How to edit images like that?

[IREN]

Does anyone know how to achieve results like on the attached image? I've tried many options, but nothing seem to be working.

Thanks

[Calvinhollywood]

Re: How to edit images like that?

What do you talking about?
On what images do you working? If you like to get THIS result you have to work on a image like this.
By the way.. i dont see retouching, i only see photography

[Boneappetit]

Re: How to edit images like that?

I agree Calvin, there's no edit there except maybe for the guy it looks like a different shot.

[IREN]

Re: How to edit images like that?

No, it's definitely edited, images don't come out like that on their own. Trees never look like that on SOOC pics and the whole image doesn't have that haze or whatever it is there which makes the whole difference. Even though I can identify some of the things, I still can't achieve similar results. And here's a link to one of the folders on their facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.382103735196661.84822.120224398051264&type=1

Well, I've managed recently to do something similar to one of my images, but can't get the same look on other pics, I mean shot in different lighting situations (See the attached image). I like the fact that it looks natural, not too overdone, although it took me quite a while to get there.

[mshi]

Re: How to edit images like that?

It was obtained in camera but the contrast was reduced in post.

[capice]

Re: How to edit images like that?

Too small for me to see if it is only photography or if it is retouched....even with my glasses on...

[RobertAsh]

Re: How to edit images like that?

Regarding the Facebook page portfolio, that has a lot to do with the time of day and the exposure chosen. It looks like:

• The first several rows (rows 1-4) look like they were shot around mid-day with the sun behind the subjects, subjects may have been in the shade. Exposure was set for the shadows, which blew out the sky and made the leaves very pastel.
• The row with the trees (row 5) was shot later in the day, 1-2 hrs before sunset. You can see the colors around their feet are more saturated.
• The final rows were shot near sunset, you can figure out the angle of light from the line between the man's head and his shadow on the woman's face in row7, column 1. The sun was not far above the horizon.

I'd guess that in post-processing the photographer warmed the shadows to turn the blue cast in the shadows into a warmer cast.

[IREN]

Re: How to edit images like that?

Hello,

Just a follow up.

Long time since I've posted... Had time to improve both photography and retouching.

The image originally posted is definitely improved in post as I'm now achieving similar results (but not as contrasty and saturated maybe). I shoot a lot in the sun because I just love the sunlight and my images always come out very flat, disaturated and hazy when shooting in these lighting situations. So for those who think the result was achieved in camera, below is the before and after. It looks like there's not much has been done, but I had over 30 layers overall in order to get the look I wanted. I wanted to get the beautiful tones of trees, greenery and skin tones in particular and this has become my style and can bee seen in all of my images.

Here are some more: http://irena-kabelis.com/a-walk-on-a...photography-2/

Thank you

[klev]

Re: How to edit images like that?

You mention over 30 layers, and it happens. What I like is that you analyzed the goal in pieces as opposed to the common attempt to algorithmize everything.

[IREN]

Re: How to edit images like that?

Thank you Klev

Glad I got there at the end and my frustrations regarding 'how it's done' has ended. Finally can focus more on photography itself as I spend less time in post. It still takes me quite a while, but compared to previous workflow (a week or more per image (!!!) and still not happy), life is so much easier now.

[Hinson]

Re: How to edit images like that?

IREN; Sorry to be negative but since you ask; Replying to your original post, yes images do come out of the camera like that. Your original images are under exposed and the white balance is off. Question for you: Is the boy's coat black or brown? If black, then the retouched image is not correct. Did you have to change color to 'correct' the image or did you change the color to make the image more to your liking? If the latter, then that is a subjective decision that only you can make.

[IREN]

Re: How to edit images like that?

The coat is black, but I tweaked it separately to be a warmer colour as I don't like having pure black in my images. But that is irrelevant as everyone creates a look they're after. Many wedding images have tinted haze, some use blue, some pink or other which results in tinted blacks/whites etc. That's just an artistic edit.

I underexpose my images on purpose, but that's irrelevant as well, as can be fixed easily. White balance is how I like, I aim to achieve a cooler look to start with and work from there.

When shooting again a light source (i.e. the sun), images turn out hazy and underexposed, but that's not a problem.

The question is not whether or not the original image was edited, it was 'how' because it was edited. Any wedding photographer shoot edit their images, as unedited looks unfinished unless you're shooting film like Jose Villa (he only adds some contrast and saturation to his images after they've been scanned, but the fact remains the same - he processes his images as that's what all photographers do or should do).

Also most successful wedding photographers outsource their editing and I know some companies who do that and how they do it. But to me it was when I wanted to learn and figure out for myself in order to have a better understanding. Occasionally I would get perfect result in camera, but it was still lacking that punch and once edited, it looked so much better - it looked finished.

[Hinson]

Re: How to edit images like that?

Well, I see that to you, constructive criticism is 'irrelevant.' If you wish to change the color of a clients clothes, or shoot badly exposed images that is your choice. I've been a photographer for probably longer than you (and possibly, your parents) have been alive. I started when I was 15 back in the mid-fifties. I've been retired now for almost a decade but I still know good photography from the new generation of spray and pray and CORRECT in photoshop.

Creating a certain look to your photographs starts out with getting a GOOD image SOOC. Underexposure is not irrelevant! Bad white balance is not irrelevant! Unless that is the look you are going for. However, you would not then have to 'fix' them later as you mention on your site ("Every image in today’s digital photography world can benefit from being processed to some extent, even if it’s just as basic as fixing white balance and adjusting exposure, brightness and contrast in either Lightroom or Photoshop.")

So have fun and I hope you have success.

[Vernon]

Re: How to edit images like that?

I have to concur with Hinson: getting it right (or as close to it) in the camera is paramount. What you do to the image in post-processing becomes relevant only to the style you with to portray.
Personally, any deviation beyond the basic touch-ups on WB, exposure, brightness and contrast becomes artistic expression done "posthumously".
I shot 120 and 220 rollifilm for a few years, as well as standard 35mm film into the late '90s - you had to get the shot right or it was a scrap and do-over. That still applies today with our multi-megapixel DSLR's.
It is the artist's eye for framing, anticipating the light and shadow, and knowing when to snap the shot that, to me, makes the photographer...

[IREN]

Re: How to edit images like that?

Haha... Sorry to sound rude, but the 'years of experience in photography' doesn't prove you're good at it. I might just start couple of years ago, but I progressed much more than my fellow photographers that were on photography course with me and had 'many years of experience'. That's just funny. Their work hasn't changed after this course, but to me it was a great start. The ability to learn fast, in my opinion, is far better than making the same mistakes and over and over again and not learning anything all those years. All you have just a number, nothing else.

For your knowledge I underexpose in order to preserve highlights in the first place and lighten and brighten underexposed areas afterwards. Second, the so called 'right white balance' is just a guidance, not a rule. I love cooler images and that's my preference, I further tone down yeallows in greens in post, not just 'fixing' an image, but adding a creative flare. Editing for me is not a fix like most people - non photographers - think. But when it comes from a photographer, it's very sad. Lightroom, Photoshop and other software are just tools to add your stamp on images and make them your own, unique, recognisable, different, whatever....

Most than anything I would like to just take a picture and be happy with it, I don't want to spend all my life editing, but for now it's not happening as I don't get the images I want (with cooler greenery, nicer skin tones and texture, warmer trees or certain other areas of the image) in camera. On the other hand, I enjoy editing process and that's my choice.