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

[TreesOfMyTime]

Originally Posted by plugsnpixels

I don't expect any surprises in the final version due later this summer. By that I mean, Lucis technology is stable (according to the developer, no bugs have been found in the current versions over the past several years) and the effects are familiar.

In playing with the pre-release core (which is not even a beta yet), I haven't come across any unexpected behavior–everything works as it should, and I have been happily cranking out treated images (running the Windows version on a Mac via Parallels, no less!). I offered the developer some user-interface related suggestions to make the experience even smoother (which are being considered), but haven't come across any bugs.

As for the value, there's no reason it should go down! I'm not sure what you mean by that. Everything about the Lucis experience will be improved in the LucisArt Pro version.

Thanks for your input! I intend to do the upgrade, however, I only know what I have read about the "Pro" version and it was encouraging to hear your comments.

Thanks again!

[plugsnpixels]

You're welcome, Don!

Keep an eye on this page, which I'll update as more info becomes available.

[Aleksman71]

Here is another one without Lucis,just common effects in Paint Shop Pro XI
http://shrani.si/f/1r/6R/4Xj4fBE0/original.jpg
http://shrani.si/f/21/10r/2WwW6zEv/box1.jpg

P S
Images are not mine!!Owner is Ray Connolly

[mrbeagle]

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

The pictures, anybody?

where's that write up you promised?

[crazyfly1]

Originally Posted by mrbeagle

where's that write up you promised?

LOL, It looked as though this thread was finally going to go peacfully into the night and join the likes of threads about OJ's guilt/inosence and the virtues of Tmax.
Here I've gone and brought it back.

OK, what I did was try to take a scientific approach to this Hill look. What we are all lacking is a before and after of a Dave hill image. Given the talent that frequents this forum, if an origional were made available along with a processesed image, I'm quite sure the "mystery" would disappear in short order. I looked and did not find an origional unretouched image. I decided to try to reverse engineer one of his images to see if I could restore it to close to what it probably looked like as shot.

At this point I need to make a disclosure, I was curious to see what would happen when I posted my deconstructed Hills. What happened was odd. Noone said "wow, that's amazing" or "oh my, how did you do that, that's so close." Oddly, on the contrary, what I got was.

I think that this is a nice try, but it looks very lucis arts
and

no where near dave hill... over processing using presets on plugins dont make it look like dave hill
and this from plugsnpixels

It's darker (??). Is that an "LA" gang sign?

Only mrbeagle seemed to think I was on to something.

Folks I appologize for my small deception by omission however I really wanted to put it to the test. It seems that Dave Hill is much more about the legend than about the actual art. Responses brought to mind those of a small child being told for the first time that there really is no Easter Bunny, "Nooo, say it isn't so."
Do any of you really want to know the process?

Anyway, what I found is that there is another problem with determining the method used to obtain this look in that it is actually TWO looks; one the darkend vigneted image, and the other the clown look (for lack of a better term). I spent most of my time trying to decipher the former. I post an example of each here.

[crazyfly1]

The first thing i noticed was what is likely the last part of Dave's process and that is the serious vignetting that he uses. On inspection using levels I found that not only does he use vignetting but I believe he subjects at least some of his photos to two or even three vignettes and possibly some sort of circular lighting as well. I believe that if there is any real mystisism to this tecnique that it lies with this fairly masterfull use of vignetting to increase focus on the subject. I have posted and image to show this lighting.
What I found beyond that is really very little. In order to take a Dave image and make it close to normal, all that really needs to be done is to use curves or in raw just reverse the vignette effect. Then run another curves adjustment to bring out the mid tones.
If there was any one thing I found that was substantial it is that Dave could pattent his histogram. All of his images (excepting the clown photos with the fake backgrounds and it is even true of these if you select the subject and run the histogram on that) have almost identical histograms, they exist almost entireley in the shadows and fall off to nothing passed the midtone point just barely hanging on into the highlights.
In episode 103 of photoshop user tv, Matt Kloskowski showed how to do this effect (with no mention of Dave Hill) using raw or lightroom. (Raw and Lightroom use identical algorithms to process images.) Basically the process is ;slam recovery all the way up. slam fill all the way up, slam brightness all the way up, slam contrast all the way up, slam clarity all the way up, slam the vibrance all the way up, drop out almost all of the color, and then bring the blacks up to meet your histogram, and adjust highlights to taste. Now go and give you image a huge big black vignette and your there.
Try that and you will see that somewhere in there lies the "mystery" of Dave Hill. Will any one of us ever be able to post definitavly "I've got it, this is exactly how it's done."? No. Why? because even when a Dave Hill is posted we don't see Dave Hill in it, and because The other thing I learned is that I do belive Dave loves his teqnique and his images. I started out looking to find that he probably had a droplet on his desktop that was the mill through which all of his images were run. Not so, I think truer is that he processes each image individually but manually and to taste. Now Daves "taste" obviously runs to the dark and ominous however each image has it's own character while maintaining the "look".
In actuallity I believe a lot of you obtained what would pass for the "look" if only you had access and could put your images on Dave Hills site.
I hope you've found this interesting or at least entertaining. Credit to Dave Hill for his images which I used for educational purposes.

[crazyfly1]

One more thing I feel the need to pop back in for. No, as you may have guessed I am not a fan of this look (niether of them). I do respect Dave Hill for finding a look that a lot of folks do like, it just doesn't do it for me.
I set about trying to find the secret because I believed I had devised a way to come to that end that no one else had yet tried. Hopefully if this thread continues, and I've no doubt it will, others will try starting with a Hill and working backwards rather than the endless stream of "close but no cigar" attempts.
The Dave Hill look reminds me of the images my father captured over 40 years ago on his vacation to Colorado. Those images, now show a bygone era, not by virtue of the subject captured but by the color... all bright green and dark blue and a smattering of red for good measure. No orange, no yellow,little cyan, not much contrast either. I look at those and I see first, and old photo, only second a chipmunk with a mountain backdrop.
I have tried to bring them back to the day he shot them and it is all but impossible. Whatever my dad saw that day that made him pull out his camera and shoot what was then, for him, a very expesive photo, whatever beauty was in tht sky or in the sunset the subtleties of oranges and yellows in those rocks, the contrast between the bolders and crevaces, I can only imagen. They are gone forever.
I hope that when you do find the "as close to Dave Hill look as you can get" process that works for you, if it's an important photo, save the origional.

[crazyfly1]

Originally Posted by plugsnpixels

It's darker (??). Is that an "LA" gang sign?

Not sure about the signs, that is Dave Hill on our left though.

[plugsnpixels]

Thanks for your followup and obvious efforts! I hope my "It's darker (??)" comment didn't bother you... ;-)

[crazyfly1]

No not at all, I took it with all the humor you intended and answered it in kind.

[Mtmm]

Originally Posted by Calvinhollywood

The important thing is the light.... the post is just 30 %.

The Scott Kelby way is ok... but not really good lightning.

Light from all sides and some contrast and colour manipulation there

Attachment 57551

Have a nice week all

lg Calvin
http://www.calvinhollywood.de

This is the way if anyone tries to copy Dave Hill, lighting. Some noobs are trying to do it with a shitty raw files and with no required lighting. And how blind people are? Some user was saying here that "recovery to the max, clarity to the max, fill light to the max", LOL. Just try it on human skin and in FULL resolution shot and you´ll see that it´s no near Dave Hill. If you rape your raw-file with every slider at its peak, it will not pass at full resolution without terrible halos and noise and other shit.

Lighting + d/b is the basics, what else? Nobody knows. But that is for sure, that Dave is working with his Wacom alot.

Just buy that Ghostface killah book and take a careful look at it. Photos are just perfect in every way technically.

[xfx]

True...No one click or a 30 min. miracle guys.

[crazyfly1]

Originally Posted by Mtmm

This is the way if anyone tries to copy Dave Hill, lighting. Some noobs are trying to do it with a shitty raw files and with no required lighting. And how blind people are? Some user was saying here that "recovery to the max, clarity to the max, fill light to the max", LOL.

.

This is what I said
"Try that and you will see that somewhere in there lies the "mystery" of Dave Hill."
I have seen more than one tutorial using this method, the one I quoted is by a recognized, photoshop certified trainer who writes for photosop user magazine. Obviously this is a starting point and one must adjust the sliders for each image.
I stand by that until you or someone else comes up with a better explanation than "it's all done with lighting" which is the photographic explanation equivilant to the magicians "it's all done with mirrors". Which translates to "duh, I dunno either and I have nothing useful to contribute but I wanted to say sOmEtHiNg."

BTW, I wanted to be the first on the board to use flippy caps after you were the first to use the term noob.

K, nuff of this picture stuff, wanna play worlds of warcraft mtmm?

[digitalminds]

My try...I tried not to overdo it. What do you think?

http://digitalminds.deviantart.com/art/Gante-85690545
http://digitalminds.deviantart.com/art/Gante-2-85741005

Greetz

[mrbeagle]

I don't want to see any more freakin pictures posted unless people show their workflow