HELP! - How to make images really really pop!

I took the camera out for a practice while walking the dog this morning. Any closer?

20120727_115510_2278_LR.jpg
 
Laudrup said:
Injecting kit will help. Get an 85mm f/1.2 and go and make the background melt so people look 3D, or a Zeiss 100mm and watch the high micro contrast make the image pop. Good glass always helps. I wouldn't say it was natural talent or particularly amazing sense of timing etc. He can hit 10fps with a D4, set up the camera right with fast glass and machine gun away, only the keepers make the album.

Buy or rent a fast L prime or Zeiss and go experiment.
Click to expand...

:shake:

people who take great images have natural talent - even joe much as it pains me to say it. Spray and pray combined with reliance on one technique like shooting wide open is not going to make you a great phtographer
 
tdodd said:
I took the camera out for a practice while walking the dog this morning. Any closer?

20120727_115510_2278_LR.jpg
Click to expand...

It's a great shot but by the essence of what we have discussed in this thread, it doesn't? Maybe some foreground and background OOF combined with careful selection of the focal point(s).
 
Thorouhgly enjoyed reading this thread Marcus.

I'm glad you asked the question :)
 
big soft moose said:
were you using a ring flash in that one joe - theres summat odd about his eyes.

Or was it a case of demonic possession ?
Click to expand...

Me? use flash? are you kidding? :lol: Nope just natural light

my sons eyes .... the subject of many a conversation. He has these very reflective eyes which seem to do weird things to light see below



IMG_8722 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr


9R4C0896 by JoeBoyMan, on Flickr
 
Marcus Geezer said:
It's a great shot but by the essence of what we have discussed in this thread, it doesn't? Maybe some foreground and background OOF combined with careful selection of the focal point(s).
Click to expand...

Lens was wide open at f/2 so no way to reduce DOF further, and as I don't use Photoshop really not the kind of effect I wish to fake. Personally I'm not convinced that foreground interest is a requirement. Pop, for me, is first and foremost about how the subject appears relative to the rest of the scene, and what attributes it has to make it pop (stand out). That includes....

- contrasting sharpness, controlled with DOF;
- contrasting lighting, with rim lighting being a nice touch;
- contrasting tones;
- contrasting colours.

Sharpness is a must, as is clarity/fidelity of the pixels. I don't think there is any dispute about these things. But as far as foreground interest is concerned I think that is quite a small element which maybe can add something from a compositional viewpoint, but is very much not the main contributor to "pop". Think of a 3/4 length portrait. Is it the case that it can never pop simply because there is no foreground? I don't think so, but how the subject is distinguished from the background is crucial.

Just my 2 cents. :)
 
Daryl said:
The eyes are great.....

Last time I saw eyes like that on a sprog all the women of the village were pregnant at the same time.....
Click to expand...

As I said , demonic possession - in joes case it probably runs in the family :lol:
 
big soft moose said:
:shake:

people who take great images have natural talent - even joe much as it pains me to say it. Spray and pray combined with reliance on one technique like shooting wide open is not going to make you a great phtographer
Click to expand...

It has 10fps for a reason, you don't get any awards for only shooting once. You can learn to shoot that way too, not really natural talent. A D4 + 85mm f/1.4 with the same settings pointed at the same subject and PP is going to look the same no matter who took it.
 
Last edited:
Indeed it does - for sports and action photography , not portraiture.

and " D4 + 85mm f/1.4 with the same settings pointed at the same subject and PP is going to look the same no matter who took it." may be litterally true, but the skill comes in matching the setting to the light , and composing the shots, which requires experience and native skill - not a finger jammed on the shutter button and a hope for the best.
 
Last edited:
Daryl said:
It's those energy drinks.............
Click to expand...

... with viagra in....

danbroad said:
To make images pop, you need to master dodge and burn. It's amazing how you can lift an image by lightening the correct area, especially around eyes.
Click to expand...

In the context of this thread, 100% Disagree.
 
joescrivens said:
I bet you were exhausted :D
Click to expand...

I just followed a link to Audrey's book on her blog here.

Then I saw the first testimonial halfway down :eek: You're famous!!

I just had your book delivered all the way to the UK. Many thanks, you actually made me change my mind completely about how I hold the camera - lens facing outwards. I was always doing this the other way round. Thanks ~ Joe Scrivens *

*I may have edited this comment for potential humorous effect
 
Spuff said:
I just followed a link to Audrey's book on her blog here.

Then I saw the first testimonial halfway down :eek: You're famous!!

I just had your book delivered all the way to the UK. Many thanks, you actually made me change my mind completely about how I hold the camera - lens facing outwards. I was always doing this the other way round. Thanks ~ Joe Scrivens *

*I may have edited this comment for potential humorous effect
Click to expand...

that is interesting! she never asked permission for that endorsement!!! cheeky mare!!! :lol:

at least it shows those things aren't faked!
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Indeed it does - for sports and action photography , not portraiture.

and " D4 + 85mm f/1.4 with the same settings pointed at the same subject and PP is going to look the same no matter who took it." may be litterally true, but the skill comes in matching the setting to the light , and composing the shots, which requires experience and native skill - not a finger jammed on the shutter button and a hope for the best.
Click to expand...

It's suitable for any pursuit be it sports, action, portrait, reportage etc it's a pro body that's a jack of all trades. As I said there's no pats on the back for only taking one shot vs 10 or 100. The guy has nice photos, but nothing that can't be learned, he did after all.
 
Oh FFS - yes the camera is suitable for any pursuit - however the 10fps feature is for sport, action etc - its of no benefit to a portrait photographer to rattle off 100s of shots - for a start it dramatically increases editing time if you have to wade through hundreds of similars.

I agree that anyone with the commitment and a reasonable level of inteligence can learn how to take a good shot - but you learn jacks*** by hopefully pointing your camera at the subject and firing off a huge burst, hoping for some good shots in amongst all the dross
 
Laudrup said:
The guy has nice photos, but nothing that can't be learned, he did after all.
Click to expand...

disagree entirely.

Would you also say that anyone can learn to paint like picaso, or make music like beethoven, play football like lionel messi?

You can learn up to a point, after that talent becomes the limiting factor
 
joescrivens said:
Would you also say that anyone can learn to paint like picaso, or make music like beethoven, play football like lionel messi?
Click to expand...

Worryingly i agree with Joe (again :suspect:)

Claiming that a D4 and some good glass will give anyone the ability to take shots like that, is like saying that because i've got a ford focus i can drive like colin mcrae
 
gazmorton2000 said:
This is exactly what makes me think, "give up now".
Click to expand...

no, you don't have to be as good at football as lionel messi to make a living and still be good. Talent becomes the limiting factor to greatness, with little talent you can still be a good photographer having learnt everything you can.
 
joescrivens said:
disagree entirely.

Would you also say that anyone can learn to paint like picaso, or make music like beethoven, play football like lionel messi?

You can learn up to a point, after that talent becomes the limiting factor
Click to expand...

Well photography was known as being for those who can't draw. Comparing setting a machine to 1/1000 of a second and spending an hour on photoshop enhancing it with algorithms is not even on the same planet as a master of light like Caravaggio for example. As for Messi well he had an equivalent of post processing with his injections of human growth hormone. I doubt he'd have been as good if he was 4ft 7".

To make the images pop get some nice glass with high micro contrast, nice light and interesting subjects to shoot. Don't get hung up on 'talent' when people mean repetition.
 
Laudrup said:
To make the images pop get some nice glass with high micro contrast, nice light and interesting subjects to shoot. Don't get hung up on 'talent' when people mean repetition.
Click to expand...

Tell you what loud burp - why don't you post some of your epic portraiture and we can have a side by side comparrison with joe's ... unless of course you are all talk :whistling:
 
big soft moose said:
Tell you what loud burp - why don't you post some of your epic portraiture and we can have a side by side comparrison with joe's ... unless of course you are all talk :whistling:
Click to expand...

easy tiger let's not allow this thread to go south. It's been superb - Laudrup you and I are going to have to agree to disagree mainly because I have no idea what you are saying, but also because I think even if I did know what you were saying it wouldn't make sense anyway :lol:
 
joescrivens said:
no, you don't have to be as good at football as lionel messi to make a living and still be good. Talent becomes the limiting factor to greatness, with little talent you can still be a good photographer having learnt everything you can.
Click to expand...

Yeah I guess your right. I have no desire to make money from photography, but I would like to take photographs that are good enough to. Ive enjoyed this thread as I've always wondered used about images such as those illustrated that have that certain something. That 'pop' as its been called here.
 
Laudrup said:
To make the images pop get some nice glass with high micro contrast, nice light and interesting subjects to shoot. Don't get hung up on 'talent' when people mean repetition.
Click to expand...

The bold bit is where people struggle. Having/learning the ability to know what light and what composition make the photo that is something special.
Someone with less ability but same equipment may stand in wrong place, at wrong angle, at wrong time etc,. That is what is hard to teach and hard to learn and those that are good at it are the ones that stand out.

The fact that only some people can do it makes it a talent. The fact you think it is so easy may mean you have the talent naturally and can't appreciate that others may not have it.
 
Last edited:
Marcus Geezer said:
Thanks Dav. Nail. Head. Cheers.

Because others have shared images, I feel obliged to do the same. Do these have pop? In my mind no.... but they possibly have the essence of it and quickly looking through my archive it is the closest I can get to with existing work and will be looking to try and shoot images that pop in the future...


IMG_7902 colour by Marcus Charter, on Flickr


IMG_1470 by Marcus Charter, on Flickr


IMG_0442 by Marcus Charter, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Well they all 'pop' to me......the 2nd and 3rd more so. Nice images and very enjoyable and informative thread!
JohnyT
 
I must admit I am one the millions who adore ABu's photography and his pp. It is so good! Here is my 2p. I know those pics have potential to look good. A few from last wedding I 2nd .Do they pop for you or are they over done? What and how would you improve them? Alexandras feel free to chime in:)

1.
LisaGeoff-2125.jpg


2.
LisaGeoff-2112.jpg


3.
LisaGeoff-1994.jpg
 
tommmy.star said:
I must admit I am one the millions who adore ABu's photography and his pp. It is so good! Here is my 2p. I know those pics have potential to look good. A few from last wedding I 2nd .Do they pop for you or are they over done? What and how would you improve them? Alexandras feel free to chime in:)

1.
LisaGeoff-2125.jpg


2.
LisaGeoff-2112.jpg


3.
LisaGeoff-1994.jpg
Click to expand...

I think they have the 'pop' factor. Nice work. What did you use to take them and what processing (if any) did you complete?
 
tommmy.star said:
I must admit I am one the millions who adore ABu's photography and his pp. It is so good! Here is my 2p. I know those pics have potential to look good. A few from last wedding I 2nd .Do they pop for you or are they over done? What and how would you improve them? Alexandras feel free to chime in:)

<snip>
Click to expand...

Yes, some of those pop. Particularly the waitress.

Interesting debate, though I still think the key ingredient is good light, particularly back/rim lighting, and good subject/background contrast (light/dark and colour contrast).

The shallow DoF thing just enhances it, because it seems to me that merely shallow DoF shots taken in dull light with darker subjects against darkish backgrounds tend not to work nearly so well.

The out of focus foreground thing is very dangerous IMHO. As a general rule, that doesn't usually look good and often adds frankly ugly and distracting shapes. It's hard to make that work well and IMHO in that respect a couple of your examples here are poor ;)
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
The out of focus foreground thing is very dangerous IMHO. As a general rule, that doesn't usually look good and often adds frankly ugly and distracting shapes. It's hard to make that work well and IMHO in that respect a couple of your examples here are poor ;)
Click to expand...

Completely agree with your here Hoppy. You could concentrate on a whole set trying to use oof background and foreground to create pop, but if you don't quite get it right you've just taken a set of bad images. Blimey what a minefield!
 
What did you use to take them and what processing (if any) did you complete?
Click to expand...

They were shot with 85mm at around f.3.5. PP mainly moving the black point in and the middle to the left + shaprening.


The out of focus foreground thing is very dangerous IMHO. As a general rule, that doesn't usually look good and often adds frankly ugly and distracting shapes
Click to expand...

I agree and don't know why it didn't occur to me before but now that you have pointed this Hoppy I will try and avoid this trap. I mean the OOF couple doesn't bother me that much but had I stopped down a little bit more to get them a little bit sharper it would have been a nicer photograph. The last one though is way too blurry in the foreground.

Coming back to AB I don't thnink he shoots wide open all that much. You don't need to shoot wide open to get a nice blury separation between the subject and background. He has definately mastered the aparture and camera to subject distance thingy:) Love his work and only really wished he could give us a few more specific pointers and I would love to see his high res file too:)
 
tommmy.star said:
They were shot with 85mm at around f.3.5. PP mainly moving the black point in and the middle to the left + shaprening.


I agree and don't know why it didn't occur to me before but now that you have pointed this Hoppy I will try and avoid this trap. I mean the OOF couple doesn't bother me that much but had I stopped down a little bit more to get them a little bit sharper it would have been a nicer photograph. The last one though is way too blurry in the foreground.

Coming back to AB I don't thnink he shoots wide open all that much. You don't need to shoot wide open to get a nice blury separation between the subject and background. He has definately mastered the aparture and camera to subject distance thingy:) Love his work and only really wished he could give us a few more specific pointers and I would love to see his high res file too:)
Click to expand...

That's what I thought too. The fact that someone is using an f/2 or 1.4 prime doesn't mean they're wide open all the time. In fact I have a couple of examples shot at a wedding reception of a group of girls. First shot they were facing the sun, flat light, and squinting a bit. So I turned them all round, backs to the light, and added a bit of HSS fill-in flash. They were both at f/8, one has pop, the other does not.

The other thing about shallow DoF is that if you go that route, it kind of implies that the less DoF you've got, the better it looks. Far from true IMHO, and we sometimes see such extremely shallow DoF these days from the so called bokeh lovers that the subject looks like a cut-out against a studio background. That doesn't work for me, and you lose all context when the background is unrecognisable. It's all a rather tricky and delicate balancing act.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top