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

[Jeeves]

Originally Posted by subxaero

i'm still asking myself, if some of you ever tried lucisart.

it does some cool post, but acutally it's totally noisy and makes and super ugly output, when you zoom in...well...case closed, aye?
(and there's been a super nice tutorial, where you can cheat your whyeth with a plain photoshop)

btw - wouldn't it be nice if someone took the effort to kinda summarize this whole thread? not for me tho, but for the order of this forum. people posted so much interesting effort, that goes beyond highpass and manual coloring, so it's just apparent to put all this information in to one post...or is it intended to keep the "unworthy" off the secrets by hiding it in thousands of pages in this hread?

I've used Lucis quite a few times and I don't believe he uses it.

Personally, if his 'secret' or workflow is in here, I'd expect people to go through and read. Sure you WANT his style but obviously it's highly desired, so do you deserve it? Seems to me if you want to get close to what he does you can't expect everything to be handed to you (not that you do, just in general) on a silver platter, you have to go out and earn it.

[snook305]

This will be like the dragan threads.. they will go on and on and on with out any real progress.
People say lighting..?
I can post a shot that is lit exactly the same if not better than Dave Hill.
and it will not have that look.
He is copping out saying it is the lighting.. well that is BS.
Sure the lighting is the start but the effect he is getting is some deep layers and color masking etc..
He is more than likely using Lightroom with presets and the shadow highlights tool plus adding extreme contrast to his images.etc...
But it kills me when people say it his lighting.. I just think that is BS.
No trick to his lighting at all.
2 Kickers from side and slightly behind... and ringflash for some fill of the shadows..
WATCH his videos people!!!
No rocket science there.
His pictures would be just as average as the average joe if he did not have his POST going on and some "cool" looking young punk rockstars...:+}
That is rather obvious I hope or you all are really suckers!! :+}
Snook
By the way you can a look really similar using Lucis like posted earlier.. Just do it in small increments adding a noise reduction or smoothing layer afterwards.
Put the layer on luminosity so it does no look so harsh/orange on the skin tones..:+}
Snook

[longside1]

Well to be quite honest I have to agree with what snook said. The Dave Hill effect is about post processing just as much as lighting.

I took this shot below using afraction of the lighting set up Dave uses, just 3 strobes and then I post processed for that pop look and i reckon I'm not far off.

If the subject in the shot was ghost face killa instead of my mate Brendan then it would be spot on!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2305/...385387e7_b.jpg

Visit my photoblog at:

http://www.imagespike.wordpress.com

[snook305]

Long, your file goes to a dead link..?
Just thought you'd like to know..:+]
Snook

[longside1]

Originally Posted by snook305

Long, your file goes to a dead link..?
Just thought you'd like to know..:+]
Snook

thanks snook! Here is the link again:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2305/...385387e7_b.jpg

[snook305]

What was your set-up there..?
I think also if you desaturate some parts of the picture you will be even Closer,
especially the skin tones a little.
But looks great, what was your workflow?
:+}
Snook

[namphoto]

it is lighting because youre not going to get anywhere without that first. you dont get anywhere without the foundations.

[longside1]

I totally agree with you namphoto. I think we have all established the fact that he uses lighting so can we please move on to what post processing he uses!

Snook, the shot I posted is the result of a good couple of hours of dodge and burning which i built up over a stack of layers, this gave the shot a kind of 3d look by way of increasing the tonal range of the shot.

I then pleyed around with the blending modes in order give the shot a little pop.

I have to tell you now, it took me about 5 or 6 hours post processing to get the finished look. This is largely a result of much trial and error!

[Jeeves]

Originally Posted by snook305

This will be like the dragan threads.. they will go on and on and on with out any real progress.
People say lighting..?
I can post a shot that is lit exactly the same if not better than Dave Hill.
and it will not have that look.
He is copping out saying it is the lighting.. well that is BS.
Sure the lighting is the start but the effect he is getting is some deep layers and color masking etc..
He is more than likely using Lightroom with presets and the shadow highlights tool plus adding extreme contrast to his images.etc...
But it kills me when people say it his lighting.. I just think that is BS.
No trick to his lighting at all.
2 Kickers from side and slightly behind... and ringflash for some fill of the shadows..
WATCH his videos people!!!
No rocket science there.
His pictures would be just as average as the average joe if he did not have his POST going on and some "cool" looking young punk rockstars...:+}
That is rather obvious I hope or you all are really suckers!! :+}
Snook
By the way you can a look really similar using Lucis like posted earlier.. Just do it in small increments adding a noise reduction or smoothing layer afterwards.
Put the layer on luminosity so it does no look so harsh/orange on the skin tones..:+}
Snook

Snook,
If you know anything about photography you'd know that without proper base lighting the shot might as well just be deleted. Lighting will make or break a shot, regardless of post.

Now, more importantly, it's not always a single shot. He says he doesn't do this all the time, but a great example is the jazz player in front of the truck. If you've seen his videos, you'll know that scene was shot in front of a busy street. When the final image was complete, it was in a dark alley. This is the art of composition and is largely ignored by people trying to 'duplicate' his style in a single photo.

Now at the same time, there are plenty of times he doesn't do composition shots. A good example is some his shots of soulja boy. In the shots I broke down, he had two side lights (set up in a butterfly lighting configuration) with 10º grids in them, he had two soft boxes and an octobox as well as a ring flash for highlights. He shot much of this with a Canon 5D and a 28mm or 50mm lens. No ninja-Hasselblad gear.

Now, does the lighting MAKE the picture? Hell no. Pleny of people have shot with double the lighting and not gotten the publicity he has gotten. Of COURSE it's his post process. I don't believe anyone is denying that. However, without good lighting even a good workflow will give you shitty output. One way or another, I don't believe what Dave Hill produces is a simple matter of "Lightroom presets." Besides the fact that lightroom is a relatively new product to the market it's almost insulting to suggest. Besides that, if it were that simple why hasn't one of the thousands of Dave Hill leghumpers figured it out yet? Just as he said, there isn't a Dave Hill Action that just mysteriously produces a good product. It takes experience in knowing what does what both on set and in post, gear, and hard work and lots of trial and error.

Hell, he's had the same workflow for quite some time. Must be nice shooting similiar ways and using the same type of workflow and always getting paid

All I'm saying is you have to give credit where credit is due. He takes good photos and has an amazing post workflow that's made him some very decent cash.

[namphoto]

shadow detail. amen.

[snook305]

You ain't getting no shadow detail with a 5D... You know that right?
That is one reason he fills the shadows a little with the ringflash.
Also Dave does use a HassleBlad every once in a while he has stated.
Also I am not trying to take credit from anybody and completely agree that it is obviuos that Dave Hill is talented, That is beside the point.
I will state it again. My point is that NO LIGHTING is going to give you the DaveHill Look.
IT IS POST PROCESSING...
Did you hear that?
I just do not like the fact that people giving credit to his lighting and saying that is what give his look.
BS.
With his processing you could have 1 maybe 2 lights and and you could get his same look if you POST PROCESS it correctly.
Also IF you knew anything about Post you would know that Dave Hill has Copied the Jim ficus/jill greenberg effect. which they were doing when Dave Hill was popping zits!
HE just focused it towards young bands from Tennessee where dave hill started his photography...:+}
All the best to Dave Hill.
But these people in here saying it is lighting obviously do not know what they are talking about and are misleading the guys and girls that want to know what is going on..:+}

[namphoto]

snook your ego is over your head. if you know show much, show us your latest.
who ever said a 5d is what is giving the shadow detail, and you just said he uses the ringflash to get shadow detail. so obviously his lighting contributes. snook do you just come in here and say whatever is on your mind without reading what we say? ive said this so many times, lighting is the foundation. the foundation of any photo is the lighting. if you dont have a good ratio and you try to fix it in ps youre screwed. if you havent got enough light youre done. one maybe two lights? heck then you better some big reflectors.

[Jeeves]

Originally Posted by snook305

You ain't getting no shadow detail with a 5D... You know that right?
That is one reason he fills the shadows a little with the ringflash.
Also Dave does use a HassleBlad every once in a while he has stated.
Also I am not trying to take credit from anybody and completely agree that it is obviuos that Dave Hill is talented, That is beside the point.
I will state it again. My point is that NO LIGHTING is going to give you the DaveHill Look.
IT IS POST PROCESSING...
Did you hear that?
I just do not like the fact that people giving credit to his lighting and saying that is what give his look.
BS.
With his processing you could have 1 maybe 2 lights and and you could get his same look if you POST PROCESS it correctly.
Also IF you knew anything about Post you would know that Dave Hill has Copied the Jim ficus/jill greenberg effect. which they were doing when Dave Hill was popping zits!
HE just focused it towards young bands from Tennessee where dave hill started his photography...:+}
All the best to Dave Hill.
But these people in here saying it is lighting obviously do not know what they are talking about and are misleading the guys and girls that want to know what is going on..:+}

Jim Fiscus:
http://altpick.com/spot/jim_fiscus/fiscus_02.jpg

Jill Greenberg:
http://mgguzman.smugmug.com/photos/116058358-M.jpg

Dave Hill:
http://img1.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/f/...71dc33d5fb.jpg

You're right. Those are ALL the same.
/sarcasm.
Do they have similar aspects? Yes. Are they the same? No. You'll also note that in Dave's interview, he talks about watching others and picking up on concepts and styles (such as how to do composition shots).

Now here's what is interesting. Fiscus is a well known composition photographer. Greenberg's photos show exactly the same lighting setup as Hill's. A light on either side, a light above, etc. So, two photogs you listed, use the 'butterfly' lighting setup. Even a good number of Jim's look like they use a similiar lighting setup. Kinda odd don't ya think?

So fine, you can tell those people who just want the look that they can do it on a budget and cheaply. You think you're getting them somewhere? What happened to "photographers" who learned, made mistakes, and perfected techniques? Everyone these days seems just to want the answer and doesn't care about what it takes to make it actually good or learning why it does what it does.

It also seems to me that you'd rather harp on the photoshop side of it when looking around at other photographers products show clearly that lighting is an important part. Say whatever you'd like if you feel that all lighting is a sham, by all means go and light your scenes with a pair of headlights and an on camera flash. As for me, I'm very glad I've invested time and money into lights and learning exactly what does what. If you think everything can be done in post, all the power to you.

[snook305]

Jeeves you still do not get it.. Do you?
:+]
Snook

[mrkronk]

Jeeves is right still...
Honestly, I think that there are too many of us photographers hoping that amazing post skills can save us from mediocre lighting and composition. We gots to learn how to simplify folks.. The best commercial and editorial shots out there are usually well planned and well executed... Hill and Fiscus need their post to make it look the way it does, but the shots themselves are the chunk of the work. The metallic look only works when you light properly.

Lighting, composition and post. They have to compliment each other. But i'd suggest that if you're going to be more dependent on one, be dependent on the shooting element and not the post element. Anyone can light poorly.

[snook305]

I agree with you 100%.
It is the whole package no doubt.
Again it is obvious that Dave Hill is VERY talented. No argument there.
I was trying to go another direction but got mis-understood..?
In any case it is quite obvious there is a lot of Post going on.
Keep up the great stuff Dave and I hope no-body ever figures out your tricks...:+]
Snook

[David Stevenson]

Very Close!! What did you do????

[David Stevenson]

Very Close!!! What did you do???

[Calvinhollywood]

Damn... that Thread is still running.. keep on going*g*

lg Calvin
http://www.calvinhollywood.de

[jackies35]

His work looks good.... I seen this last year on www.photography-on-the.net... Also, all these teenagers "artist" ON MYSPACE are doing this with their personal digital camera... I am surprise these teenagers don't a DSLR?? Their technique is awesome! They upload their picture, then BANG! It look just as good as Dave! Seriously!! Check it out on MYSPACE!

Here is the link and a chance to buy the DVD on virtual painting... I am quite sure you can increase (intensify) shadows, lighting, and etc.... It will always look the same regardless of the camera. I am still practicing!!

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=260882

Originally Posted by CMS

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.

[subxaero]

Originally Posted by jackies35

His work looks good.... I seen this last year on www.photography-on-the.net... Also, all these teenagers "artist" ON MYSPACE are doing this with their personal digital camera... I am surprise these teenagers don't a DSLR?? Their technique is awesome! They upload their picture, then BANG! It look just as good as Dave! Seriously!! Check it out on MYSPACE!

i kind of not-get-it oO

[Mtmm]

For CMS, you fail! Dave is also using Canon´s low-end shitty 5D for some photos.

[jackies35]

Wow! Marclif,

That picture is very close... Why did you choose that pic? I would think it woudl be hard?

Did you edit each person, water, pool, items separately?? share you tips man!!

[jackies35]

Here is the person who does it on myspace....

ok.. I made a mistake.. He is an photographer.... He does this by himself using photoshop...

I have to find the kids that are using a software to make it for myspace!

[jackies35]

Here is the last one.... I am not sure if this one has all the intensity in it....

I like the light on the left side of this picture....

[pellepiano]

The last one could use some contrast and drama.Used some PWL on it.

[longside1]

Jackie, the b & w image you posted appears looks like an abuse of Lucis Art, the second one looks better but to be honest it just looks like a regular photo!....

[CMS]

Originally Posted by Mtmm

For CMS, you fail! Dave is also using Canon´s low-end shitty 5D for some photos.

I do not think so.Just because you have seen it in his hands does not mean that he use it.This guy is an actor and he is making nice money.It is all about show!!!

BUT you can buy a 5D and prove me wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pixelzombie]

Originally Posted by jackies35

Wow! Marclif,

That picture is very close... Why did you choose that pic? I would think it woudl be hard?

Did you edit each person, water, pool, items separately?? share you tips man!!

which image are you referring to?

[obosila]

Making of here.