Bohdan
Senior Member
looks like a lot.
--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
separation between subject and background is needed to make an image pop. If everthing front to back is in focus, there is no pop, not to say that this can't lead to an outstanding image.
Separation implies bokeh and bokeh is maximized with a telephoto.
Separation implies bokeh and bokeh is maximized with a telephoto.
Nope, for the kind of "pop" asked for by Christopher, as I explained in my post above, that's not it by itself.
To explore this assumption, I went around my neighborhood yesterday and asked my neighbors (the ones I know with DSLRs) about their PP expertise. To my surprise, very few knew anything about photoshop.Bob Tullis wrote:
Seriously, I think
this assumption is the basis of our disagreement here.
I stand corrected. Perhaps most DSLR users really have no idea how to PP. If this is the case, then I suggest the "pop" factor is created by a combo of basic PP technique and a great subject.
This was an interesting thread. Thanks Bob and OP.
mcmm
Bohdan
Senior Member
all the (primary) colors do not focus on the same plane in our eyes, giving the illusion of 3D.
I remember reading some interesting stuff on this (not related to photography) a very long time ago so the details are quite vague right now.
--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
I remember reading some interesting stuff on this (not related to photography) a very long time ago so the details are quite vague right now.
--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Sorry, but that is just not close to correct. Human 3D vision is the result of having two eyes with overlapping fields of vision. You don't even see with your eyes anyway, you perceive the world with your brain.
This thread is an interesting one to watch because I have been waiting to learn more than my present theories about the idea of "pop" in photos. I think it is very complex.
I think you must have a good sensor, good algorithms in the camera, a good lens, good contrast, good light, good saturation, good sharpness, good composition, good technique, and a good subject. Then you must do a good job of post processing the image using the right techniques for the specific qualities of that image without going too far.
That's all there is to it.
Anyone who thinks it is only one or two of those things doesn't really understand the problem.
--
Nothing is enough for the man to whom nothing is enough.
Bohdan
Senior Member
my comment referred to looking at 2D images such as on a monitor or print. I was not trying to explain binocular vision which is somethjing all together different.
A quick Google search uncovered this article...... scroll down to color but the whole article is interesting from a photographers perspective, pardon the pun.
http://www.physics.utoledo.edu/~lsa/_color/19_depth.htm
--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
A quick Google search uncovered this article...... scroll down to color but the whole article is interesting from a photographers perspective, pardon the pun.
http://www.physics.utoledo.edu/~lsa/_color/19_depth.htm
--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Port Royal Dad
Senior Member
Very little actually....I spent no more than 10 minutes on each photo.
Each photo was taken using hyperfocal distance, and in RAW. I used exposure bracketing to get three exposures; and what you see are the 3 layers combined to capture the highlites and shadows... Use Photoshop Elements to layer the images.
As far as the images....I did very little sharpening, and tweaked the contrast. That's all....then I layered them.
r/Mike
--
B.R.A.S.S. (Breathe, Relax, Aim, Sight, Squeeze)
Each photo was taken using hyperfocal distance, and in RAW. I used exposure bracketing to get three exposures; and what you see are the 3 layers combined to capture the highlites and shadows... Use Photoshop Elements to layer the images.
As far as the images....I did very little sharpening, and tweaked the contrast. That's all....then I layered them.
r/Mike
--
B.R.A.S.S. (Breathe, Relax, Aim, Sight, Squeeze)
Bohdan
Senior Member
you are getting off on a technicality ;-).... I would consider the process of blending 3 exposures not exactly.... "i didn't do anything, just took the picture"
nice "work".
--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
nice "work".
--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
mattclark04
Well-known member
Looking at some of his other images, I'm going to guess he's using general contrast (levels) enhancement and saturation enhancement on most images, along with a small quantity of selective desaturation on some, including the one you linked to. I like the fact they don't seem particularly sharpened though - gives a more natural look IMO.
mattclark04
Well-known member
Well now be fair, that can't be a complete list of things that count for you in making these photos: the examples you've posted look very heavily post-processed. The saturation and sharpness boosts are not subtle.
Bobo Hodls
Forum Pro
'pop' can come from many directions. Not the one I was thinking of, necessarily.
This HAS been an interesting topic, for all the perspectives introduced. Keeps us all on our toes.
--
...Bob, NYC
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/btullis
This HAS been an interesting topic, for all the perspectives introduced. Keeps us all on our toes.
--
...Bob, NYC
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/btullis
Chez Wimpy
Veteran Member
That would be wide aperture combined with a large frame. The most "pop" you can manage in a non-tele shot is with the 50/1.0 and the 5D/1Ds series uncropped. The 85L though is widely available, and can manage the look nearly as well even at 2/3 a stop slower (should look better if tele-compression works with your style). The other option is to use a tilt-shift lens and cheat the short DOF by laying it non-parallel to the plane of the sensor.
--
-CW
C
Christopher
Guest
Yeah, the image seems to have some telephoto compression in it, but not sure about the DOF issue. It's clearly stopped down somewhat, but how much I'm not sure. The background is not that OOF. I've never had the opportunity to shoot at f/1.2 or f/1.4, though, so I guess I'm not sure what it would look like.
There is also something about the light on the people's faces that may have something to do with it. Looks like low-angle morning light. Maybe I should email the guy to get more info about the pic.
Chris
There is also something about the light on the people's faces that may have something to do with it. Looks like low-angle morning light. Maybe I should email the guy to get more info about the pic.
Chris
mmullen
Senior Member
I wouldn't assume that the most "pop" effect is created by the widest aperture. In my experience you actually get less "pop" with the ultra-wide aperture lenses because the DoF is so thin the subject often takes on a softer dreamier appearance. Maximum "pop" requires maximum subject sharpness and it helps when the subject outline is also sharp.
I shot this one at f4 but I think if I had used f5.6 it might have had a bit more "pop" as the colors in the bokeh would have tightened up and looked more saturated and the outline of the dog would have been more distinct for more impact.
40D and 70-200 f4 IS @ f4 1/3200 sec.
(cropped from a horizontal or landscape format)
--
Mike Mullen
Per Zangenberg
Senior Member
Background blur can give a good "pop" effect I think.
http://www.zangenberg.net/foto/pictures/portr æt1.jpg
--
----------------------------------------
http://www.zangenberg.net
http://www.zangenberg.net/foto/pictures/portr æt1.jpg
--
----------------------------------------
http://www.zangenberg.net
polloloco81
Forum Enthusiast
I think this is pretty much the fundamental question of what is good photography. I am an Art Director for an advertising agency, and for a lot of the projects I work on that requires photography, I have to ask myself the exact same question. In my opinion, there are many factors that will influence the creation of a good photo, I'll list a few.
-photographer's eye/skill
-time of day
-exposure (bracketing)
-lens
-camera
-retouching
-concept
-composition (color theory, perspective, ect)
Some times it comes down to the very minute details -- some high end photographers I've had the honor of working with will argue that the bokeh softness between 5 or 5.6 will make or break the photo, or waiting waiting an extra 5 minutes for the sun to get a little lower to maximize the lighting contrast.
Take a look at some of these websites:
http://www.smithsonphoto.com
http://www.jimerickson.com
http://www.chriswimpey.com
--
polloloco81
http://www.manhadesign.com/indexx.php
-photographer's eye/skill
-time of day
-exposure (bracketing)
-lens
-camera
-retouching
-concept
-composition (color theory, perspective, ect)
Some times it comes down to the very minute details -- some high end photographers I've had the honor of working with will argue that the bokeh softness between 5 or 5.6 will make or break the photo, or waiting waiting an extra 5 minutes for the sun to get a little lower to maximize the lighting contrast.
Take a look at some of these websites:
http://www.smithsonphoto.com
http://www.jimerickson.com
http://www.chriswimpey.com
--
polloloco81
http://www.manhadesign.com/indexx.php
Forfie
Well-known member
I think we need someone to drop a scientific answer on this one... it has a lot to do with simple ratios of light dark and complimentary colors. i picture that is 70% black and 30% or visa versa, will "pop". Can say the same about, say, blue versus orange ratios. Have to much gray, or colors to close together muddies a shot, the presence of a well chosen dominant color or dark/light gives and image contrast, "pop", dynamics, what have you.
50% white 50% gray
or
70% white, 10% grey, 20% black
this concept is merely one part of this popin' topic
--
Im a doubting thomas
50% white 50% gray
or
70% white, 10% grey, 20% black
this concept is merely one part of this popin' topic
--
Im a doubting thomas
netgarden
Forum Pro
aperture
contrast and color saturation
brightness
fill light
sharpness
background distance
lens factor [Zeiss has that 3 dimensional look that is downright dreamy!]
available light and shadows that may obscure detail.
all of these play a part in "pop". I go thru the first 5 with most pictures.
experiment and read tutorials, that really helps!
Happy snapping!
oh, I still had these in my browser from another post:
http://www.usa.canon.com/content/dpp2/index.html
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/picturestyle/style/customize.html
--
Linda's space~ http://soulswithin.u.yuku.com/
You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it. Author Unknown
contrast and color saturation
brightness
fill light
sharpness
background distance
lens factor [Zeiss has that 3 dimensional look that is downright dreamy!]
available light and shadows that may obscure detail.
all of these play a part in "pop". I go thru the first 5 with most pictures.
experiment and read tutorials, that really helps!
Happy snapping!
oh, I still had these in my browser from another post:
http://www.usa.canon.com/content/dpp2/index.html
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/picturestyle/style/customize.html
--
Linda's space~ http://soulswithin.u.yuku.com/
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum