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

[enigmaphotos]

Originally Posted by superkoax

Hmmm...didn't quite understand what your were trying to say here!

Good luck to you, Enigma! Sorry to loose your experience!

Whoops... I just re-read my post and all I can say is sorry. It does sound really rude and it wasn't meant that way. In fact I feel like an idiot now.

Apologies again.

Note to Self: Don't type up replies after returning from the pub

[prizo]

Originally Posted by radutheodor

Hey guys,

I really cannot believe that you don't realize that David Hill's pictures are HDR created with tools like Photomatix.

Wow.

So, so , so wrong. And yet so positive that you are right.

Those HDR shots dont look like Hill. You really need to develop your 'eye' if you think they do.

[CaptainHook]

I would say 'manual HDR', rather than Photomatix or some 'tool'.

[Mtmm]

Originally Posted by enigmaphotos

Edit: Oh... and you can do HDR with moving objects. Honest. And the newer HDR programs will take note of this and correct it.

Could you please show us? You cant, it´s not possible to make real HDR shots. I will lick my balls for the rest of my life if you show me how you can do a true HDR shot from a jumping model. It just not possible. So please show us how to do it or admit that it is impossible. Transoptic, please stfu and let enigma answer to this. I dont need your noob comments.

[superkoax]

mtmm: I think understand your opinion, it's not possible due to recycle time of flash and the person is moving little by little everytime, right?

I can't honestly say that, when going trough DH's behind the scenes I haven't seen him shoot 3 or 5 pictures when the model is standing still! Can HDR be used only with 1picture? Underexposing and overexposing it in RAW?

[Mtmm]

Originally Posted by superkoax

mtmm: I think understand your opinion, it's not possible due to recycle time of flash and the person is moving little by little everytime, right?

I can't honestly say that, when going trough DH's behind the scenes I haven't seen him shoot 3 or 5 pictures when the model is standing still! Can HDR be used only with 1picture? Underexposing and overexposing it in RAW?

A true HDR needs several exposures. With one exposure you can make a "fake" HDR playing with raw-converter. With true HDR, no matter what everybody is saying, it´s just not possible. Flash recycle time is too slow, camera is too slow, when subject is moving you cannot take several shots without model moving too much. Enigma lacks some fatal information about flash shooting if she/he is still making HDR shots with moving subject. If your recycle time is for example 1sec with half power, you´ll need a wizard model who can levitate and stay still for several seconds in the air.

[enigmaphotos]

Originally Posted by Mtmm

Enigma lacks some fatal information about flash shooting if she/he is still making HDR shots with moving subject. If your recycle time is for example 1sec with half power, you´ll need a wizard model who can levitate and stay still for several seconds in the air.

Has anyone considered using three cameras remotely fired to all go off at once.... with various exposure settings? That would get a true HDR with moving subjects. And I have heard through the grapevine that Photomatix are working on new algorithms to tackle moving subjects. In fact they already have the early alogorithms to try and tackle movement in water.

[longside1]

Originally Posted by enigmaphotos

Has anyone considered using three cameras remotely fired to all go off at once.... with various exposure settings? That would get a true HDR with moving subjects. And I have heard through the grapevine that Photomatix are working on new algorithms to tackle moving subjects. In fact they already have the early alogorithms to try and tackle movement in water.

If you used three cameras they would all be in different locations so how would you be able to align the shots for HDR purposes?

I'm fairly sure that Dave Hill said that he didn't use HDR anyway, so why has this discussion gone down that route?

[enigmaphotos]

Originally Posted by Mtmm

Enigma lacks some fatal information about flash shooting if she/he is still making HDR shots with moving subject.

I have heard through the grapevine that Photomatix are working on new algorithms to tackle moving subjects. In fact they already have the early alogorithms to try and tackle movement in water.

There's also big steps in improved sensors that will handle HDR in camera. The Sony Alpha range already have in camera HDR settings which are only improving with time.

[Mtmm]

Originally Posted by enigmaphotos

Has anyone considered using three cameras remotely fired to all go off at once.... with various exposure settings? That would get a true HDR with moving subjects. And I have heard through the grapevine that Photomatix are working on new algorithms to tackle moving subjects. In fact they already have the early alogorithms to try and tackle movement in water.

There is no software that can align bodyparts what are at different angle in every shot. And of course, flash recycle time is way too slow for rapid fire. As said, 3 cameras would also be at different angle. It would be also insanely expensive setup to use for example 3x1Ds mkIII, 3x24-70/2.8L and another problem would be to set all the cameras to fire at the same time syncing with flashes. And for the record, Dave Hill himself said that "it would be about impossible to shoot HDR with humans".

[longside1]

Originally Posted by Mtmm

There is no software that can align bodyparts what are at different angle in every shot. And of course, flash recycle time is way too slow for rapid fire. As said, 3 cameras would also be at different angle. It would be also insanely expensive setup to use for example 3x1Ds mkIII, 3x24-70/2.8L and another problem would be to set all the cameras to fire at the same time syncing with flashes. And for the record, Dave Hill himself said that "it would be about impossible to shoot HDR with humans".

Thanks for confirming that Mtmm! We know DH makes composites, often placing his foreground subjects on separate backgrounds so I suppose there is nothing stopping you from placing your portrait subjects on a HDR'd background. This I feel is the only extent to which HDR is relevant to this discussion.

[enigmaphotos]

Originally Posted by Mtmm

And for the record, Dave Hill himself said that "it would be about impossible to shoot HDR with humans".

Well I guess that's it then, if DH says so.

Anway.... I do know a guy who is beta testing new Photomatix software with 'better' movement algorithms. In fact the current version even has a pop at it. It's not great, but it does try some. Who knows what the newer algorithms and greater range sensors will do in the future.

I speculate that eventually it will be done, just as you speculate it won't.

[longside1]

with the greatest respect, if Dave Hill said that he doesn't use HDR, why are we still discussing it?

Is there any chance that we can get this thread back on topic?

[Mtmm]

Originally Posted by enigmaphotos

Well I guess that's it then, if DH says so.

Anway.... I do know a guy who is beta testing new Photomatix software with 'better' movement algorithms. In fact the current version even has a pop at it. It's not great, but it does try some. Who knows what the newer algorithms and greater range sensors will do in the future.

I speculate that eventually it will be done, just as you speculate it won't.

Relying just on basic fysics, it´s not possible. You know Enigma, when shooting with several flashes like Dave Hill, recycle time is so slow, that it´s not just about ghosting effect anymore, it´s a different image with different angle and position.

If you are taking 3 different exposures, it will take about 2 seconds to fire flashes 3 times. How in the world you can align that? You cant, just face the facts. And I´m talking about moving subject, like jumps or anything. Look at behind the scenes by Dave Hill and that shoot where they are using trampoline. Does the Photomatix freeze humans in the air for 2 secs?

[Mtmm]

And here is again, Dave Hill himself.

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! :-) ......snip

[enigmaphotos]

Originally Posted by Mtmm

If you are taking 3 different exposures, it will take about 2 seconds to fire flashes 3 times. How in the world you can align that? You cant, just face the facts. And I´m talking about moving subject, like jumps or anything. Look at behind the scenes by Dave Hill and that shoot where they are using trampoline. Does the Photomatix freeze humans in the air for 2 secs?

I'm not saying in the future you will use three (or more) exposures. What I'm trying to say is that, in the very near future, all you will need is one exposure. The way technology is growing the camera will be able to see the same as the eye... in fact better.

But what do I know. I've only been taking photos for about 10 years+, and I know people that are actually testing new software. Look up HDR hallucination. (It seems the world will always be flat). Maybe look up Moore's Law

Anyway... back on topic I think. If it makes you feel better, then I agree with the current technology, you can't take moving objects with (true) HDR. But it aint far away.

Anyway... back on topic.

[superkoax]

Let's just end the HDR PORTRAIT for now!

I'm very interested in moving it towards models on different backgrounds! Lookup the Dan HEder shoot from the behind the scene on DH site! First he shoots him in a kitchen shoot, and then the playground pictures! the playground shoot he places him on different background and the kitchen shoot he uses the same background! different post productions but same result/feel!

[namphoto]

Back to Basics with NAM

HDR = High Dynamic Range

Why would we need a high dynamic range in flesh tones. With technical use of lights, you can bring out your highlights without blowing them out and bring the detail in your shadows using fill lights, reflectors, etc.

HDR is something you need in landscapes where the dynamic range differs as extremely as the sky and the earth, which cannot be captured in a single exposure.

@Enigma, why do you have this obsession with HDR portraits. Im not saying its not possible because DH dont do it. I could care less what he says, but he doesn't do it for a reason. too much work, for results you can produce with a little more careful work. There isn't an quick answer for a 'retouch pro'.

[charliebrown]

hey guys!...I have been reading this ENTIRE FORUM for about 2.5 hours now

I live in a humble town called Murfreesboro Tennessee in the US.

I, like yourselves, am in a never ending quest to create pictures similar to Dave Hills.

yes I have lucisart but everytime I try and use this I get really grainy nasty skin tones?

any ideas?

I read in a forum that Dave Hill was actually in...and someone asked him..Dave I dont want to steal your secrets but how do you do it dude?

and he replied "two words!....LUCIS ART!"

maybe it was a fake or I was dreaming hah..

but I have my TRIAL PICTURES...as well

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne...1808306&size=l

I did not do this next image but beilieve it is very close...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2232/...18027945_b.jpg

but when he tried to explain it all...I got lost

sry for the LONG post guys

[snook305]

You can HDR from the One RAW file and just run it out as 3 different exposures...
Also he may not be using Lucis Art but you can a similar look in RAW by playing with the Fill light exposures or do the same thing in Shadows and Highlights..
That is what dave hill is doing most likely.
In any case it is not a one step plug-in.
You should know a bit about photoshop, Masking etc..otherwise you will be way lost.

Also I saw in a backstage shot's by Dave that he has a guy on set there doing the photoshop.. not Dave Hill.
Also Dave Hill is nothing new! He has simply copied Ficus and greenberg but marketed it to a Newbie Rock band market...:+}
This technique has been around much longer than Dave Hill for sure..:+}
Snook

[longside1]

I have to agree with all of the above, no way does Dave Hill rely on a filter like Lucis to create his effect, and even if he does use HDR for his backgrounds (although he says he doesn't) further post processing would be required to finalise the look.

Here is a shot that i recently took, and posted elsewhere on this forum. I've retouched the photo a touch further to get a little closer to the Dave Hill look.

Although it's nowhere near as good as Mr Hill's work I do believe that it is a step in the right direction. I'll also state now that I used no HDR techniques or filters, instead making sure I got the lighting right at the start!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2164/...2da45cf7aa.jpg

cheers, Matt

[charliebrown]

hey guys!...

I have attempted another try

I honestly have changed my mind about my earlier post

I do not think DH uses any lucis art

I think he just hella lights his pictures..

Im aware I am NOT DH and my pictured are VERY flawed but...heres my second attempt

http://www.flickr.com/photos/charlie...hy/2214579663/

still grainy and nasty at points but closer than I have ever been

feedback would be fantastic

[pixelzombie]

looks interesting, but not exactly DH like...

[skydog]

Charlie...nice pic, but it looks Lucis art and not DH. I agree with snook DH is a copy of Fiscus and I'd much rather analyze Fiscus than DH. Anyone check out his site lately...some nice new shots. He uses plenty of lights. Camera looks like a leaf, but I can't figure out the lense he is using. Ummm..good lights...good 39 mpix camera...and lucis art...maybe that is the secret.

[charliebrown]

you are right guys

I only have one alien bee b800 and a couple of hot lights...no ring flash either

so recreating DH pics I think with only these tools are very hard..

stay away from lucis art and HDR...stay far far away if you want your images to look like DH haha

soon though I am going to try to get a group of photographers from the Nashville area together and get about 5 or 6 strobes...then we will see whats up

[Lance13]

This is my first time here. . Saw Dave's work a couple of days ago and got pretty interested.

I tired it with a pic. . Not near but not crappy for a two minute job.

What do you think?

http://flickr.com/photos/23176182@N07/2220766866/

[mrbeagle]

Originally Posted by Lance13

This is my first time here. . Saw Dave's work a couple of days ago and got pretty interested.

I tired it with a pic. . Not near but not crappy for a two minute job.

What do you think?

http://flickr.com/photos/23176182@N07/2220766866/

looks like a bad lucis job. The skin is highly discolored and uneven.

[SchlinkyMalinky]

that was a bit harsh beagle.

Yeah the colour's uneven but it's not a bad look, nice first try

[Lance13]

Yeah I know, didn't bother to play with the colors. . Will do that though. .

Here's another try with a low res pic of "my girlfriend".
Should give a better result with a focused background

http://flickr.com/photos/23176182@N07/2223103822/

[longside1]

Hi Lance,

Unfortunately I still think your way off with your edit. The use of the Lucis Art filter has what I call a "zombie effect" it really messes with skin tones etc. IMHO if your serious about going for the Dave Hill Look I would ditch the Lucis Art filter. Unfortunately there is no quick filter method for getting the Dave Hill look, just lots of work with lights and then some in Photoshop.

Just have a look on Dave recent blog updates, he says that he has had a few fifteen hour days editing his shots, that's the level of effort required. Such a statement also dispels the rumours that Dave has some lacky editing all of his shots for him.