that you learn to become a PRO. Everyone is hung up that Hill's style can be accomplished in an hour. Im not even near pro, and I spend 3 hours per photo, minimum. Its an art, not a plug-in, that makes his work so great. The guy above me is one of the first people ive seen use their brain, and I like your lighting.

[enigmaphotos]

Oh well, I've watched this thread go on for a while, so I thought I'd inject a little more interest and hopefully some inspiration.

There are some guys who have Hill style lighting and I know that there is definitely some retouching;

For Example Taylor has done it. Kristof has done it

Some nice techniques discussed here , in which Taylor is an active member. In fact, check out the photo pool there. Some awesome photos (and some not so awesome of course).

[plugsnpixels]

zogdart, remember you can use different LucisArt effects on different layers, combining them with blending modes, transparency, etc. Maybe this will help your results some.

[xfx]

Surreal lighting and PP.

http://www.g2foto.com/sample/mfg_hoody3.jpg
http://www.g2foto.com/sample/mfg_mafiaboss1.jpg

[superkoax]

Originally Posted by mrbeagle

can't believe it's been going on for so long and no one's come close

hehe...that's why we practice everyday

Originally Posted by mrbeagle

"Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

(movie trivia test)

I call Japan!

[mrbeagle]

Originally Posted by xfx

Surreal lighting and PP.

http://www.g2foto.com/sample/mfg_hoody3.jpg
http://www.g2foto.com/sample/mfg_mafiaboss1.jpg

good shots but not close to dave

[mrbeagle]

Originally Posted by enigmaphotos

Oh well, I've watched this thread go on for a while, so I thought I'd inject a little more interest and hopefully some inspiration.

There are some guys who have Hill style lighting and I know that there is definitely some retouching;
.

Kristof has probably come the closest from what I've researched. Taylor I believe assisted for Hill so he should know the lighting setup pretty well.

[enigmaphotos]

Originally Posted by mrbeagle

Kristof has probably come the closest from what I've researched. Taylor I believe assisted for Hill so he should know the lighting setup pretty well.

Yep, Taylor did assist him for a while. He seems pretty outgoing and helpful on the flickr group though. I've had a few email conversations with Kristof, who is also very helpful!

[superkoax]

yeah! I agree...just took a quick look today and saw kristofs pictures! think his pictures are a bit lighter on the look then dh pictures...

[George B]

Originally Posted by CaptainHook

Taylor and Kristof's stuff is great.
Thanks for the link enigma!

The lighting setup interests me the most.

Seems taylor has copied Dave's lighting setup.
White lightnings and AB ringflash..?

Kristof's blog is very interesting.
Seeing a before and after..

Can we have the links to both Taylor's site and Kristof's blog? TIA.

[George B]

Originally Posted by George B

Can we have the links to both Taylor's site and Kristof's blog? TIA.

Nevermind.......boy not enough coffee this morning, sheeez

[pellepiano]

Originally Posted by adrianwilcox

There is a lighting technique that is called "surreal lighting".

I got a little curious on this, as I've never seen it mentioned before on any lighting sites, and Google did not help either. What would be main "ingredients" to this technique and what is it supposed to do?

[enigmaphotos]

Originally Posted by pellepiano

I got a little curious on this, as I've never seen it mentioned before on any lighting sites, and Google did not help either. What would be main "ingredients" to this technique and what is it supposed to do?

I've also heard it called 'Hyper-Real lighting'

Taylor can also be found posting on the Alien Bees forum which discusses different lighting set-ups in depth. Here is a link to his profile from where you can find his previous posts and examples and, believe it or not, he also mentions his lighting set-ups. (P S: I'm not sure if you have to register with this forum first to get the link to work)

Boy... I'm giving away all my hard work of tracking this info down. It's taken me months to find these links and I'm giving it all away in a few days... lol. Oh well, that's what this forum is about.

[George B]

Originally Posted by enigmaphotos

I've also heard it called 'Hyper-Real lighting'

Boy... I'm giving away all my hard work of tracking this info down. It's taken me months to find these links and I'm giving it all away in a few days... lol. Oh well, that's what this forum is about.

Yeah but it's MUCH appreciated!

[George B]

I agree, it's more about balancing the existing light with flash and head placement then anything else. Here's a quick "down and dirty" shot I just came in from doing. Explaining too much about lighting is deviating from the topic of this forum.
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z...fore-after.jpg


G

[qubic]

Hey guys, I`ve found out new info about the dave hill effect and I thought I`d share it with you. Recently I`ve been working for a studio which uses the same camera Dave does: a Hasselblad and a Phase One p45+ . I`ve tried applying lucis art to photos of that quality and it wouldn`t work but it worked pretty well with the photos from my canon 30d. So dave couldn`t have used lucis art as a plugin.... respectable photographers don`t like to use plugins from different reasons...one of the reasons is the very large format of the image. Can you imagine that the biggest tiff format image coming directly from the camera to the computer has from 100 to 400MB? After photoshopped the tiff format result takes up to 4Gb. The conclusion is that most of the plugins will not work on very high resolution photos. I also converted the tiff images to jpeg and still didn`t work. I think is all about lighting and using multiple shots at different exposures and of course a lot of layers, masks and ps work.

[Mtmm]

Originally Posted by qubic

Hey guys, I`ve found out new info about the dave hill effect and I thought I`d share it with you. Recently I`ve been working for a studio which uses the same camera Dave does: a Hasselblad and a Phase One p45+ . I`ve tried applying lucis art to photos of that quality and it wouldn`t work but it worked pretty well with the photos from my canon 30d. So dave couldn`t have used lucis art as a plugin.... respectable photographers don`t like to use plugins from different reasons...one of the reasons is the very large format of the image. Can you imagine that the biggest tiff format image coming directly from the camera to the computer has from 100 to 400MB? After photoshopped the tiff format result takes up to 4Gb. The conclusion is that most of the plugins will not work on very high resolution photos. I also converted the tiff images to jpeg and still didn`t work. I think is all about lighting and using multiple shots at different exposures and of course a lot of layers, masks and Photoshop work.

I has nothing to do with camera, a pixel is a pixel. And how many times is said, that you CANNOT take multiple exposures with humans without getting ruined photos.

[Paul Sabatino]

Originally Posted by enigmaphotos

I've also heard it called 'Hyper-Real lighting'

Taylor can also be found posting on the Alien Bees forum which discusses different lighting set-ups in depth. Here is a link to his profile from where you can find his previous posts and examples and, believe it or not, he also mentions his lighting set-ups. (P S: I'm not sure if you have to register with this forum first to get the link to work)

Boy... I'm giving away all my hard work of tracking this info down. It's taken me months to find these links and I'm giving it all away in a few days... lol. Oh well, that's what this forum is about.

thats my friend taylor.he is an amazing photographer and photo editor.

[superkoax]

mtmm: I don't think that DH take multiple exposures of humans! I've seen his behind the scene material and if you look at his Dan Heder photo shoot he only takes random shots of the guy! what I do think, is that he uses multiple exposures of the background to get everything in focus and well lighted(is that correct English )

[mrbeagle]

my latest sad attempt

http://www.plushimages.net/pics/arr.jpg

[namphoto]

despite the fact, that this is a retouching forum, I believe many of us are photographers? and in that case, I think there should be much more discussion on the use of lights in hills photos, because without the knowledge, his post production is nothing. The reason I believe he doesnt tonemap or lucis art it, is the fact that he uses those lights. If youve seen his shots, youre looking at more than three or four lights ususally, and he's using all those lights to light every aspect of the photo, to have detail in every area. Im seeing alot of people use lucis art to bring out their details, but hills already got it. Quite a few of his shots are also composites, thus the sharpness of foreground to background. thats just my perspective and thoughts.

[EternalTomorrow]

Originally Posted by adrianwilcox

I have made some progress in dismantling this technique, although it is not 100% yet. I have found that it is really all about the lighting. There is a lighting technique that is called "surreal lighting". This creates 90% of the look for me. Then it is just some tedious retouching, and tons (and tons) of adjustment layers in photoshop.

wanna give us a run down on your lighting setup and your post processing?

Rocksteady,
Danno~

[0lBaldy]

Originally Posted by namphoto

despite the fact, that this is a retouching forum, I believe many of us are photographers? and in that case, I think there should be much more discussion on the use of lights in hills photos, because without the knowledge, his post production is nothing. The reason I believe he doesnt tonemap or lucis art it, is the fact that he uses those lights. If youve seen his shots, youre looking at more than three or four lights ususally, and he's using all those lights to light every aspect of the photo, to have detail in every area. Im seeing alot of people use lucis art to bring out their details, but hills already got it. Quite a few of his shots are also composites, thus the sharpness of foreground to background. thats just my perspective and thoughts.

Me thinks you have nailed it and just summed up six months of DH discussion with over 400 posts...
Just my thoughts after reading everything here and watching all the vids and seeing his set up on the DH site