Photo Retouching - - The demystification of dave hill! let's all help! - Page 19

scottyb70 · #**271** 12-09-2007, 07:03 PM

Here is my try. I just used the supplied jpg on this forum.

transoptic · #**272** 12-09-2007, 08:10 PM

Quote:

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 · #**273** 12-09-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

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 · #**274** 12-09-2007, 08:34 PM

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

Mtmm · #**275** 12-09-2007, 08:44 PM

Quote:

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 · #**276** 12-09-2007, 10:36 PM

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 · #**277** 12-10-2007, 04:27 AM

Quote:

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 · #**278** 12-10-2007, 07:47 AM

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 · #**279** 12-10-2007, 07:53 AM

Excellent BG and skin tone.

superkoax · #**280** 12-10-2007, 04:37 PM

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 · #**281** 12-10-2007, 04:38 PM

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

transoptic · #**282** 12-10-2007, 05:47 PM

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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 · #**283** 12-10-2007, 06:02 PM

Quote:

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 · #**284** 12-10-2007, 06:11 PM

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?

Quote:

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 · #**285** 12-10-2007, 06:41 PM

"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.