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

[Ich.Mario]

whats with the smooth transitions between the different levels? no peaks, nothing. smooooth and falling....

how can someone balance the amount of the different levels in one picture manually?

[dennisonb]

I think those levels are what are to be expected. That is normal from a lit picture that is not 'high-key' (IE: very bright) these photos are predominantly dark (most of the pixels are black) with the brights being very few, hence the slope from shadows to highlights.

[dennisonb]

Smooth transitions come from working in 16bit, and being careful with the adjustments so as to make it punchy and contrasty, without being posterized.

[Ich.Mario]

the smooth transition between the amounts of the different levels has still to be explained i think.

edit: i was to slow. ok, now thats a little more clear to me. so no big impact to the whole imageeffect?!

edit2: no, it's not more clear to me. that has nothing to do with 16bit and beeing careful with the adjusments. the amounts of the different levels are getting constantly less in the whole image. that says nothing about posterization or not.

[djslyda]

Originally Posted by dennisonb

It's all the lighting.

so would you say dave hill is using something similar to this?

[dennisonb]

Basically yes. Although there are probably softboxes on those back lights. There might not be the brolly fill either. And it's most likely either the big softbox in the front OR the ring flash. Remember the idea is to keep the light contrasty- too much fill makes for flat images, but there is probably some fill. Depends. But otherwise yep- that's what I would say is the setup.

[djslyda]

Originally Posted by dennisonb

Basically yes. Although there are probably softboxes on those back lights. There might not be the brolly fill either. And it's most likely either the big softbox in the front OR the ring flash. Remember the idea is to keep the light contrasty- too much fill makes for flat images, but there is probably some fill. Depends. But otherwise yep- that's what I would say is the setup.

okay, i like your portfolio, great work, i would love to see what you could come up with trying to emulate this style as you said you could lol

[vapour]

Originally Posted by dennisonb

If I get a chance in the next couple weeks, I'll try something similar.

Would love to see what you come up with! I love your photography, great fashion work!!

[vapour]

Originally Posted by dennisonb

Smooth transitions come from working in 16bit, and being careful with the adjustments so as to make it punchy and contrasty, without being posterized.

Do all camera RAW files start out in 16bit? How do you convert from Camera Raw (in Photoshop) into a 16bit file?

Do most retouchers retouch in 16bit? This is the first I've heard of working 16bit. I know there's a split between those that work in RGB and CMYK though.

[Cyberek]

Quite a time ago i have seen, proppably in this thread a post, in which someone was considering DH "nerd" shot... and with start on it, he/she did some luminescence masking and curves adjustements layer to make the pic look more dramatic. Search didn't help, maybe soneone remembers who postet thad and where?

[longside1]

Hi Cyberek, I think the post to which you relate can be found on model mayhem...If you struggle to find it i may have it lying around on my pc at home and will try and find it for you...;-)

[Cyberek]

Yep, thanks a lot
Here is the link:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?th...=4#post6515623
It starts here, and goes on two posts below .


Thanks again .

[Qinter]

Do all camera RAW files start out in 16bit? How do you convert from Camera Raw (in Photoshop) into a 16bit file?

In ACR you can adjust the bit size, color space, resolution, and file size by clicking on the blue highlighted text below the image. This is a very important step when opening files depending on what their ultimate purpose is going to be.

[dennisonb]

Everyone pretty much works in 16 bit really. It's the norm now. Anything serious is definitly done first in 16 bit and then down sampled as needed. You can get 16 bit right out of your RAW processor- but no if you shoot JPG on your camera you are automatically working in 8bit. (Not so great).

Otherwise- I think the Dave Hill effect is now purchasable in a nice plugin-

http://www.topazlabs.com/topazlabs/0.../topaz_adjust/

Light your photo right, use the filter and you're all set. :-)

Funny huh?

[Ich.Mario]

yeah, funny. though.... hum... no, today, after all the verbal beating, it is not funny anymore.

[cli]

Originally Posted by dennisonb

Light your photo right, use the filter and you're all set. :-)

Funny huh?

I think that is doing to much aloes

I'm happy so it mean that is not demystyfied again

[vapour]

I mean if someone can do this from scratch, I would think its easy to paint on top of a picture. Perhaps that's a little what Dave is doing here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJNvKjQHv8I

Look at the end result.

By no means do I think Dave's work is strictly painted... I am saying that perhaps he utilizes some of the painting techniques in this video on top of a well-lit photograph?

No topaz, no high-pass, just loads of painting, dodge and burning etc.?

[dennisonb]

Out of curiosity, has anyone just sent Dave Hill and email and ask him what he does?

:-)
dennison

[Mtmm]

Originally Posted by vapour

I mean if someone can do this from scratch, I would think its easy to paint on top of a picture. Perhaps that's a little what Dave is doing here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJNvKjQHv8I

Look at the end result.

By no means do I think Dave's work is strictly painted... I am saying that perhaps he utilizes some of the painting techniques in this video on top of a well-lit photograph?

No topaz, no high-pass, just loads of painting, dodge and burning etc.?

This is what I believe.

[dennisonb]

Well he is definitly not painting it. Just ask him guys! It's standard stuff!

Adrian Sampson http://www.thetinymexicandivorce.com/ does the same stuff in the UK. A lot of commercial guys are shooting this way these days. It's not painting, it's good lighting!

[Cyberek]

dennisonb > if You are so shure... make a photo that looks like DH without PS.
Its ofcourse lighting, but this was all covered here. Some basic setups, some more advanced... but its not enought. The rest is in PS... and the way is important...
And after watching the wideo i think, that this may be quite big step forward .

[Ich.Mario]

Originally Posted by dennisonb

Well he is definitly not painting it. Just ask him guys! It's standard stuff!

Adrian Sampson http://www.thetinymexicandivorce.com/ does the same stuff in the UK. A lot of commercial guys are shooting this way these days. It's not painting, it's good lighting!

lol, adrian sampson. this is like good-lighting, but no "oh my gosh"-lighting and then photoshop.

[dennisonb]

Well I would like to actually, :-)

The only problem is that photoshoots are expensive, and time consuming. So I'm waiting for a good project to come around where this style might fit. If we can wait a month I'm sure I can get around to it. :-)

Otherwise, there is PS for sure but not 'magic'. You can get effects like this in lightroom easily enough by playing with Clarity, Fill, Black and Recovery.

What I can do, is I will look for something I already have, and apply the effects to see what I can get.

[Ich.Mario]

that would be great.

but please, no raw-converter-crap it's been said a thousand times... no clarity/fill/black fiddling.

[Cyberek]

dennisonb -> i'm starting to think, that You dont know what You are saying...
Have You ever tried the "lightroom crank it all up" method? -> it gaves You a lot of halos and strange looking effects. Ofcourse it fits sometimes, but it's not even close to results that DH or Mtmm gets. Its like paint vs photoshop... and You tells as, that paint is better :P (for working with photography)

[dennisonb]

hahahahah, no don't worry. I've been on productions where exactly this work was needed for a Mobile Phone operator. So I've watched the photoshop/photographer guy do it.

The lightroom 'crank it all up' method is the quickest way to explain it. Of course everything you can do in lightroom you can do in photoshop- but cleaner and with more control. Yes I agree lightroom can make for grainy messy files. But there are much better Raw converters- Capture One for example has much cleaner files to work with.

In anycase, I took one file I already had and did a quick develop of it here. Keep in mind I shot it for something else, so the lighting isn't what is needed to make a perfect comparison. In any case, the file took 5 minutes to prepare. Keep in mind I am sure DH spends hours on each of his photos. :-) So it's not a fair comparision.

but what I DO think you can see if the photo is the same kinda of texture to the colors/shadows. There is a cartoony effect that with better lighting and proper planning would really begin approach the DH look.

http://i423.photobucket.com/albums/p..._MG_9009-c.jpg

Also it's important to remember, DH style is not particularly 'low budget'. You need lighting outside, and you need a lot of lighting. His best stuff are very expensive productions- if everyone is getting paid then it can easily be thousands for each of the pictures.

Still I think if you really want to know, you should just ask him! I'm sure he would be amused to hear from us. :-)

dennison
www.dennisonbertram.com

[snook305]

Originally Posted by Cyberek

dennisonb -> i'm starting to think, that You dont know what You are saying...
Have You ever tried the "lightroom crank it all up" method? -> it gaves You a lot of halos and strange looking effects. Ofcourse it fits sometimes, but it's not even close to results that DH or Mtmm gets. Its like paint vs photoshop... and You tells as, that paint is better :P (for working with photography)

Cyberek you seem to talk a lot for someone who has a pretty shitty website..
I hate to say it but just happen to pop in here again and when I saw your comment, I thought I might check out this guys website...
And sorry to say it looks really disappointing, Specially for someone who comments like they know a lot about lighting and Post work.
Maybe you have some other website that your not posting.
If so please post it, I am curios to see a website of someone who has such a strong opinion other than one who shoots cousins/Family weddings and side shows...???
Snook

PS. Dennis's site looks pretty good to me and I would believe what he says over what you say any day of the week.. even though I do not believe anybody but myself...:+]

I definitely would not believe anything Dave Hill says as he usually lies about his process constantly.
Saying he does not use HDR or anything like that on his backgrounds is BS. I know it, he knows it, and anybody that knows anything about photoshop and photography knows it...
Period!

[Cyberek]

snook305 -> my website is designed to hit a target, and for now its all about wedding photography (and there are photos taken a long time ago, when i had quite smaller knowlege about photography). Also it's not only mine . Some of my up to date work will be placed on the page soon... but for now, most of it is copyrighted by people/companies that hired me .
But keep watching... few months and there will be something quite diffrent .
Ps... all of the ppl on photos on that site are ours customers, none of them is my family .

[snook305]

Was Just an observation..... I could not resist to comment..
I have no doubt you will have some new images... and maybe with some kind of DH effect to them...:+}
Snook

[Cyberek]

snook305 ->
the truth, is that i am in photography from 2-3 years, but its olny for 1 year, that i treat it seriously. It's last year -> the time, when i bought my studio equipement (its still 2 100W studio lamps + 2x on shue strobes + some wires + some umbrellas + some backgrounds). Also, its not mine's full time job (for now, i'm planning to change that), so i don't have much time to update my gallery and stuff (as i remember, Yours gallery is also quite old, maybe becouse of not enought time ).
And about comment... there was a time, when i was thinking about building my portfolio based on family, but then i realizet, that there are a lot of opportunities to get some clients... and then it has started -> one client gets me another and so one.
Of course every day i think that i do not know much about photography and PS and postwork, but everyday i try to do something new... and this is base of my jugdgements... if someone says that this or that works... then i spend few hours just to try and say something about.

dennisonb ->
You have showed a photo, but maybe just becouse the lightning and purpose it don't work for me ... but You also have showed, that this can be done in 5 minutes, and will not look like crap -> just like You would get, if Ligtroom method (Cranking) have been used. Or other words... use it with brain, and You will get something :P.