why do digital files colours looks so bad without post

whosthatwhatsthat · Jun 29, 2020

As a heads up, I know the title is going to cause a stir, please take it with a pinch of salt. Of course, many factors come into play.

My reason is I want to know what is that gives these images more of a high-end look, they're by Juergen Teller for W mag from January 2020.

Even the shot of Joaquin Phoenix indoors looks great, I believe its just natural light but I'm curious as to how it doesn't have that sort of washed or flat look that digital can produce indoors.

Are these images desaturated then in certain areas more colour contrast is brought in?

Please do not just say he can afford great post-production, yes we know that but I want to know how it's done and also any tips into creating shots like these when shooting to make images seem more high-end and luxurious.

The Davinator · Jul 1, 2020

whosthatwhatsthat said:
Thank you so much for an honest and genuinely helpful answer!!

More people like yourself needed in these comment sections!

Do you mean in terms of subtlety how naturally comfortable the subjects appear?

The image definitely has this quality of prestige not only from the subject posing but I feel the colouring and image quality, you are right it is somewhat part of a new trend whereby Juergen Teller has adopted this naturalistic style to replace his golden film aesthetic previously.

The Davinator · Jul 1, 2020

whosthatwhatsthat said:
you must be joking.

I don’t think so. Nothing special about them.

Jimmy Simpleton · Jul 1, 2020

whosthatwhatsthat said:
Thank you so much for an honest and genuinely helpful answer!!

More people like yourself needed in these comment sections!

Do you mean in terms of subtlety how naturally comfortable the subjects appear?

The image definitely has this quality of prestige not only from the subject posing but I feel the colouring and image quality, you are right it is somewhat part of a new trend whereby Juergen Teller has adopted this naturalistic style to replace his golden film aesthetic previously.

My pleasure, whosthatwhatsthat.

Yes, I believe all of those attributes you listed work together to advance the aesthetic.

Good thread.

AcquiredTaste · Jul 1, 2020

knickerhawk said:
Biggs23 said:

knickerhawk said:

Biggs23 said:

whosthatwhatsthat said:

The image definitely has this quality of prestige not only from the subject posing but I feel the colouring and image quality, you are right it is somewhat part of a new trend whereby Juergen Teller has adopted this naturalistic style to replace his golden film aesthetic previously.

Click to expand...

After reading this, I decided to really dive into these images, and others like it. After finding a very large number compiled in an article (https://www.wmagazine.com/story/best-performances-2020/) I began to go through each image one by one. Eventually, I found this one:

Looking closely at this image (and others, but this one is the most obvious), it's quite clear to me that these images were captured with an iPhone.

This isn't special photography or editing, it's just laziness paired with mostly attractive people in mostly stylish clothing.

Click to expand...

Reverse image search in Google sources this image to this girl's Instagram account, so no surprise there about it being from a phone.

Click to expand...

I'm sure she put it there, but it was taken by the same photographer the rest were. Check the linked article for credits.

Click to expand...

OK, got it. But that still doesn't tell us much (and how you think it might be relevant to this thread). It certainly looks like an iPhone-style shot (especially noting the deep DOF and smeared fine detail, blown highlights, etc.) Teller does a lot of work with a camera phone:

I'm not sure how many times I need to copy and paste the same thing before it will be read. Why it's relevant is: This isn't special photography or editing, it's just laziness paired with mostly attractive people in mostly stylish clothing.

In other words, the OP is looking for some sort of magic where there is none. Stick pretty, well dressed people in scenarios with flat even lighting and whip out a cameraphone. That's all that's really required. While the former can be challenging to locate, the latter is pretty much the easiest photographic portrait that can be accomplished.

knickerhawk said:
Not long after Juergen began shooting the project did he change his approach, placing his SLR camera back in his bag and taking out his iPhone instead. “Immediately I realised the camera might not be the correct approach. I got my mobile phone out and I thought it makes more sense. It's like, the cousin or the uncle that comes to visit, and then takes a snapshot, you know? I know quite well, the restrictions with the iPhone, what you can do and what you can't do but I didn't want to be so intrusive with like, when the nurses were working, and the parents playing around, and they start suddenly to cry. It made much more sense with the iPhone. I get even better results with an iPhone than with a professional camera. There was also, in certain low lights, in certain scenarios, with these colours, the iPhone is even better.”

Juergen is one of the few big photographers who made their name in the 90s in style magazines to truly embrace the possibilities and new directions of phone photography. “A lot of my photography is on an iPhone. I enjoy it very much. I find it, I always found, in the whole spectrum of my career, that the more flexible I am with my tools, the better it is for my work.”

The above quote comes from this article about Teller.

It definitely shows.

--
Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview. I'm just a regular poster unless explicitly stated otherwise in the body of the post.

500px

500px.com

knickerhawk · Jul 1, 2020

Biggs23 said:
knickerhawk said:

Biggs23 said:

knickerhawk said:

Biggs23 said:

whosthatwhatsthat said:

The image definitely has this quality of prestige not only from the subject posing but I feel the colouring and image quality, you are right it is somewhat part of a new trend whereby Juergen Teller has adopted this naturalistic style to replace his golden film aesthetic previously.

Click to expand...

After reading this, I decided to really dive into these images, and others like it. After finding a very large number compiled in an article (https://www.wmagazine.com/story/best-performances-2020/) I began to go through each image one by one. Eventually, I found this one:

Looking closely at this image (and others, but this one is the most obvious), it's quite clear to me that these images were captured with an iPhone.

This isn't special photography or editing, it's just laziness paired with mostly attractive people in mostly stylish clothing.

Click to expand...

Reverse image search in Google sources this image to this girl's Instagram account, so no surprise there about it being from a phone.

Click to expand...

I'm sure she put it there, but it was taken by the same photographer the rest were. Check the linked article for credits.

Click to expand...

OK, got it. But that still doesn't tell us much (and how you think it might be relevant to this thread). It certainly looks like an iPhone-style shot (especially noting the deep DOF and smeared fine detail, blown highlights, etc.) Teller does a lot of work with a camera phone:

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how many times I need to copy and paste the same thing before it will be read.

Apparently, you need to do it some more because I DID "read" (skim, actually) the article to which you linked. The shot you posted of the girl was not one of the shots referenced by the OP nor was it one of the cover shots shown in a companion article. Hard to tell, given Teller's deliberate casual style that mimics amateur photography, but I'd guess that the shot of the girl was more of a serendipitous candid, perhaps on the way to the shoot, than an "official" shot with the model posed and featuring the clothes selected for inclusion in this fashion magazine.

AcquiredTaste said:
Why it's relevant is: This isn't special photography or editing, it's just laziness paired with mostly attractive people in mostly stylish clothing.

In other words, the OP is looking for some sort of magic where there is none. Stick pretty, well dressed people in scenarios with flat even lighting and whip out a cameraphone. That's all that's really required. While the former can be challenging to locate, the latter is pretty much the easiest photographic portrait that can be accomplished.

The fact that the iPhone shot "definitely shows" as you note below and the other shots are not obviously (and not likely) shot with an iPhone weakens your point about the lack of "magic". So, I'm still struggling to follow your reasoning.

AcquiredTaste said:
AcquiredTaste said:

Not long after Juergen began shooting the project did he change his approach, placing his SLR camera back in his bag and taking out his iPhone instead. “Immediately I realised the camera might not be the correct approach. I got my mobile phone out and I thought it makes more sense. It's like, the cousin or the uncle that comes to visit, and then takes a snapshot, you know? I know quite well, the restrictions with the iPhone, what you can do and what you can't do but I didn't want to be so intrusive with like, when the nurses were working, and the parents playing around, and they start suddenly to cry. It made much more sense with the iPhone. I get even better results with an iPhone than with a professional camera. There was also, in certain low lights, in certain scenarios, with these colours, the iPhone is even better.”

Juergen is one of the few big photographers who made their name in the 90s in style magazines to truly embrace the possibilities and new directions of phone photography. “A lot of my photography is on an iPhone. I enjoy it very much. I find it, I always found, in the whole spectrum of my career, that the more flexible I am with my tools, the better it is for my work.”

The above quote comes from this article about Teller.

Click to expand...

It definitely shows.

stevo23 · Jul 1, 2020

knickerhawk said:
Biggs23 said:

knickerhawk said:

Biggs23 said:

knickerhawk said:

Biggs23 said:

whosthatwhatsthat said:

The image definitely has this quality of prestige not only from the subject posing but I feel the colouring and image quality, you are right it is somewhat part of a new trend whereby Juergen Teller has adopted this naturalistic style to replace his golden film aesthetic previously.

Click to expand...

After reading this, I decided to really dive into these images, and others like it. After finding a very large number compiled in an article (https://www.wmagazine.com/story/best-performances-2020/) I began to go through each image one by one. Eventually, I found this one:

Looking closely at this image (and others, but this one is the most obvious), it's quite clear to me that these images were captured with an iPhone.

This isn't special photography or editing, it's just laziness paired with mostly attractive people in mostly stylish clothing.

Click to expand...

Reverse image search in Google sources this image to this girl's Instagram account, so no surprise there about it being from a phone.

Click to expand...

I'm sure she put it there, but it was taken by the same photographer the rest were. Check the linked article for credits.

Click to expand...

OK, got it. But that still doesn't tell us much (and how you think it might be relevant to this thread). It certainly looks like an iPhone-style shot (especially noting the deep DOF and smeared fine detail, blown highlights, etc.) Teller does a lot of work with a camera phone:

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how many times I need to copy and paste the same thing before it will be read.

Click to expand...

Apparently, you need to do it some more because I DID "read" (skim, actually) the article to which you linked. The shot you posted of the girl was not one of the shots referenced by the OP nor was it one of the cover shots shown in a companion article. Hard to tell, given Teller's deliberate casual style that mimics amateur photography,

Mimics amateur photography? Maybe that's a thing, I don't know. But it strikes me oddly that one would want or have to strive to achieve such a thing.

knickerhawk said:
but I'd guess that the shot of the girl was more of a serendipitous candid, perhaps on the way to the shoot, than an "official" shot with the model posed and featuring the clothes selected for inclusion in this fashion magazine.

knickerhawk said:

Why it's relevant is: This isn't special photography or editing, it's just laziness paired with mostly attractive people in mostly stylish clothing.

In other words, the OP is looking for some sort of magic where there is none. Stick pretty, well dressed people in scenarios with flat even lighting and whip out a cameraphone. That's all that's really required. While the former can be challenging to locate, the latter is pretty much the easiest photographic portrait that can be accomplished.

Click to expand...

The fact that the iPhone shot "definitely shows" as you note below and the other shots are not obviously (and not likely) shot with an iPhone weakens your point about the lack of "magic". So, I'm still struggling to follow your reasoning.

I think the point is that the OP is looking for an explanation of how to achieve some kind of "high end magic" when there really isn't any in the examples. Pedestrian, flat, relatively boring shots of pretty people with a low quality sensor is not a combination that should prove difficult to emulate.

But apparently there is something about these shots that the OP really likes and wants to emulate. So...well dressed pretty people, iPhone, flat lighting. Done. There's your majik.

Flowchart · Jul 1, 2020

You are probably on to something here and for the OP the ohotographer has been careful with the white balance and have been using a colour checker (of some sort too). I do wonder about the lighting though as it has an outdoors (shade look to it). It's not even unthinkable that he is using fake rooms to get the look.i.e shot outside.

EDIT: I now see that the car one IS shot outside (I'm reading on a phone)

Jimmy Simpleton said:
Some thoughts:

One reason for the "high end" look could be their restraint and subtlety. In way too many "pro" shots, we see obvious effects, such as retouching and the use of reflectors/beauty dishes (this is apparent in the image in your second post). To some, these are cheap parlor tricks (aka "contrived").

The other reason, which might follow from the first, is the authenticity they exude. The poses are mostly natural and the camera might not even be level in the 2nd. In an era of rampant fakery, authenticity -- or at least the semblance of it -- has an undeniable cachet.

I think that pro photography, like fashion styles, evolves over time. Perhaps these examples are part of a new trend?

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knew very little about photography when I decided to buy the awesome Nikon D70; learned quickly that this expensive camera didn't make me a good photographer.
Http://kristerp.wordpress.com

knickerhawk · Jul 1, 2020

stevo23 said:
knickerhawk said:

Biggs23 said:

knickerhawk said:

Biggs23 said:

knickerhawk said:

Biggs23 said:

whosthatwhatsthat said:

The image definitely has this quality of prestige not only from the subject posing but I feel the colouring and image quality, you are right it is somewhat part of a new trend whereby Juergen Teller has adopted this naturalistic style to replace his golden film aesthetic previously.

Click to expand...

After reading this, I decided to really dive into these images, and others like it. After finding a very large number compiled in an article (https://www.wmagazine.com/story/best-performances-2020/) I began to go through each image one by one. Eventually, I found this one:

Looking closely at this image (and others, but this one is the most obvious), it's quite clear to me that these images were captured with an iPhone.

This isn't special photography or editing, it's just laziness paired with mostly attractive people in mostly stylish clothing.

Click to expand...

Reverse image search in Google sources this image to this girl's Instagram account, so no surprise there about it being from a phone.

Click to expand...

I'm sure she put it there, but it was taken by the same photographer the rest were. Check the linked article for credits.

Click to expand...

OK, got it. But that still doesn't tell us much (and how you think it might be relevant to this thread). It certainly looks like an iPhone-style shot (especially noting the deep DOF and smeared fine detail, blown highlights, etc.) Teller does a lot of work with a camera phone:

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how many times I need to copy and paste the same thing before it will be read.

Click to expand...

Apparently, you need to do it some more because I DID "read" (skim, actually) the article to which you linked. The shot you posted of the girl was not one of the shots referenced by the OP nor was it one of the cover shots shown in a companion article. Hard to tell, given Teller's deliberate casual style that mimics amateur photography,

Click to expand...

Mimics amateur photography? Maybe that's a thing, I don't know. But it strikes me oddly that one would want or have to strive to achieve such a thing.

Check out the article about Teller I linked to in my other response. It's a thing...

stevo23 said:
stevo23 said:

but I'd guess that the shot of the girl was more of a serendipitous candid, perhaps on the way to the shoot, than an "official" shot with the model posed and featuring the clothes selected for inclusion in this fashion magazine.

stevo23 said:

Why it's relevant is: This isn't special photography or editing, it's just laziness paired with mostly attractive people in mostly stylish clothing.

In other words, the OP is looking for some sort of magic where there is none. Stick pretty, well dressed people in scenarios with flat even lighting and whip out a cameraphone. That's all that's really required. While the former can be challenging to locate, the latter is pretty much the easiest photographic portrait that can be accomplished.

Click to expand...

The fact that the iPhone shot "definitely shows" as you note below and the other shots are not obviously (and not likely) shot with an iPhone weakens your point about the lack of "magic". So, I'm still struggling to follow your reasoning.

Click to expand...

I think the point is that the OP is looking for an explanation of how to achieve some kind of "high end magic" when there really isn't any in the examples. Pedestrian, flat, relatively boring shots of pretty people with a low quality sensor is not a combination that should prove difficult to emulate.

But apparently there is something about these shots that the OP really likes and wants to emulate. So...well dressed pretty people, iPhone, flat lighting. Done. There's your majik.

And yet Biggs23 had no trouble distinguishing that one shot from all of the others in the article.

TripleCoatedBokeh · Jul 1, 2020

So it WAS an iPhone. OP must be trolling...

Flowchart · Jul 1, 2020

Now that I did not know, still I really liked the shots, especially compared to uber-stylized and heavily retouched ones.

A breath of fresh air IMO.

TripleCoatedBokeh said:
So it WAS an iPhone. OP must be trolling...

stevo23 · Jul 1, 2020

TripleCoatedBokeh said:
So it WAS an iPhone. OP must be trolling...

It has occurred to me...

jeffnles1 · Jul 1, 2020

whosthatwhatsthat said:
what do you suppose was used to create them then?

good natural light and white balance set correctly and that's about it?

I'm a nature photographer (wildlife, wildflowers, landscapes) and rarely shoot portraits thus a set up of studio lights is something I do not have. I rarely use supplemental lighting (flash/speedlight). I do use diffusers and/or reflectors from time to time just to even up the lighting.

I cannot speak for the photographer in your opening post. However, I would imagine he/she had a vision of what he/she wanted the photo to look like before the first light was set up, the first pose with the subject or the first shutter press. From there, the photographer would have created the lighting they wanted or found natural lighting that allowed for their vision to become reality.

I don't think there is any simple 1,2,3 kind of answer to your question. It takes a lot of practice (and a lot of mistakes and more than a few train wrecks) to be able to have your own vision on a photo and then be able to set up to make that vision come to light.

The short answer I guess would be 1) lighting, 2) composition, 3) lighting. (yes I said lighting twice, I like lighting).

When you said "good natural light and white balance set correctly and that's about it?" I think you've oversimplified things to a high degree. Finding good light, creating a pleasing composition and getting white balance and exposure correct is really all there is to photography. It takes 3 minutes to explain it and a lifetime to master it.

Jeff

AcquiredTaste · Jul 1, 2020

knickerhawk said:
Biggs23 said:

knickerhawk said:

Biggs23 said:

knickerhawk said:

Biggs23 said:

whosthatwhatsthat said:

The image definitely has this quality of prestige not only from the subject posing but I feel the colouring and image quality, you are right it is somewhat part of a new trend whereby Juergen Teller has adopted this naturalistic style to replace his golden film aesthetic previously.

Click to expand...

After reading this, I decided to really dive into these images, and others like it. After finding a very large number compiled in an article (https://www.wmagazine.com/story/best-performances-2020/) I began to go through each image one by one. Eventually, I found this one:

Looking closely at this image (and others, but this one is the most obvious), it's quite clear to me that these images were captured with an iPhone.

This isn't special photography or editing, it's just laziness paired with mostly attractive people in mostly stylish clothing.

Click to expand...

Reverse image search in Google sources this image to this girl's Instagram account, so no surprise there about it being from a phone.

Click to expand...

I'm sure she put it there, but it was taken by the same photographer the rest were. Check the linked article for credits.

Click to expand...

OK, got it. But that still doesn't tell us much (and how you think it might be relevant to this thread). It certainly looks like an iPhone-style shot (especially noting the deep DOF and smeared fine detail, blown highlights, etc.) Teller does a lot of work with a camera phone:

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how many times I need to copy and paste the same thing before it will be read.

Click to expand...

Apparently, you need to do it some more because I DID "read" (skim, actually) the article to which you linked. The shot you posted of the girl was not one of the shots referenced by the OP nor was it one of the cover shots shown in a companion article. Hard to tell, given Teller's deliberate casual style that mimics amateur photography, but I'd guess that the shot of the girl was more of a serendipitous candid, perhaps on the way to the shoot, than an "official" shot with the model posed and featuring the clothes selected for inclusion in this fashion magazine.

But my comment below has now been posted three times,

knickerhawk said:
knickerhawk said:

Why it's relevant is: This isn't special photography or editing, it's just laziness paired with mostly attractive people in mostly stylish clothing.

In other words, the OP is looking for some sort of magic where there is none. Stick pretty, well dressed people in scenarios with flat even lighting and whip out a cameraphone. That's all that's really required. While the former can be challenging to locate, the latter is pretty much the easiest photographic portrait that can be accomplished.

Click to expand...

The fact that the iPhone shot "definitely shows" as you note below and the other shots are not obviously (and not likely) shot with an iPhone weakens your point about the lack of "magic". So, I'm still struggling to follow your reasoning.

They all look like iPhone shots. I'm not familiar with that particular cellphone owner, but if you say his style 'mimics amateur photography,' I would say he has certainly succeeded in matching his style with these. Both those posted in this thread and in the full article.
--
Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview. I'm just a regular poster unless explicitly stated otherwise in the body of the post.

500px

500px.com

AcquiredTaste · Jul 1, 2020

knickerhawk said:
stevo23 said:

Mimics amateur photography? Maybe that's a thing, I don't know. But it strikes me oddly that one would want or have to strive to achieve such a thing.

Click to expand...

Check out the article about Teller I linked to in my other response. It's a thing...

He's an arteest!

knickerhawk said:
knickerhawk said:

I think the point is that the OP is looking for an explanation of how to achieve some kind of "high end magic" when there really isn't any in the examples. Pedestrian, flat, relatively boring shots of pretty people with a low quality sensor is not a combination that should prove difficult to emulate.

But apparently there is something about these shots that the OP really likes and wants to emulate. So...well dressed pretty people, iPhone, flat lighting. Done. There's your majik.

Click to expand...

And yet Biggs23 had no trouble distinguishing that one shot from all of the others in the article.

I suspected from the OP that the first two posted images were iPhone shots. The image I posted simply confirmed it for me.

The shots are pretty terrible from start to finish, and Stevo's explanation is exactly correct. There's no magic, no special sauce, just an iPhone, laziness, and no dedication to craft.

knickerhawk · Jul 1, 2020

Biggs23 said:
knickerhawk said:

stevo23 said:

Mimics amateur photography? Maybe that's a thing, I don't know. But it strikes me oddly that one would want or have to strive to achieve such a thing.

Click to expand...

Check out the article about Teller I linked to in my other response. It's a thing...

Click to expand...

He's an arteest!

AcquiredTaste said:

AcquiredTaste said:

I think the point is that the OP is looking for an explanation of how to achieve some kind of "high end magic" when there really isn't any in the examples. Pedestrian, flat, relatively boring shots of pretty people with a low quality sensor is not a combination that should prove difficult to emulate.

But apparently there is something about these shots that the OP really likes and wants to emulate. So...well dressed pretty people, iPhone, flat lighting. Done. There's your majik.

Click to expand...

And yet Biggs23 had no trouble distinguishing that one shot from all of the others in the article.

Click to expand...

I suspected from the OP that the first two posted images were iPhone shots. The image I posted simply confirmed it for me.

The shots are pretty terrible from start to finish, and Stevo's explanation is exactly correct. There's no magic, no special sauce, just an iPhone, laziness, and no dedication to craft.

Yet we know with certainty from the reflection in the window that Teller was using a large camera in at least one of the shots in the series. (That's Teller in the reflection based on his spiky hair.) I see ZERO resemblance between the shot of the girl in the car and the original Brad Pitt and Joaquin Phoenix shots. I see ZERO resemblance in the other shot of the same girl posted in the article either:

Both crops from the original JPEGs have been upsized 300%

Obviously, the lighting isn't the same, but even a cursory comparison shows a huge difference in color depth and tonality. The left one looks like she has a cadaver's skin. The right one is so much richer/deeper looking. It's hard to dismiss all of the difference to the lower lighting conditions of the left version. I just don't see how you can conclude that all of the shots were done with an iPhone (not counting, of course, the one that unquestionably was taken by an ILC based on the reflection of the photographer).

AcquiredTaste · Jul 1, 2020

knickerhawk said:
Biggs23 said:

knickerhawk said:

stevo23 said:

Mimics amateur photography? Maybe that's a thing, I don't know. But it strikes me oddly that one would want or have to strive to achieve such a thing.

Click to expand...

Check out the article about Teller I linked to in my other response. It's a thing...

Click to expand...

He's an arteest!

knickerhawk said:

knickerhawk said:

I think the point is that the OP is looking for an explanation of how to achieve some kind of "high end magic" when there really isn't any in the examples. Pedestrian, flat, relatively boring shots of pretty people with a low quality sensor is not a combination that should prove difficult to emulate.

But apparently there is something about these shots that the OP really likes and wants to emulate. So...well dressed pretty people, iPhone, flat lighting. Done. There's your majik.

Click to expand...

And yet Biggs23 had no trouble distinguishing that one shot from all of the others in the article.

Click to expand...

I suspected from the OP that the first two posted images were iPhone shots. The image I posted simply confirmed it for me.

The shots are pretty terrible from start to finish, and Stevo's explanation is exactly correct. There's no magic, no special sauce, just an iPhone, laziness, and no dedication to craft.

Click to expand...

Yet we know with certainty from the reflection in the window that Teller was using a large camera in at least one of the shots in the series. (That's Teller in the reflection based on his spiky hair.)

I don't think so.

knickerhawk said:
I see ZERO resemblance between the shot of the girl in the car and the original Brad Pitt and Joaquin Phoenix shots. I see ZERO resemblance in the other shot of the same girl posted in the article either:

Minus the poor image quality, SOOC look, and no quality or directionality of light?

knickerhawk said:
Obviously, the lighting isn't the same, but even a cursory comparison shows a huge difference in color depth and tonality. The left one looks like she has a cadaver's skin. The right one is so much richer/deeper looking. It's hard to dismiss all of the difference to the lower lighting conditions of the left version. I just don't see how you can conclude that all of the shots were done with an iPhone (not counting, of course, the one that unquestionably was taken by an ILC based on the reflection of the photographer).

I certainly don't *know* that they are, I simply suspect. Even if they aren't, these are mediocre images captured by a photographer that doesn't care about photography.

knickerhawk · Jul 1, 2020

Biggs23 said:
knickerhawk said:

Biggs23 said:

knickerhawk said:

stevo23 said:

Mimics amateur photography? Maybe that's a thing, I don't know. But it strikes me oddly that one would want or have to strive to achieve such a thing.

Click to expand...

Check out the article about Teller I linked to in my other response. It's a thing...

Click to expand...

He's an arteest!

AcquiredTaste said:

AcquiredTaste said:

I think the point is that the OP is looking for an explanation of how to achieve some kind of "high end magic" when there really isn't any in the examples. Pedestrian, flat, relatively boring shots of pretty people with a low quality sensor is not a combination that should prove difficult to emulate.

But apparently there is something about these shots that the OP really likes and wants to emulate. So...well dressed pretty people, iPhone, flat lighting. Done. There's your majik.

Click to expand...

And yet Biggs23 had no trouble distinguishing that one shot from all of the others in the article.

Click to expand...

I suspected from the OP that the first two posted images were iPhone shots. The image I posted simply confirmed it for me.

The shots are pretty terrible from start to finish, and Stevo's explanation is exactly correct. There's no magic, no special sauce, just an iPhone, laziness, and no dedication to craft.

Click to expand...

Yet we know with certainty from the reflection in the window that Teller was using a large camera in at least one of the shots in the series. (That's Teller in the reflection based on his spiky hair.)

Click to expand...

I don't think so.

"I don't think so" = I've got no substantive response.

AcquiredTaste said:
AcquiredTaste said:

I see ZERO resemblance between the shot of the girl in the car and the original Brad Pitt and Joaquin Phoenix shots. I see ZERO resemblance in the other shot of the same girl posted in the article either:

Click to expand...

Minus the poor image quality, SOOC look, and no quality or directionality of light?

It's a "look" that's very popular in commercial fashion photography, in no small part because of the efforts of this particular photographer. "SOOC" is the photographer's intent.

AcquiredTaste said:
AcquiredTaste said:

Obviously, the lighting isn't the same, but even a cursory comparison shows a huge difference in color depth and tonality. The left one looks like she has a cadaver's skin. The right one is so much richer/deeper looking. It's hard to dismiss all of the difference to the lower lighting conditions of the left version. I just don't see how you can conclude that all of the shots were done with an iPhone (not counting, of course, the one that unquestionably was taken by an ILC based on the reflection of the photographer).

Click to expand...

I certainly don't *know* that they are, I simply suspect. Even if they aren't, these are mediocre images captured by a photographer that doesn't care about photography.

LOL. They are images captured by one of the world's best known fashion and fine art photographers. Don't confuse Teller's trademark casual look with carelessness. He's successfully cultivated that look for many years now to considerable success.

stevo23 · Jul 1, 2020

knickerhawk said:
Biggs23 said:

knickerhawk said:

Biggs23 said:

knickerhawk said:

stevo23 said:

Mimics amateur photography? Maybe that's a thing, I don't know. But it strikes me oddly that one would want or have to strive to achieve such a thing.

Click to expand...

Check out the article about Teller I linked to in my other response. It's a thing...

Click to expand...

He's an arteest!

knickerhawk said:

knickerhawk said:

I think the point is that the OP is looking for an explanation of how to achieve some kind of "high end magic" when there really isn't any in the examples. Pedestrian, flat, relatively boring shots of pretty people with a low quality sensor is not a combination that should prove difficult to emulate.

But apparently there is something about these shots that the OP really likes and wants to emulate. So...well dressed pretty people, iPhone, flat lighting. Done. There's your majik.

Click to expand...

And yet Biggs23 had no trouble distinguishing that one shot from all of the others in the article.

Click to expand...

I suspected from the OP that the first two posted images were iPhone shots. The image I posted simply confirmed it for me.

The shots are pretty terrible from start to finish, and Stevo's explanation is exactly correct. There's no magic, no special sauce, just an iPhone, laziness, and no dedication to craft.

Click to expand...

Yet we know with certainty from the reflection in the window that Teller was using a large camera in at least one of the shots in the series. (That's Teller in the reflection based on his spiky hair.)

Click to expand...

I don't think so.

Click to expand...

"I don't think so" = I've got no substantive response.

knickerhawk said:

knickerhawk said:

I see ZERO resemblance between the shot of the girl in the car and the original Brad Pitt and Joaquin Phoenix shots. I see ZERO resemblance in the other shot of the same girl posted in the article either:

Click to expand...

Minus the poor image quality, SOOC look, and no quality or directionality of light?

Click to expand...

It's a "look" that's very popular in commercial fashion photography, in no small part because of the efforts of this particular photographer. "SOOC" is the photographer's intent.

Blind leading the blind stumbling backwards over a bridge. When something is in vogue, that is not an indication of its worthiness.

knickerhawk said:
knickerhawk said:

knickerhawk said:

Obviously, the lighting isn't the same, but even a cursory comparison shows a huge difference in color depth and tonality. The left one looks like she has a cadaver's skin. The right one is so much richer/deeper looking. It's hard to dismiss all of the difference to the lower lighting conditions of the left version. I just don't see how you can conclude that all of the shots were done with an iPhone (not counting, of course, the one that unquestionably was taken by an ILC based on the reflection of the photographer).

Click to expand...

I certainly don't *know* that they are, I simply suspect. Even if they aren't, these are mediocre images captured by a photographer that doesn't care about photography.

Click to expand...

LOL. They are images captured by one of the world's best known fashion and fine art photographers. Don't confuse Teller's trademark casual look with carelessness. He's successfully cultivated that look for many years now to considerable success.

One can cultivate weeds on purpose with considerable success. But convincing a group of people that your weeds are important and special takes a quality other than photographic talent.

Unagi Shiruba · Jul 1, 2020

Careful styling and propping go into making such a casual realistic look. It also helps that he’s working with talented actors who know how to present themselves to the camera and that Juergen Teller knows what he wants out of a photograph. This kind of realism isn’t as easy to pull off as Teller makes it seem.

in the stock photo of the woman it’s so obviously lit and produced that it looks staged and thus it reads as untrue. It’s like photos you see of people laughing with wide open mouths in a way that no actually laughs.

TN Args · Jul 1, 2020

stevo23 said:
knickerhawk said:

Biggs23 said:

knickerhawk said:

Biggs23 said:

knickerhawk said:

stevo23 said:

Mimics amateur photography? Maybe that's a thing, I don't know. But it strikes me oddly that one would want or have to strive to achieve such a thing.

Click to expand...

Check out the article about Teller I linked to in my other response. It's a thing...

Click to expand...

He's an arteest!

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

I think the point is that the OP is looking for an explanation of how to achieve some kind of "high end magic" when there really isn't any in the examples. Pedestrian, flat, relatively boring shots of pretty people with a low quality sensor is not a combination that should prove difficult to emulate.

But apparently there is something about these shots that the OP really likes and wants to emulate. So...well dressed pretty people, iPhone, flat lighting. Done. There's your majik.

Click to expand...

And yet Biggs23 had no trouble distinguishing that one shot from all of the others in the article.

Click to expand...

I suspected from the OP that the first two posted images were iPhone shots. The image I posted simply confirmed it for me.

The shots are pretty terrible from start to finish, and Stevo's explanation is exactly correct. There's no magic, no special sauce, just an iPhone, laziness, and no dedication to craft.

Click to expand...

Yet we know with certainty from the reflection in the window that Teller was using a large camera in at least one of the shots in the series. (That's Teller in the reflection based on his spiky hair.)

Click to expand...

I don't think so.

Click to expand...

"I don't think so" = I've got no substantive response.

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

I see ZERO resemblance between the shot of the girl in the car and the original Brad Pitt and Joaquin Phoenix shots. I see ZERO resemblance in the other shot of the same girl posted in the article either:

Click to expand...

Minus the poor image quality, SOOC look, and no quality or directionality of light?

Click to expand...

It's a "look" that's very popular in commercial fashion photography, in no small part because of the efforts of this particular photographer. "SOOC" is the photographer's intent.

Click to expand...

Blind leading the blind stumbling backwards over a bridge. When something is in vogue, that is not an indication of its worthiness.

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

Obviously, the lighting isn't the same, but even a cursory comparison shows a huge difference in color depth and tonality. The left one looks like she has a cadaver's skin. The right one is so much richer/deeper looking. It's hard to dismiss all of the difference to the lower lighting conditions of the left version. I just don't see how you can conclude that all of the shots were done with an iPhone (not counting, of course, the one that unquestionably was taken by an ILC based on the reflection of the photographer).

Click to expand...

I certainly don't *know* that they are, I simply suspect. Even if they aren't, these are mediocre images captured by a photographer that doesn't care about photography.

Click to expand...

LOL. They are images captured by one of the world's best known fashion and fine art photographers. Don't confuse Teller's trademark casual look with carelessness. He's successfully cultivated that look for many years now to considerable success.

Click to expand...

One can cultivate weeds on purpose with considerable success. But convincing a group of people that your weeds are important and special takes a quality other than photographic talent.

knickerhawk's comment to Biggs23 applies to you too. Making random negative assertions against a proven successful photographer, makes one look like one has appointed oneself to the pinnacle of all knowledge and judgement, which actually does not make one look as good as one might think. And all because backing down is too hard in an internet discussion forum for some to manage it -- and learning is apparently out of the question.

I followed this thread because I thought it was interesting that the OP held the look of samples he used in the OP in such high regard, with the term high-end, as opposed to his terms washed or flat. But later in the thread he filled in the details, explaining that he was discussing naturalistic colours and tonality, and I thought that was discussed and accepted reasonably well in that section of this thread. I can see what the OP is talking about, in those terms.

What is happening in this part of the thread is different. Someone decided to go on a witch-hunt against the photographer's merit, by trying to prove that he was using a phone camera, and then drawing a very long bow to connect use of a phone camera with sloppiness and lack of care about photography. When I saw the images in the OP, I immediately thought the DOF is huge and could be phone camera photos, but I have no issue with that. I tend to feel sorry for people using phone cameras professionally: he must be going through heck out there in the bright light, trying to see the composition while fiddling with the touch screen, all in the service of his dedication to his art and style.

But if that's the way he wants to do it....

cheers

why do digital files colours looks so bad without post

Active member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Community Leader

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts