How to: "Christian Schmidt" Look

[pixelhunter]

Originally Posted by Gt_max

Thank you for spending your time explaining it again to me...
not that I want to be a lazy person but I try and I totally get a different result =(
here are my 2 attempts :

Post your PS "history" from those images.

[Gt_max]

Originally Posted by pixelhunter

Post your PS "history" from those images.

I do exactly as you explained
I open up the file
Edit - Convert to profile -> Adobe RGB (1998) but its already on Adobe RGB (1998) so I just click ok then Edit - Assign profile - AIM RGB pro which makes the photo look much brighter and again Edit - Convert to profile -> Adobe RGB (1998) and Edit - Assign profile - AIM RGB which again makes it more white, I duplicate the bg layer set the blending mode to multiply this makes the photo gets some of its original colors back... problem starts when I change the blending options:custome - Underlying Layer to 112... thats what make my photo looks all wired and then a curve layer which 25 black input...

[Michael Bonner]

Originally Posted by Gt_max

I do exactly as you explained
I open up the file
Edit - Convert to profile -> Adobe RGB (1998) but its already on Adobe RGB (1998) so I just click ok then Edit - Assign profile - AIM RGB pro which makes the photo look much brighter and again Edit - Convert to profile -> Adobe RGB (1998) and Edit - Assign profile - AIM RGB which again makes it more white, I duplicate the bg layer set the blending mode to multiply this makes the photo gets some of its original colors back... problem starts when I change the blending options:custome - Underlying Layer to 112... thats what make my photo looks all wired and then a curve layer which 25 black input...

Try holding down the Option/Alt key when you change the underlaying layer slider to 112. You should only be moving the left half of the slider.

[Gt_max]

Originally Posted by Michael Bonner

Try holding down the Option/Alt key when you change the underlaying layer slider to 112. You should only be moving the left half of the slider.

OMG yes !
Thank you Michael

[garibaldi]

ok Im not putting anything or anyone down in this thread but I think that most of this stuff here is not in the ballpark, maybe your pulling into the parking lot of the ballpark, but you arent in it yet. That Shmidt guys work is really somethin. First, I am impressed with how slean a lot of the images are. second, I think he is shotting large or MF. Second alot of those shots are composites, and prob some cgi mixed in. alot of those really neautral, and pleasing scenes are practically impossible to get in camera. Study the shadows, highlights etc, not the post stuff, the actual composition in the picture, look at how everything is sharp. Any photogs reading this will be nodding their heads. So i think there is much much much more going on here than convert a profile and dupe it. But keep up the thread, its great reading. BTW Id love for someone that realy knows or actually does those shots to come here and just lay it out, get rid of all the speculation once and for all. Same goes for the dave hill thread, man is that long in the tooth!!!!!

[Michael Bonner]

Originally Posted by garibaldi

ok Im not putting anything or anyone down in this thread but I think that most of this stuff here is not in the ballpark, maybe your pulling into the parking lot of the ballpark, but you arent in it yet. That Shmidt guys work is really somethin. First, I am impressed with how slean a lot of the images are. second, I think he is shotting large or MF. Second alot of those shots are composites, and prob some cgi mixed in. alot of those really neautral, and pleasing scenes are practically impossible to get in camera. Study the shadows, highlights etc, not the post stuff, the actual composition in the picture, look at how everything is sharp. Any photogs reading this will be nodding their heads. So i think there is much much much more going on here than convert a profile and dupe it. But keep up the thread, its great reading. BTW Id love for someone that realy knows or actually does those shots to come here and just lay it out, get rid of all the speculation once and for all. Same goes for the dave hill thread, man is that long in the tooth!!!!!

As a photographer, I see what you are saying and can agree on many points- I'd guess he's shooting digital MF at the least and that he does composite many of his images. I could certainly see the possibility of CGI as well. And for the natural looking scenes, well that's another matter entirely.

However, I think the profile conversion method described in this thread is quite effective at creating a good starting point for achieving the end results that you see in his 'clean' photos. Attached here is one of Schmidt's photos, as well as a similar original photo from earlier in the thread and the result of a retouch that included the profile conversion method. The results, I would argue, are similar, and considering the retouched image here is from a 500 pixel-wide JPEG shot with the wrong white balance and with what looks to be a fair amount of noise, versus an uncompressed file from a 50 megapixel Hasselblad, I'd say the success of this technique lies more in the subject than the application.

In any case, this thread is far closer to being "in the ballpark" than the infamous Dave Hill one.

[sirespen]

I agree with garibaldi, btw Michael Bonner i think your result is the best i've seen so far.

Ciao Sebi

[Gt_max]

Originally Posted by Michael Bonner

In any case, this thread is far closer to being "in the ballpark" than the infamous Dave Hill one.

WOW... your result is the Closest !
can you please explain the procedure ?

[garibaldi]

The method of pushing the gamma through profile cycling is pretty close. The one thing that I have noticed though is that once you do that, you lose a lot of the dark tones. Notice how in his photos that the balance and dynamic range is very broad. The cool thing about whatever he or his retouchers are doing is that it matches very close to what the human eye would see as far as range. Anyone who shoots knows all too well that there is no way your going to hold shadow detail like that without blowing out highlights or vice versa. That shot of the people sitting along the window in the airport....no way that you could expose them properly with light coming in from directly behind and hold an even tone through 15 feet of floor in front of them, as well as keeping the outside view perfect.....and talk about the DOF, everything is crispy and sharp. I commend the work, but that isnt all done in camera. And i highly doubt hes setting up enough light banks in an airport or wharehouse or escalator hall to balance that, and without any hotspots either. ITs compositing. One more thing....theres not a shadow to be found in any of those images. I think its cool, and would love to see the process from start to finish

[djslyda]

^ ^
i agree, Christian Schmidt, Erik Almas and Dave Hill are all masters at compositing, i too would love to see how they do it.

[diggnikon]

I thought id add my version - still trying to tweak it some more

[sirespen]

Hi digginikon! Could you please post a link for the image? Because i can't click on it :S

Ciao Sebastian

[fryday]

Here's my attempt. Let me know what you think.

[diggnikon]

HI Sirespen

i shrunk my version , ill do another one over the weekend and post a link

[BobZZZ]

This is not quite the same but on similar lines F Stop mag has a how too from Jonathan Tay who explains how he lights and comps these type of shots. http://www.thefstopmag.com/?p=259