How do i create this look? . . .

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

samwhigham

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1
Edit My Images
No
Last edited by a moderator:
Lighting!

It appears to be crosslit with at least two soft lights (I think I count 4), possibly in a light tent?

It might take some studying, but you can work out lighting from shadows:

wherever you get a light, it creats a shadow, the (apparently) larger the source, the softer the shadows.

We say apparently because a large source of light, a long way away looks like a point source, whereas a small flashgun used close to a macro subject is a massive source.

I hope that helps.
 
Ivan S said:
Vignetting and saturation, at a guess.
Click to expand...

I knew someone would suggest PP:bonk:

You can try it if you like, you can make object brighter and darker in PP, but it takes hours of genius PP to create believable shadows.

Photography is about light - not lightroom:shake:.
 
Phil V said:
I knew someone would suggest PP:bonk:
Click to expand...

To be fair, it was a response to the question of how a similar look could be created in Photoshop. As you say, with a lot of time and effort and even then probably not looking quite right.
 
Well he asked for how to create the spot lighting, I guessed he meant the vignetting, and the bold colours, I also guessed at saturation.
Of course lighting is playing a major part in that image, but if he's after 2 things from it and wants to use PS...
 
Phil V said:
I knew someone would suggest PP:bonk:

You can try it if you like, you can make object brighter and darker in PP, but it takes hours of genius PP to create believable shadows.

Photography is about light - not lightroom:shake:.
Click to expand...

So you don't use LR or PS in your images?

You get it right in camera and just present to your customers unedited pictures?

You use B+W film a lot then?:bonk:
 
Ivan S said:
So you don't use LR or PS in your images?

You get it right in camera and just present to your customers unedited pictures?

You use B+W film a lot then?:bonk:
Click to expand...

No
But if I need a picture lighting in a certain way - I light that way. I don't just use on camera flash and then try to make it look interesting in PP.

The photographic process goes like this.
Conceive idea.
Set up and take photograph
Process and deliver.

Like anything else in life, the more time and effort you spend at the beginning of a process, the easier it is to get a good result at the end.

If you skip the work on the preparation and fudge the capture, you're making it difficult to deliver a great result.

Is that too difficult a concept to understand?
 
Last edited:
ernesto said:
To be fair, it was a response to the question of how a similar look could be created in Photoshop. As you say, with a lot of time and effort and even then probably not looking quite right.
Click to expand...
Where does it say he wants to create it in PS? :thinking:

He says he's got a crap camera and a bit of PS knowledge, but he definitely doesn't say he wants to know how to create the look in PS.
;)
samwhigham said:
Hey,

i'm a total beginner, i only have a Nikon p7. I do have some experience with photoshop though.

I was hoping you guys could give me pointers as to how i would create the look of this image. I like the sort of spotlight effect and the vibrancy of the bold colours.

Any pointers would be gratefully received.
Click to expand...
 
You may be right, I just read into it that it implied creating the look of the image with Photoshop skills. Otherwise why mention Photoshop.

Sam,

Can you clarify your question?
 
He also says he's a total beginner, no where does he say he has 4 flash guns (I expect him to have none) to play with to get the lighting right, but he does mention PS, so we have to assume PS is what he has to create this look to one of his own images, the spotlight effect? got to be vignetting, right? and the vibrant bold colours, got to be saturation/vibrancy, right?
 
Ivan S said:
He also says he's a total beginner, no where does he say he has 4 flash guns (I expect him to have none) to play with to get the lighting right, but he does mention PS, so we have to assume PS is what he has to create this look to one of his own images, the spotlight effect? got to be vignetting, right? and the vibrant bold colours, got to be saturation/vibrancy, right?
Click to expand...

So he lays out a few brightly painted objects on a white board. Shoots then with his P&S with its onboard flash. He boosts saturation and adds a vignette, exactly as you suggested. What will the result look like?

Nothing like the photo posted above. :nuts:

He might not have the gear to recreate what I suggested, but at least he'll understand why his results don't look fantastic.

He won't be sat thinking 'well I upped the saturation and added a vignette, why are my pictures still crap?'
 
Get it right in the camera and you won't have the lengthy trouble as others do by creating it in PS.
If PS is to be used however, then go for it. Vignette mask layer, over saturate the blues and greens. Create a false shadow then clone it - you get the idea.

Although the objects look like tooth floss applicators? My wife is a dentist, these things ****** me off as our bathroom is like a colgate showroom as we constantly receive the latest and greatest for free - dentist's DON'T recommend Colgate, Colgate bribe them with goodies and tell the dentist of the current facts - same goes for Sensodine. If you want a good quick tip, go for Oral B toothpaste, that stuff is a winner and my wife recommends it :p
 
Phil V said:
So he lays out a few brightly painted objects on a white board. Shoots then with his P&S with its onboard flash. He boosts saturation and adds a vignette, exactly as you suggested. What will the result look like?

Nothing like the photo posted above. :nuts:

He might not have the gear to recreate what I suggested, but at least he'll understand why his results don't look fantastic.

He won't be sat thinking 'well I upped the saturation and added a vignette, why are my pictures still crap?'
Click to expand...

So the above picture has no vignette added or saturation?
 
Phil V said:
Lighting!

It appears to be crosslit with at least two soft lights (I think I count 4), possibly in a light tent?
Click to expand...

I would love to be able to tell this just by looking at the shadows in a picture. Is it easy or does it require lots of experience.. :)
 
Ivan S said:
So the above picture has no vignette added or saturation?
Click to expand...

You do know this is starting to look really silly now:nuts:

But I'll answer your question; I have no idea, I can't see the original file and I have no idea what colour the objects are. Do you know - for certain, whether the vignette is created with a pool of light or photoshop?

Or; better still: Could you produce that photograph with a P&S, onboard flash by just adding a vignette and saturation? as per your suggestion?

One of us knows what it'd take to recreate that shot exactly - the other seems to think fudging something like close is good enough, only one of us knows how to do it ;)
 
no one has mentioned that you need to purchase some floss brushes first...

I agree that there is possibably a vingnette added and a sat boost in pp but as phil says you need to get the lighting right if you want to re-create the image
 
Phil V said:
You do know this is starting to look really silly now:nuts:

But I'll answer your question; I have no idea, I can't see the original file and I have no idea what colour the objects are. Do you know - for certain, whether the vignette is created with a pool of light or photoshop?

Or; better still: Could you produce that photograph with a P&S, onboard flash by just adding a vignette and saturation? as per your suggestion?

One of us knows what it'd take to recreate that shot exactly - the other seems to think fudging something like close is good enough, only one of us knows how to do it ;)
Click to expand...

Point is the OP is a total beginner, you and I know he won't be able to reproduce this look exactly without the correct equipment, how many beginners have 4 flashguns and light stands and soft boxes?

You are completely correct in explaining the best way of getting this shot, I am 100% sure you know a lot more than me, but my advice will still stand if he does not have 4 flash guns and all the gear, it will get him going in the right direction will it not?
 
ziggy©;5632489 said:
I would love to be able to tell this just by looking at the shadows in a picture. Is it easy or does it require lots of experience.. :)
Click to expand...
As per that first post, start by examining the shadows. We use the phrase 'it's all about the light' a lot, but it's not strictly true, the interest emerges where the light falls off and you can tell a lot about light from the shadows it creates.

Like anything it just takes practice, and like I keep saying, I'm not exactly an expert on this stuff. I can just about light a portrait.

Flightphoto said:
Or use a snoot ?
Click to expand...

A snoot from above would give the pool of light, but it'd create a flat light straight onto the objects leaving them with no visible contours. That lighting is very clever if you examine it properly. Look at the way the shadows in the concave inside of the objects shows the form completely opposite to the flat outside.

I think it might be a macro light with the swivel heads just on the left and right - with the r/h head pointing left and vice versa. So the top and bottom objects have 2 sets of shadows and the outer ones have a shadow from the centre out.
 
Ivan S said:
... but my advice will still stand if he does not have 4 flash guns and all the gear, it will get him going in the right direction will it not?
Click to expand...

No.
It'll give him a crap shot with boosted saturation and a vignette :D. Try it, I'll eat my hat if you can recreate 'the look of this shot' with a vignette and a saturation boost.

Look at the top of the page, there's a massive clue - it's called talk photography,

not: talk point a camera at it and make it look like a dogs dinner in photoshop.

Can we stick to helping people with their photography?:thumbs:
 
I was also going to say, this is TalkPhotography - not DeviantArt :)
 
Looks like it was a simple ring flash, close in, perhaps through a custom defuser that has areas opaqued out.

Obviously shot standing on one leg.
 
I've got a box of those floss brushes, I'm tempted to give it a go, although the brushes are the white Oral B kind!
 
Phil V said:
No.
It'll give him a crap shot with boosted saturation and a vignette :D. Try it, I'll eat my hat if you can recreate 'the look of this shot' with a vignette and a saturation boost.

Look at the top of the page, there's a massive clue - it's called talk photography,

not: talk point a camera at it and make it look like a dogs dinner in photoshop.

Can we stick to helping people with their photography?:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Yeah sure, but I simply put into it what the OP asked and his reference to PS, if he wanted studio lighting advice he's in the wrong section.
 
:D

Just messing about with it now, yes I would have to photoshop in the colour but it's the light we're after, Just messing about with them and a beauty dish at the moment, trouble is they're white, and I'm using white as the backdrop :lol:
I thought of a beauty dish because the light diffuser in the middle would cause a shadow in the centre of the subject while bleeding the light outwards to cause a shadow cast on 360 around the brushes :D
 
Flightphoto said:
:D

Just messing about with it now, yes I would have to photoshop in the colour but it's the light we're after, Just messing about with them and a beauty dish at the moment, trouble is they're white, and I'm using white as the backdrop :lol:
I thought of a beauty dish because the light diffuser in the middle would cause a shadow in the centre of the subject while bleeding the light outwards to cause a shadow cast on 360 around the brushes :D
Click to expand...

What y' doing? Y' nutter.

Compact camera, built in flash, then all you need to do is chuck it through PS and it's sorted:D

Absolutely perfect in every way.:thumbs:
 
I use Oral B.

I knew I'd learn something reading this thread.
 
As usual... great images are created with great lighting, not post processing. Why is it that the first thing someone asks when seeing a great image is how they create the same effect in photoshop? What the hell is happening to photography?
 
Pookeyhead said:
As usual... great images are created with great lighting, not post processing. Why is it that the first thing someone asks when seeing a great image is how they create the same effect in photoshop? What the hell is happening to photography?
Click to expand...

To be fair David, I don't think the OP asked how to do it with processing:).

But as has happened on a few occasions it gets answered by someone who has no idea how to do it, but answers anyway with a bit of cheap PP advice.

The worst bit (for me) is the assertion that the OP can't possibly want to know how it's done properly, they obviously just want to know how to do it badly with software. I mean, why are we bothering getting great gear and learning how to use it, all we need is a P&S ans photoshop and we can achieve anything.
 
Phil V said:
To be fair David, I don't think the OP asked how to do it with processing:).
Click to expand...

If not I apologise in advance, but....

"i'm a total beginner, i only have a Nikon p7. I do have some experience with photoshop though." does kind of imply it, and as usual people are arguing that it CAN be done in post processing in reply.
 
Phil V said:
To be fair David, I don't think the OP asked how to do it with processing:).

But as has happened on a few occasions it gets answered by someone who has no idea how to do it, but answers anyway with a bit of cheap PP advice.

The worst bit (for me) is the assertion that the OP can't possibly want to know how it's done properly, they obviously just want to know how to do it badly with software. I mean, why are we bothering getting great gear and learning how to use it, all we need is a P&S ans photoshop and we can achieve anything.
Click to expand...

Get off your high horse please, reread the OP, you can clearly see where my advice came from, if he wanted to know how to light it he would have asked, ''how do I light this shot?'' he didn't ask that.

He referenced PS, like it or not.
 
Pookeyhead said:
If not I apologise in advance, but....

"i'm a total beginner, i only have a Nikon p7. I do have some experience with photoshop though." does kind of imply it, and as usual people are arguing that it CAN be done in post processing in reply.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's in the reading - I assumed that he was talking about learning photography on a photography forum:D. But I've been proved naive before.

I'm still waiting for someone to recreate the look with a P&S and a run through photoshop:lol::lol:.
 
Ivan S said:
Get off your high horse please, reread the OP, you can clearly see where my advice came from, if he wanted to know how to light it he would have asked, ''how do I light this shot?'' he didn't ask that.

He referenced PS, like it or not.
Click to expand...


But he also asked the wrong question. It's not about being on a high horse, it;s about giving the right advice. Assuming he DID ask how he can do this in photoshop, then then correct answer would be, "You can't.. as it was produced using lighting, not photoshop"

That's not being on a high horse, that's giving the correct answer. If I wanted to know how to create a great oil painting with a set of child's water colours, people replying with "You can't... you need oil paints, and talent, and practice" wouldn't be on a high horse.. they'd be giving the correct advice. The opinion on here is that if they ask how to do it in Photoshop, then that's what we shoudl be telling them... how to do it in PS. Well.. I'm sorry, you simply can't recreate what was done with great lighting by applying photoshop to a badly lit image. Fact.
 
Last edited:
To be fair to Ivan, if you had hi-lighted the next sentence from the one you did, it can read what PP is used IMHO without actually asking that.

As said before, I do agree with you Phil and I think you have done a great job of conveying your opinion.

It is always better to use the right light and get a good image in camera. but in the picture shown as the sample there does seem to be some post processing along the lines as Ivan suggested and answered.

Is it fair to leave it like that, as anything more I think it would look like you are being mean. (IMHO, and I know you're not reaally.)
 
Pookeyhead said:
But he also asked the wrong question. It's not about being on a high horse, it;s about giving the right advice. Assuming he DID ask how he can do this in photoshop, then then correct answer would be, "You can't.. as it was produced using lighting, not photoshop"

That's not being on a high horse, that's giving the correct answer.
Click to expand...

If that's how you want to spin it, Phil all ready explained the best way on page one, yes it's the best way, but the most expensive, my advice was from the OP's question on the ''effect'' of the shot.

I took he meant the spotlighting meaning the vignette, which can easily be done in software, then he asked about the vibrant colours, again boosting saturation/vibrancy in software is easy to do, now these are the only 2 things I see in the OP, Phil chose other way of doing it, fair enough, but he knows the OP will not have any of the kit to do it in the first place, so who's helping who here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top