How to get the Jill Greenberg effect

[erikhatt]

I love what you are saying! You are dedicated and you will reach far more then 95% of the people in here. I have now seen your website, and you are pretty close. Some of the pictures was great. But i sont like the flat digitally expression. Buy a chep MF-camera and shoot film. Let yout local lab scan it for you.


www.tmax100.com/photo
Go there, thats a part of my website where i share some knowledge and documentation. SOme is even in german

[erikhatt]

Originally Posted by wojciech

Without equipment, without paying attention to details (skin tone ), without too much time spent on:
http://ciebiera.eu/retusze/monia/

Yeah Blow that up to 3x 1,86 meter ANd see what you got printed in 360 DPI

[wojciech]

Two days ago I made 80x60cm prints from 5dmkii - quality - delicious. This one (I've just posted) is from 350D + 85 1.8, so not for huge formats .

[TimeActor]

Oh thank you erik
Your words sounds like honey for me...smile.
So i will go on and work hard to get every picture with great looking...haha.
I´m dooing this to get a personal look in my pictures about 1 year! I think i have a chance to do it better.

Which MF Camera? Mamiya, Leaf ore else. What is the best?

Thanks for the link! I´m study it in the evening.
(Great post here!!!)

Regards
Martin

[erikhatt]

Originally Posted by TimeActor

Oh thank you erik
Your words sounds like honey for me...smile.
So i will go on and work hard to get every picture with great looking...haha.
I´m dooing this to get a personal look in my pictures about 1 year! I think i have a chance to do it better.

Which MF Camera? Mamiya, Leaf ore else. What is the best?

Thanks for the link! I´m study it in the evening.
(Great post here!!!)

Regards
Martin

Find a cheap Mamiya RZpro or Hasselblad 500C/M but get some good 140-150mm optics for portraits. In one year you can reach far! I use many hours a day recearching and learning my self.

[TimeActor]

Thanx!
yes i have created a lot of ugly pictures at the beginning ;-)
But my skill with photoshop is good...yet...much experimentals!

I looking for an Mamiya RZpro - good tipp!

[longside1]

Can somebody please clarify why it is so important to use a top end camera like a Hasselblad?

I can name a few pro photographers who have stimulated significant debate on various forums who don't use such high end camera and still create images that no one can get anywhere near.

the work of these individuals is more down to lighting and post processing than the actual camera.

[erikhatt]

Originally Posted by longside1

Can somebody please clarify why it is so important to use a top end camera like a Hasselblad?

I can name a few pro photographers who have stimulated significant debate on various forums who don't use such high end camera and still create images that no one can get anywhere near.

the work of these individuals is more down to lighting and post processing than the actual camera.

I think this is very much and individual choice. ANd its also up to the viewer to decide witch image is far superior to an other. Personaly i can say that i use the equipment i use beacuase it gives me what imn looking for. SO i switch between SLR/MF and LF for the assignment and purpose/expression in the picture. If High end equipment didnt matter, it wouldnt be made or bought.

Why isnt they driving a Moris Mini in F1, its a far cooler and nicer car.

[longside1]

Originally Posted by erikhatt

I think this is very much and individual choice. ANd its also up to the viewer to decide witch image is far superior to an other. Personaly i can say that i use the equipment i use beacuase it gives me what imn looking for. SO i switch between SLR/MF and LF for the assignment and purpose/expression in the picture. If High end equipment didnt matter, it wouldnt be made or bought.

Why isnt they driving a Moris Mini in F1, its a far cooler and nicer car.

Well despite the high end equipment you are using, after looking at the 'Saved for Web images' Timeactor has produced, compared to those produced by your goodself, I think Timeactors shot are much closer to the look of Greenberg.

In this respect my advice to Timeactor would be, forget the expensive camera, just carry on what you're doing, really good work!

This is just my 'individual choice'

[erikhatt]

Originally Posted by longside1

Well despite the high end equipment you are using, after looking at the 'Saved for Web images' Timeactor has produced, compared to those produced by your goodself, I think Timeactors shot are much closer to the look of Greenberg.

In this respect my advice to Timeactor would be, forget the expensive camera, just carry on what you're doing, really good work!

This is just my 'individual choice'

Good luck in your future judgment.

[longside1]

Originally Posted by erikhatt

Good luck in your future judgment.

I'm sorry i don't understand?

[erikhatt]

Just by telling that you are judging pictures by viewing on a computer screen, i dont want to go further in the debate. You have totally missed the purpose of this debate.

[longside1]

The topic of this debate is 'How to get the Jill Greenberg effect.

I am simply stating that very expensive camera equipment is not necessary to acheive the JG effect, and I demonstrated this by highlighting the fact that Timeactor has some excellent shots taken with what I assume is a standard slr and which I personally believe are very close to the work of JG.

If you are looking to acheive the JG look, then I think your work is going in the right direction. Prehaps with a little more practice and if Timeactor were to share some of his processing techniques you might get there.

regards,

[erikhatt]

Originally Posted by longside1

The topic of this debate is 'How to get the Jill Greenberg effect.

I am simply stating that very expensive camera equipment is not necessary to acheive the JG effect, and I demonstrated this by highlighting the fact that Timeactor has some excellent shots taken with what I assume is a standard slr and which I personally believe are very close to the work of JG.

If you are looking to acheive the JG look, then I think your work is going in the right direction. Prehaps with a little more practice and if Timeactor were to share some of his processing techniques you might get there.

regards,

You havent even seen my pictures, and still you are talking away on my webpreviews. I have in earlyer post talked about the process for making pictures like this, and you still dont get the point. Im a photographer who deliver pictures to magazines and ad-campaigns. The result in print is what matter for me and my clients, not what your totally unqualified spequlations in here says.

I deal with statement like yours every week when i have students and workshops. So im not provoked. But the day you understand that your point of views is different than mine, it will be better. I can not care less for your oppinion, but it takes this debate far away from the purpose.

I am not imitating Jill Greenberg in my pictures. I tried to explain the process behind it. But everytime this happend, a person like you need to justify their purchase of a low end DSLR.

Some times i can see the anger of not having sucsess as a photografer thmes self. Earn good money and do cool assignments shine trough their posts. Some DSLR amateurs dont have what it takes to understand the hard and true words of how things really are.

[erikhatt]

See this, by the way: http://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/greenberg.pdf

[longside1]

Originally Posted by erikhatt

You havent even seen my pictures, and still you are talking away on my webpreviews. I have in earlyer post talked about the process for making pictures like this, and you still dont get the point. Im a photographer who deliver pictures to magazines and ad-campaigns. The result in print is what matter for me and my clients, not what your totally unqualified spequlations in here says.

I deal with statement like yours every week when i have students and workshops. So im not provoked. But the day you understand that your point of views is different than mine, it will be better. I can not care less for your oppinion, but it takes this debate far away from the purpose.

I am not imitating Jill Greenberg in my pictures. I tried to explain the process behind it. But everytime this happend, a person like you need to justify their purchase of a low end DSLR.

Some times i can see the anger of not having sucsess as a photografer thmes self. Earn good money and do cool assignments shine trough their posts. Some DSLR amateurs dont have what it takes to understand the hard and true words of how things really are.

In one of your earlier posts you stated that if your work was printed and put alongside that of JG then the viewer would not be able to tell the difference - seems like imitation to me.

the purpose of this thread is to discuss the Jill Greenberg effect. I do not understand why you have got so worked up simply because i have stated that the work of somebody else looks closer to JG's than yours?

Having regard to your last statement, it would appear that alleged professional photographers like yourself are the ones who cant take the true words of how things are.

[longside1]

Originally Posted by erikhatt

See this, by the way: http://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/greenberg.pdf

A great link, as I have stated, the JG look is clearly down to the lighting, which is then built upon using not a lot more than simple dodge and burn and prehaps painting on white.

[erikhatt]

Go calibrate yor screen little fellow.

[longside1]

Originally Posted by erikhatt

Go calibrate yor screen little fellow.

Just calibrated my monitor, and I still think the work of Timeactor looks closer to Greenberg than yours.

Don't take it to heart, I'm sure your work does look great in a magazine.

[Flashtones]

Originally Posted by TimeActor

Yes i know the problem with 100kb pictures ;-)
Every printed pic looks much more better!
I´m close to you about hard working and there is no filter or action that gets the effect!
With my pics i spend a lot of time with my wacom intuos 3 A5 and paint the lights and shadows.
i think you and jill flattens the contrast to get a smoother look with a curve or gradient layer in blending mode soft light - is this right?

Here ist my little working:
http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/1305255

Regards
Martin

Superb work.

[TimeActor]

do not argue! it is not necessary to banging heads on the whall
i like the images of erik!
i´m sure that these pictures looking great side by side to jills pics.

so be cool

[longside1]

Originally Posted by TimeActor

do not argue! it is not necessary to banging heads on the whall
i like the images of erik!
i´m sure that these pictures looking great side by side to jills pics.

so be cool

I quite agree. To put an end to any nonesense can i for the record clarify that I think Erik's images are very good, I just prefer yours ;-)

[Caesium]

Erik,

I really like your work but I would not say it is a Greenberg knockoff (and as a commercial photo, that is a good thing). I will argue your MF point as I have had the honor of meeting a few commercial photographers who shoot in styles very similar to Greenberg. While all the photographers I know HAVE shot with digital MF (H3D 50mp, Phase 1 P65+'s, etc), NONE shoot MF as their primary camera. Honestly, most everyone is shooting 1D's or 5DmII's.

Doug Sonders actually has gone on record (well, I am about 98% sure it was Doug, if not, sorry for fibbin about ya bro) to say that he much PREFERS the 5DmII as the Hassey's have too much resolution for 90% of the commercial work he does. He went on to say that with all that resolution comes enormous retouching expenses where as the lower (relatively) resolution of the big 35mm DLSR's keep the needed quality with not much of the overkill.

TimeActor,

I really like a couple of your shots, particularly "Exkursion" and "jetzt hab auch ichs verstanden". I think these two are the closest to Greenberg. Your highlights and skin softening on these two look spot on.

[wojciech]

Could somebody tell me, how JG effect is related to size of frame, sensor, etc?? The topic is "How to get the Jill Greenberg effect" not "How to get bigger prints without loosing details" or not "Which equipment is better". Focus on the effect, not on technical issues, pls. We don't need "technical masturbation" (we call it this way in Poland)

[klam]

I heard that Amy Dresser does the post for Jill. Any truth to that?

http://www.amydresser.com/

[TimeActor]

@klam,
yes she is "one" of others. she did not all the work!

[rudym]

What's the purpose of copying others work?

[rudym]

I come to this forum and i learn the different step to get better at photoshop. Not for my photos to look like anyone else. Again why make your photo look like anyone Else's?.

[rudym]

This is like the reality TV shows. No one wants to keep learning after they learn the basics. TimeActor your photos are great you got your photoshop done pack no new cam needed you just need to come out of the circle lot leave the pond go into the ocean. Just my 1/2 cent.

[TimeActor]

Hello rudym,
thank you!
At the beginning in work with photoshop you see great pictures of others like Calvin Hollywood, Jill Greenberg, Dave Hill, Bill Simone and so on.
I like the pictures of the artists above very well!
Then i will find my way to get my personal look inspired from them. Anyone is inspired of others!
The different between Jill´s and my pictures are the harder contrast and sharpness. I think it is a kombination of all. A bit painted look like calvin, the dodging & burning like jill and the harder contrast and sharpness like dave.

I´m at the end of experimentals...uhh hard work with much time.
This year i will go on and shoot "the right" pictures

Regards
Martin