HELP! - How to make images really really pop!

ernesto said:
The question was "Does this count as pop?". To me it doesn't no.

It doesn't pop for me because it doesn't have that feeling of the subject somehow having more light and a removed from background feeling. The couple are merged in with the many people around them and don't particularly stand out. May not be helped by being black and white.

I can only believe it was your first wedding and not sure how or why I would question that :)
Click to expand...

You've misunderstood the effect that Marcus wants. You are talking about DOF here, not popping / 3d images. Of course it could be the case that I have got it wrong. @Marcus - clarification please :)

Cheers.

Dav
 
joescrivens said:
It's a great image Joanne, it doesn't have the pop we are describing in my opinion, but it does have plenty of punch, emotion, story, context, sharpness, and lovely mono conversion too!
Click to expand...

Thank you Joe. I take all comments and learn from them. Hopefully, more of this wedding will be posted soon and I would appreciate any feedback.

For me, this images pops. However, maybe I am not experienced or had enough exposure to popping images. In a few months time, I may look back and think differently.

There are so many professional togs on TP and their depth of knowledge and wealth of experience is incredible, this is balanced with togs that may have all the gear......... I am probably that end of the tog rainbow!!!

I am always looking for inspiration and am very appreciative and lucky having FlyTvr as a mentor. Perhaps newbie togs should spend time 2nd shooting with other professionals just to keep egos in check and realise it's not an uncle bob game. IMHO

Thanks again Joe and I enjoy viewing your posts and apologies that I may not always comment.

:-)
 
Tim,

there's pop and then there's "pop" :D

Your image has the general seperation from the background that we see so often from shallow DOF but it's not the same as the pop marcus describes in Babi's shots for example.

Take a look at this one from babi

http://pics.meninenuotrauka.lt/e79/e79d0585723e9c9f78da31d8c9d56b15.jpg

Now that is pop. It's not just seperation from the background its a combination of

1.incredible depth because of the surroundings and the forgeound oof parts
2. contrast of the subject to the background
3. that rim lighting on the women in red's shoulders
4. the superb sharpening that really puts a crisp edge to the subject
5. bold colors

there's lots of examples throughout his site of this and you see the 5 things above popping up all the time. I really think the crisp edge has a lot to do with it down to a superb sharpening action.

I tried to find a good candidate in my own shots to see if I could replicate the effect with pp if some of the conditions above were present and found this one which only is missing the foreground interest. See the before and after, I tried to make the edges of the subject much crisper with a web sharpening action. What do you think, does it make a difference? By the way, I realise it's over sharpened - just trying to push it to see if that is a major factor


104 by JoeBoyMan, on Flickr


104Pop by JoeBoyMan, on Flickr
 
joescrivens said:
Tim,

there's pop and then there's "pop" :D

Your image has the general seperation from the background that we see so often from shallow DOF but it's not the same as the pop marcus describes in Babi's shots for example.

Take a look at this one from babi

http://pics.meninenuotrauka.lt/e79/e79d0585723e9c9f78da31d8c9d56b15.jpg

Now that is pop. It's not just seperation from the background its a combination of

1.incredible depth because of the surroundings and the forgeound oof parts
2. contrast of the subject to the background
3. that rim lighting on the women in red's shoulders
4. the superb sharpening that really puts a crisp edge to the subject
5. bold colors

there's lots of examples throughout his site of this and you see the 5 things above popping up all the time. I really think the crisp edge has a lot to do with it down to a superb sharpening action.

I tried to find a good candidate in my own shots to see if I could replicate the effect with pp if some of the conditions above were present and found this one which only is missing the foreground interest. See the before and after, I tried to make the edges of the subject much crisper with a web sharpening action. What do you think, does it make a difference? By the way, I realise it's over sharpened - just trying to push it to see if that is a major factor

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37599844@N04/7655213428/
104 by JoeBoyMan, on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37599844@N04/7655213284/
104Pop by JoeBoyMan, on Flickr
Click to expand...

:-)
 
Don't know if its already been mentioned but I use Adobe Elements 10. There is a facility in that editing suit that lets you blur the picture then bring back the areas you want to get back in focus creating that "pop" effect.

Realspeed
 
just had another look through and I think I have a good candidate for the ellusive pop


150 by JoeBoyMan, on Flickr

It has everything mentioned above plus superb lighting, but for me it's these crisp edges that really do it
 
joescrivens said:
the only one of those for me that pops is this one

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35222892@N03/7563209116/in/pool-brenizermethod

it has all the components listed above, including crisp edges, good contrast and foreground out of focus

the others just look weird

i don't get this method at all though, the shot above could have been taken with a 35mm at 1.4
Click to expand...

Yeah a good few do look a little strange but it's just a method for the 3D effect I think....only ever tried it once myself as it was to much messing for my like.

Anyways thought I would join in on posting with one of my pics and see if people think it has the "pop".:thinking:

Sony A850 + Sigma 85mm 1.4
Shot at 1.7


Connie & Mummy (1 of 1) by DeanSupreme, on Flickr
 
for me that just has background seperation - there needs to be a lot more surroundings in the shot to get the pop 3d effect
 
How about this then?Or is this still background separation?If so I'm at a loss what I'm looking for in my images.:lol:


Connie Bridge 22 (1 of 1) by DeanSupreme, on Flickr

Will take kids out at the weekend somewhere a little more busy than the woods and test.
 
Last edited:
thats more like it yes, and once again we are starting to get the same kinds of factors

crisp edges
foreground oof areas (the floor)
bold colors
strong contrasting areas
some rim lighting

i think these factors all go into the effect
 
FlyTVR said:
You've misunderstood the effect that Marcus wants. You are talking about DOF here, not popping / 3d images. Of course it could be the case that I have got it wrong. @Marcus - clarification please :)

Cheers.

Dav
Click to expand...

Thanks gain to everyone taking the effort to post up pictures. Especially like the action man, and takes me back to my youth! Reckon action man deserves it's own thread!

Dav - Nail. Head. I think we clarified earlier in the thread that this isn't just about kit creating good DOF, it's about the photographer using the light, the people, the surroundings to create an image with depth and to use that to bring out the focal point and alsmot give it that 3d look; i.e. to make it 'pop' out.

I think Joe has got pretty close with his 'lady laughing at wedding' shot, where the foreground and background just add to the depth of the image. I think Dean's also has it with the child on the path? It's so subjective!
 
joescrivens said:
thats more like it yes, and once again we are starting to get the same kinds of factors

crisp edges
foreground oof areas (the floor)
bold colors
strong contrasting areas
some rim lighting

i think these factors all go into the effect
Click to expand...

This I think Joe is the formula that has been bubbling round in my head these past few days.
 
Got to say I have quite enjoyed reading through all the thread and has definitely given me food for thought...Nice one for creating this thread Marcus.:thumbs:
 
Whilst marcus started the thread I take full responsibility for making it great, so you can direct your thanks to me and not to that smug geezer marcus :D:D:D:D
 
joescrivens said:
Whilst marcus started the thread I take full responsibility for making it great, so you can direct your thanks to me and not to that smug geezer marcus :D:D:D:D
Click to expand...

We bow down to your greatness Joe.

Yes.

Really.

We do.

:notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:
 
FlyTVR said:
You've misunderstood the effect that Marcus wants. You are talking about DOF here, not popping / 3d images. Of course it could be the case that I have got it wrong. @Marcus - clarification please :)

Cheers.

Dav
Click to expand...

You haven't got it wrong and I haven't misunderstood. DoF is only part of it, as I said it is to do with lighting AND separation. The subject almost looks like it has it own light source.
 
While i will say that Full Frame is great for these shots, i have several contacts on flickr who use nikon d90`s and d7000`s and their shots are brilliant so i know its technique and skill, and not gear.

I love flickr to see the full potential people can do with their cameras. I`ve often thought about getting full frame then i see some pics a guy has done with a nikon D40 and i get blown away, then decide i need to pratice more with the gear i`ve got.
 
Last edited:
MsPeep said:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. This image, as with all images, catches a moment in time. I understand you feel the couple merge with their guests, however for me it is what I wanted to achieve.

Do you shoot weddings?

:-)
Click to expand...

Joanne, I am not commenting on the photo so no need to defend it :)

I am simply saying to me it doesn't pop. Look at the example in this thread that clearly do pop and it is clear to me that yours doesn't.
Doesn't mean it is any the less for it but when asked a yes/no on whether it pops it is a no from me.

And no I don't shoot weddings, mainly because I am nowhere near being capable of doing it and secondly because I detest weddings.
 
Great thread!

I've noticed since going FF I tend to use ETTR and shoot wide open (f2.8 on a 24-70) a lot more. It hasn't even been a conscious decision in a sense, I just knew what I wanted the images to look like and that seemed to be they way to go... I'm still working on it - sometimes I overexpose too much, sometimes I haven't completely got the focus right, I play it a bit safer sometimes too and give myself a bit more DOF (ie at a wedding) - but that is the direction I seem to be heading in.
 
ernesto said:
Joanne, I am not commenting on the photo so no need to defend it :)

I am simply saying to me it doesn't pop. Look at the example in this thread that clearly do pop and it is clear to me that yours doesn't.
Doesn't mean it is any the less for it but when asked a yes/no on whether it pops it is a no from me.

And no I don't shoot weddings, mainly because I am nowhere near being capable of doing it and secondly because I detest weddings.
Click to expand...

Ernesto - Your initial comment, when clarified was on the image and it's appreciated. I am not defending an image that ticks my boxes in all ways, it was more of a question of popping. My image does not pop as much as others on this thread and this gives me something to work on - perfect.

Marcus - I blame you!! Thanks

Joe - Don't get used to the throne!

Flytvr - ;-)
 
MsPeep said:
Ernesto - Your initial comment, when clarified was on the image and it's appreciated. I am not defending an image that ticks my boxes in all ways, it was more of a question of popping. My image does not pop as much as others on this thread and this gives me something to work on - perfect.

Marcus - I blame you!! Thanks

Joe - Don't get used to the throne!

Flytvr - ;-)
Click to expand...

It's not my fault. It's Dav's!
 
Sod it Marcus. I've had enough of this thread. Off to people and portraits to start the 'Marcus in a mankini' thread.

Dav
 
FlyTVR said:
Sod it Marcus. I've had enough of this thread. Off to people and portraits to start the 'Marcus in a mankini' thread.

Dav
Click to expand...

Haha that's brill. Great thread this, given me food for thought and things to try out with my primes. Good there is so much to learn in this photography lark!
 
Whoosh!!! And the good fairy has arrived.

Saw the thread but thought Macus and Joe had been on the mixed bean soup again.
All this talk of 'Popping'. Who came up with that title?

Heard of colour popping.... so all in all it's about subject pin sharp and back ground and forground out of focus like ICE AGE animated movie?

You can do in Cs layers and you can do it in chromakey. Much nicer in camera. whack in some contrast.

so it's all about Light, Stereoscopy? that's a good way of doing it.

In mathematics, analytic geometry (also called Cartesian geometry) describes every point in three-dimensional space by means of three coordinates. Three coordinate axes are given, usually each perpendicular to the other two at the origin, the point at which they cross. They are usually labeled x, y, and z. Relative to these axes, the position of any point in three-dimensional space is given by an ordered triple of real numbers, each number giving the distance of that point from the origin measured along the given axis, which is equal to the distance of that point from the plane determined by the other two axes.

Other popular methods of describing the location of a point in three-dimensional space include cylindrical coordinates and spherical coordinates, though there is an infinite number of possible methods. See Euclidean space.

Another mathematical way of viewing three-dimensional space is found in linear algebra, where the idea of independence is crucial. Space has three dimensions because the length of a box is independent of its width or breadth. In the technical language of linear algebra, space is three-dimensional because every point in space can be described by a linear combination of three independent vectors. In this view, space-time is four-dimensional because the location of a point in time is independent of its location in space.

Three-dimensional space has a number of properties that distinguish it from spaces of other dimension numbers. For example, at least 3 dimensions are required to tie a knot in a piece of string.[1] Many of the laws of physics, such as the various inverse square laws, depend on dimension three.[2]

The understanding of three-dimensional space in humans is thought to be learned during infancy using unconscious inference, and is closely related to hand-eye coordination. The visual ability to perceive the world in three dimensions is called depth perception.

Or did i just over do it?????


and what about the Time Space continuum??????????
 
Last edited:
Daryl said:
Whoosh!!! And the good fairy has arrived.

Saw the thread but thought Macus and Joe had been on the mixed bean soup again.
All this talk of 'Popping'. Who came up with that title?

Heard of colour popping.... so all in all it's about subject pin sharp and back ground and forground out of focus like ICE AGE animated movie?

You can do in Cs layers and you can do it in chromakey. Much nicer in camera. whack in some contrast.

so it's all about Light, Stereoscopy? that's a good way of doing it.

In mathematics, analytic geometry (also called Cartesian geometry) describes every point in three-dimensional space by means of three coordinates. Three coordinate axes are given, usually each perpendicular to the other two at the origin, the point at which they cross. They are usually labeled x, y, and z. Relative to these axes, the position of any point in three-dimensional space is given by an ordered triple of real numbers, each number giving the distance of that point from the origin measured along the given axis, which is equal to the distance of that point from the plane determined by the other two axes.

Other popular methods of describing the location of a point in three-dimensional space include cylindrical coordinates and spherical coordinates, though there is an infinite number of possible methods. See Euclidean space.

Another mathematical way of viewing three-dimensional space is found in linear algebra, where the idea of independence is crucial. Space has three dimensions because the length of a box is independent of its width or breadth. In the technical language of linear algebra, space is three-dimensional because every point in space can be described by a linear combination of three independent vectors. In this view, space-time is four-dimensional because the location of a point in time is independent of its location in space.

Three-dimensional space has a number of properties that distinguish it from spaces of other dimension numbers. For example, at least 3 dimensions are required to tie a knot in a piece of string.[1] Many of the laws of physics, such as the various inverse square laws, depend on dimension three.[2]

The understanding of three-dimensional space in humans is thought to be learned during infancy using unconscious inference, and is closely related to hand-eye coordination. The visual ability to perceive the world in three dimensions is called depth perception.

Or did i just over do it?????


and what about the Time Space continuum??????????
Click to expand...

Holy cow!!! How much coffee have you drunk this morning!


FlyTVR said:
Sod it Marcus. I've had enough of this thread. Off to people and portraits to start the 'Marcus in a mankini' thread.

Dav
Click to expand...

:naughty:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top