Bringin' in the Darkness

[sockolt]

Okay, so I happen to have seen some images in the 'before' state that were extremly light and well lit. It was daytime in an office building full of windows in fact.

And yet, the finished products are these attachments...

Can anyone explain how in the heck this is done?! I've tried levels, exposure, desaturating, channel mixing, color balance...everything but the kitchen sink. I know it's got to be something simple that I'm just missing.

Any takers?!

[kona]

can you post the original images so we can see what the before looked like?

Looks like allot of vignetting, and burning. possibly layers set to multiply and masked? Hard to say without seeing the original image.

[sockolt]

No, I don't have access to the originals. They were just exactly what you see only with bright lighting instead of it looking like night time.

[des151]

Hi sockolt,
Try the shadow/highlight, adj. the shadows and midtone contrast etc. to taste. Made this one lighter with the s/h adj.
Ray

[sockolt]

I've only played in the shadow highlight twice with mixed results. It's going to take some more playing for me to feel totally comfortable, but I would have to say that you're on the money with the idea of using it! Thanks!

[des151]

You are welcome. Take the lighter version adj. the shadows & midtone contrast to make it look like the darker one.
Ray

[johnnycorcoran]

like that one???
kitchen.jpg

[DJSoulglo]

I've wondered the same thing.


Here's the best example of what I think you mean as well:

original is well lit and lovely
retouch is dark, moody and lovelier.

This is from Amy Dresser's portfolio site.

How's this done?

[TommyO]

Sockolt,
My experience has been that these are not anything simple. The workflows are quite complex and often have upwards of 30 layers or more. Most are more successful in building the effect slowly rather than quickly.
Getting someone to share their workflow may be difficult. Most are protected and those from the industry sign non-disclosure agreements.
So, you just have to invent your own !
Best of luck !

[synthetamine]

yeh, no.

Add a white to black gradient and cycle through the blending modes. Its that easy.

Sometimes just try layering an unrelated image over it and cycling through the blending modes.

In my manipulation here
http://rdelw.deviantart.com/art/Trident-81454813

I copied the clouds in the background , put it on the top layer and linear dodged it. The original pictures (of me) are very well lit and were taken outside on a bright day.

[_ManWithNoName_]

I suppose this could be a start

http://www.photoshopassist.com/?p=68

[igot2pman]

Painting with black will darken selectively as opposed to a global darkener like B&C or curves. Lots of masking is also involved.

Decided to try and mimic the Amy Dresser image.

-Keven

[_ManWithNoName_]

So how did you do that. Ive decided today to try and have a go to.

Whats B&C?

D

[igot2pman]

Brightness and contrast= B&C

Added screen shoot to the above. Ask questions if you need to.

-Keven

[_ManWithNoName_]

Superb. Thanks very much...

[_ManWithNoName_]

Well. Gave it a go. 1st attempt at trying to recreate anything. Very quickly done. Levels, Selective Colour, Paint Over With Black, Blur. Probably could do with more colour correcting and other touches...

But thanks. The workflow helped me...

D

p.s Actually displays brighter on site than on my work pc...

[domididom]

Hello, this is my first post on this forum.

Here is my try, on my photos which I took some time ago

Original:

1

2

Retouched:

1

2

The retouch is based on curves adjustments and d&b(not the beauty technique).
It's about 50 layers to achieve this look.
-----------------------
Please don't use my photos for your tries.

Dominik

[RokcetScientist]

That looks like 'Draganizing' to me, Domididom.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/735941...shop_tutorial/

But the email address across kills the image good.

[domididom]

I posted the eMail adress because I didn't want to see 100 remakes of this photos (I know it sucks)

And no, It's not "Draganizing" in my opinion.
I see many people now saying "Draganizing" just because it's sharp and detailed. It's easy to see that those images are not in Andrzej Dragan style. You just have to check out Dragans page and you will see that the only thing which these images have in comon is sharpness and details...

Seeing it this way people should stop using high amount of high-pass filter and/or shadows and highlights because it means "Draganizing"

Ah and after watching the tutorial, I have to say that I achieved the look of my images in totally different way.

and reffering to "But the email address across kills the image good"... it's the part of the forum in which you ask/show techniques not exhibit your works

[_ManWithNoName_]

I don't think it's draganizing either for my 2cents...

[0lBaldy]

My two cents worth also!

Imagenomic noise removal
Ctrl+J (Background copy)
hue/sat, Reds, desaturate, darken (lighten slider all the way to the left), mode multiply
Ctrl+J (Copy Layer)
mode color, opacity 36%
Shft+Ctrl+ALT+N+E (new combined layer)
Ctrl+J (Copy Layer)
hue/sat, Reds, desaturate, darken, mode multiply
Filter>Noise>add noise, 7.8%
Opacity 71%

Tweak to your pleasure.. (lighter, darker, whatever)

DresserSample ~~ My try

[dennisonb]

Random question-

I know you said it seemed like daylight- bright office. But by any chance was flashed used? Did you see the original pictures themselves, not just the setup? It's easy to make a bright setup look very dark with only a little bit of flash. This lighting would be a peice of cake with two or so flash heads, but days worth of work in photoshop.

-dennison
www.dennisonbertram.com

[dennisonb]

Infact, even though the images are very small- I can clearly see a flash being used. The reflection on the blue ball (on the first picture) and the reflection along the wood on the floor- in the second. It's clearly flash in my opinion. (although it would be nice to see the pictures in higher resolution).

dennison
www.dennisonbertram.com