why do digital files colours looks so bad without post

Started 4 months ago | Questions
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 24,463
Re: why do digital files colours looks so bad without post
1

Biggs23 wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

But would you say the same about me or Biggs or anyone who isn't an established professional? Care to test that? I've got tons of schlock I can show you...

Well, I actually am an established professional.

I did try to word that properly and apparently failed...LOL. The "or anyone" was meant as a completely separate group.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
knickerhawk Veteran Member • Posts: 6,987
Re: why do digital files colours looks so bad without post
1

stevo23 wrote:

"All in the service of dedication to his art and style" - that is the halo bias. All because a professional is doing it, you now assume that he's hard at work, sweating away at his art and style. But would you say the same about me or Biggs or anyone who isn't an established professional? Care to test that? I've got tons of schlock I can show you...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67EKAIY43kg

OP whosthatwhatsthat Forum Member • Posts: 84
Re: why do digital files colours looks so bad without post

Biggs23 wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

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...

He's an arteest!

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.

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 don't think so.

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?

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).

exactly!!

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.

absolutely ridiculous statement

OP whosthatwhatsthat Forum Member • Posts: 84
Re: why do digital files colours looks so bad without post

knickerhawk wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

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...

He's an arteest!

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.

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 don't think so.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

exactly that!! can't believe someone claimed this 'a photographer that doesn't care about photography"

MOD Biggs23 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,881
Re: why do digital files colours looks so bad without post

Ellis Vener wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

A name does not talent make.

No, but talent does make a name.

Not necessarily. Many fabulous talents died in obscurity.

Which is, again, irrelevant to quality.

What he does isn't your cup of tea. and that's fine. If you are a working photographer, and your clients like what you do, that is what matters. Do you compete in the same arena Teller does?

No, I certainly don't. I have no problem whatsoever with how the photographer makes his living. He could craft a camera from a potato and I'd be thrilled for him. That's not to say I shouldn't critique his work, however.

-- hide signature --

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.
https://500px.com/biggs23

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +5 more
OP whosthatwhatsthat Forum Member • Posts: 84
Re: why do digital files colours looks so bad without post

TN Args wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

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...

He's an arteest!

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.

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 don't think so.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

thank you for contributing with reason and patience.

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.

exactly,' But later in the thread he filled in the details, explaining that he was discussing naturalistic colours and tonality' I explained this and some people want to completely disregard the question and talk about phones and stylistic choice it seems

What is happening in thispart 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

OP whosthatwhatsthat Forum Member • Posts: 84
Re: why do digital files colours looks so bad without post

Flowchart wrote:

I'm on the same page, I don't know what equipment the photographer used and I also realize that the style won't please everyone.
But to me, what the photographer has done (intentionally I might add) is to break with the synthetic look that has been prevalent for so long, and this makes the photos stand out.

The subjects don't look as if drowned in teams of makeup artists, exotic lighting setups and digital processing.

And makes them look like human beings and not larger than life icons.

Very refreshing.

eye to eye!! Precisely we are seeing the world biggest stars in the most naturalistic way...somebody can understand the artistic expression here!

TN Args wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

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...

He's an arteest!

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.

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 don't think so.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 thispart 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

MOD Biggs23 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,881
Re: why do digital files colours looks so bad without post

knickerhawk wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

"All in the service of dedication to his art and style" - that is the halo bias. All because a professional is doing it, you now assume that he's hard at work, sweating away at his art and style. But would you say the same about me or Biggs or anyone who isn't an established professional? Care to test that? I've got tons of schlock I can show you...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67EKAIY43kg

"This doesn't display a remarkable amount of technical skill and that's what I look for in art."

I'm not on the bandwagon of fluff spoken about throughout that video. Art should speak for itself without need for context or wall script.

-- hide signature --

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.
https://500px.com/biggs23

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +5 more
MOD Biggs23 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,881
Re: why do digital files colours looks so bad without post

whosthatwhatsthat wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

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.

absolutely ridiculous statement

Why? The photographer himself said it: "I'm not interested in photography, I'm interested in how I can express my ideas and feelings."

-- hide signature --

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.
https://500px.com/biggs23

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +5 more
MOD Biggs23 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,881
Re: why do digital files colours looks so bad without post

whosthatwhatsthat wrote:

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.

exactly that!! can't believe someone claimed this 'a photographer that doesn't care about photography"

Sorry for the string reply, but I wasn't sure if you used flat view or threaded view.

The photographer himself made that claim: "I'm not interested in photography, I'm interested in how I can express my ideas and feelings."

Shouldn't we take him at his word?

-- hide signature --

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.
https://500px.com/biggs23

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +5 more
hotdog321
hotdog321 Forum Pro • Posts: 20,858
Re: Routine shots. Shrug.

David1961 wrote:

hotdog321 wrote:

whosthatwhatsthat wrote:

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.

These are pretty routine shots that could be shot by almost anyone.

Exactly. Totally agree.

If these were shot professionally then the professional photographers I am used to dealing with have by far superior photography and post processing skills than whoever took these photos.

Perhaps a large softbox was used for the primary light, but there is no fill or background light and the background, especially in the second shot, is dropping off to darkness. The colors are nothing special and in the first shot the background is actually turning an unpleasant cyan. The front bumper area of the vehicle is turning featureless, dead black with no shadow detail. The clutter with the traffic cone and door is distracting.

Yes, the setup and composition is very poor and unprofessional.

I certainly would not accept crooked photos like these two from a professional photographer.

I simply do not understand your comment about digital images looking "washed out." It could be you need to reexamine your own image handling techniques and post processing procedures. Properly shot and processed digital files produce rich, creamy colors that are--for me--superior in every respect to film.

For me, these 2 photos are not even close to high-end.

When I need some inspiration from high-end photos, my "go to" is:

https://500px.com/popular

Thanks! Glad someonefinally read my post!

-- hide signature --
 hotdog321's gear list:hotdog321's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +3 more
OP whosthatwhatsthat Forum Member • Posts: 84
Re: why do digital files colours looks so bad without post

57even wrote:

whosthatwhatsthat wrote:

what would be your steps to ensure the data is right?

what key things would you adjust/watch over?

This is not the best place for a complicated lighting discussion, but I would recommend the strobist blog for cheap but effective setups, and there are some great youtube vids on natural light portraits.

the strobist blog? is that another site, please could you send a link! thanks

Like this and many others...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA3KbjBa19Y

OP whosthatwhatsthat Forum Member • Posts: 84
Re: why do digital files colours looks so bad without post

jeffnles1 wrote:

whosthatwhatsthat wrote:

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).

brilliant

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.

hahah fantastic!

Jeff

Ellis Vener
Ellis Vener Forum Pro • Posts: 13,822
Re: Routine shots. Shrug.

When I need some inspiration from high-end photos, my "go to" is:

https://500px.com/popular

Thanks! Glad someonefinally read my post!

I just checked those out. The selection proves the wisdom of someone else's point that  "popular doesn't equal quality."

-- hide signature --

Ellis Vener
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio

 Ellis Vener's gear list:Ellis Vener's gear list
Sony RX100 VII Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 +1 more
Ellis Vener
Ellis Vener Forum Pro • Posts: 13,822
Re: why do digital files colours looks so bad without post

whosthatwhatsthat wrote:

57even wrote:

whosthatwhatsthat wrote:

what would be your steps to ensure the data is right?

what key things would you adjust/watch over?

This is not the best place for a complicated lighting discussion, but I would recommend the strobist blog for cheap but effective setups, and there are some great youtube vids on natural light portraits.

the strobist blog? is that another site, please could you send a link! thanks

Like this and many others...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA3KbjBa19Y

https://strobist.blogspot.com/
if you like big production set ups make sure you follow Art Streiber on Instagram at #aspictures

-- hide signature --

Ellis Vener
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio

 Ellis Vener's gear list:Ellis Vener's gear list
Sony RX100 VII Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 +1 more
Mark Scott Abeln
Mark Scott Abeln Forum Pro • Posts: 15,681
Re: Questions

whosthatwhatsthat wrote:

so if i shoot with my camera picture mode set to neutral then import, photoshop will not read that?

Most of the creative controls in raw files are ignored by third-party raw processors such as Photoshop's Adobe Camera Raw. Things like contrast, saturation, color space, sharpness, and picture modes are ignored; you need to use the camera maker's own raw processor to access these settings.

However, Adobe Camera Raw has a multitude of camera profiles, including some which attempt to emulate cameras' built-in profiles.

 Mark Scott Abeln's gear list:Mark Scott Abeln's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D7000 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +2 more
OP whosthatwhatsthat Forum Member • Posts: 84
Re: why do digital files colours looks so bad without post

57even wrote:

whosthatwhatsthat wrote:

But its about proportions, not numbers. On a scale of black shadows to almost clipped highlights, where do you want the various elements to end up?

can you explain this a little further? is this where histograms come into play??

Much of the impact in a portrait comes from how the tones and colours in the subject (the person) relate to those in the rest of the scene (the background).

i'm trying to figure out how i can separate the tone of the person from the background with ambient light.

For instance, if the subject doesn't stand out from the background, you can reduce exposure to darken the background slightly and add a subtle kick of angled flash, or a hold a reflector off to one side, to brighten the subject.

is this through exposure comp too?

You also want to prevent highlights in the subject from clipping. Caucasian skin can get very close to clipping, which is where histograms and blinkies come in.

this is what I need to look into and the zebra that you mentioned?

Sometimes you can let the background blow out (high-key) but you normally have to use a white screen background and flood it with light to make it work.

would this be in a studio setup?

However, it's always possible to tweak relative contrast in post. When you see the image on a big monitor you may want to change the overall tonality a little - ie move the subject further up or down the scale.

Faces generally look better slightly above midtones for instance, but not too close to the highlights.

Just helps if it's nearly right to start with. Gives you more breathing room in post.

Also note, cinematographers and location photographers love diffuse indirect light. It's kinder to skin and doesn't stress your cameras DR. There's a good reason why studio windows point north, and when I used to do home and business portraits, I worked in a room with a north facing window, if I could find one.

dynamic range?

Sure, using white balance calibration helps, but setting up the scene and getting the light on the subject just right is 90% of the job.

Only on a gear forum to people think its the exposure settings. That's the simple bit, just look at the images on the LCD until you like them.

so you are saying its all about light not exposure settings?

Exposure settings just define overall image brightness and DOF. What matters is the DIFFERENCE in tone/colour between different parts of the image, and the camera can't do anything about that. If you can control the light, then do it. If you can't, use a tone curve in post.

also in regards to LCD I noticed a drastic difference in my pictures exposure when I had the brightness on 50% compared to 100% would you say I should keep it on 100% is this more accurate?

Every camera is different. You will have to tune it to match your PC display as best you can, and preferably calibrate your PC display.

Note, how bright your LCD needs to be will depend on ambient brightness. 100% is probably a good idea on a sunny day, but far too bright in an indoor studio.

But histograms and highlight blinkies are your friends.

will ensure to greet them with open arms

OP whosthatwhatsthat Forum Member • Posts: 84
Re: Questions

Mark Scott Abeln wrote:

whosthatwhatsthat wrote:

so if i shoot with my camera picture mode set to neutral then import, photoshop will not read that?

Most of the creative controls in raw files are ignored by third-party raw processors such as Photoshop's Adobe Camera Raw. Things like contrast, saturation, color space, sharpness, and picture modes are ignored; you need to use the camera maker's own raw processor to access these settings.

right so what info from the raw does it take if it ignores all that?

However, Adobe Camera Raw has a multitude of camera profiles, including some which attempt to emulate cameras' built-in profiles.

OP whosthatwhatsthat Forum Member • Posts: 84
Re: why do digital files colours looks so bad without post

Ellis Vener wrote:

whosthatwhatsthat wrote:

57even wrote:

whosthatwhatsthat wrote:

what would be your steps to ensure the data is right?

what key things would you adjust/watch over?

This is not the best place for a complicated lighting discussion, but I would recommend the strobist blog for cheap but effective setups, and there are some great youtube vids on natural light portraits.

the strobist blog? is that another site, please could you send a link! thanks

Like this and many others...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA3KbjBa19Y

https://strobist.blogspot.com/
if you like big production set ups make sure you follow Art Streiber on Instagram at #aspictures

thanks!!!

Ellis Vener
Ellis Vener Forum Pro • Posts: 13,822
Re: Questions

Mark Scott Abeln wrote:

whosthatwhatsthat wrote:

so if i shoot with my camera picture mode set to neutral then import, photoshop will not read that?

Most of the creative controls in raw files are ignored by third-party raw processors such as Photoshop's Adobe Camera Raw. Things like contrast, saturation, color space, sharpness, and picture modes are ignored; you need to use the camera maker's own raw processor to access these settings.

However, Adobe Camera Raw has a multitude of camera profiles, including some which attempt to emulate cameras' built-in profiles.

And with both Adobe Camera Raw / Lightroom and CaptureOne Pro , you can use custom profiles for your camera. The simplest way to do this is with X-rite's free ColorCheckerPassport software (https://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?ID=938&Action=Support&SoftwareID=2030 and either the 24 patch target i nthe ColorCheckerPassport target set

https://smile.amazon.com/ColorChecker-Passport-Photo-2-MSCCPP-B/dp/B07PNCPZ8G/ref=sr_1_1_sspa

If you are not already profilign your display you might be interested in this combination:

https://smile.amazon.com/X-Rite-ColorChecker-Photo-Kit-EODISSTUCCPP-B/dp/B07XCWXQXR/ref=sr_1_7

-- hide signature --

Ellis Vener
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio

 Ellis Vener's gear list:Ellis Vener's gear list
Sony RX100 VII Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads