How do i create this look? . . .

[Pookeyhead]

the picture shown as the sample there does seem to be some post processing along the lines as Ivan suggested and answered.

All photographs, however lit, will have some other processing applied though. The shot used as an example relies on lighting. Any post processing to enhance it further hasn't added to that fundamental lighting that would have been present on the RAW file.

Great photography needs great lighting.

 

[On the Huh]

All photographs, however lit, will have some other processing applied though. The shot used as an example relies on lighting. Any post processing to enhance it further hasn't added to that fundamental lighting that would have been present on the RAW file.

Great photography needs great lighting.

Yeah I agree. But the PP advice is probably right. May not be the overall answer, and may be wrong to only comment on that, but that has already been established and Ivan answered it how he saw the question....what PP?

I think it's best left to that.

 

[ernesto]

I suppose it's in the reading.

We may never know, OP has gone quiet?

 

[Phil V]

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.

The OP never asked 'how could I process a shot' either.

It's not in the lighting section, but I could argue it's not in the post processing section either Yes believe it or not - there's a special section for PP advice.

So we'll call that a draw
Here's a thought - it's what we used to call 'put your money where your mouth is'

You show me how you can mimic that beautifully composed and lit shot by not caring about the 'photography' but then just running your results through photoshop. I'll show my arse in the co-op window.

Simple - no argument - no high horse. Just prove you can do it or admit you haven't got a clue how to produce that 'look'.

I'm no product expert and I'm ill equipped for it - but I reckon I could recreate that look if I had to, and it's definitely not PP.

As I said earlier - the clue is at the top of the page talk photography

 

[Pookeyhead]

We may never know, OP has gone quiet?

Yeah.... scared off by all the people messing up a thread with "arguments" and all that

(argument = giving correct advice even if it's not what people want to hear)

 

[On the Huh]

Originally Posted by Phil V
I suppose it's in the reading.

Quite.

 

[Ivan S]

I don't have 4 flash guns or a ring light or anything that will help me mimic it to a T, that being said the OP won't either, you have explained the best way to do it, lets see it then?
I never claimed to be able to reproduce it to a T in PS or LR, I gave advice as I see fit, in the talk basics section of this forum to a guy after a bit of advice and going on that he wanted to mimic certain aspects of the image, the vignette and the vibrancy of colour.

he never stated he wanted to recreate the image, more on how the effect of the image was created, he asked about sp(I have all ready gone over this), you took this as the lighting, I took it as the obvious vignette and boost to colours.

 

[Phil V]

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.

But it's a guess - there's as much chance you're wrong as me?

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.

Well if he listens to me, he'll know that he hasn't got the equipment to reproduce it and he'll learn something about photography (I thought that was the point).

Whereas if he took your post at face value, he'd produce some crap pictures and be disappointed that despite your advice, he was no further forward.

So who's helping who? on the photography forum

 

[Ivan S]

Has it occurred to you Phil that he may all ready have an image that he wants to add some vibrancy and a vignette to it all ready?

I don't see how my advice is so wrong, like I said, high horse and all that.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I don't see how my advice is so wrong, like I said, high horse and all that.

Correct advice based on facts... not a high horse opinion.


Great photography needs great lighting. No exceptions... ever.

Even images created by people like Donovan Wylie or the Bechers.. which appear flat, dull... lack lustre... have been intentionally created to be like that, and lighting was fully understood. It would have been just as stupid for the Bechers to go out in the golden hour to shoot their architectural typologies and then try and get them to look as they wanted in photoshop. Yet despite this, every day people are posting images taken with crap lighting and asking what they can do in PP to make it better.... and the truly awful thing is.... no one seems to suggest the obvious answer, which is Photoshop won't really help you. When someone DOES... they get accused of being on a high horse.


Talk Photogaphy, or Talk [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]... take your pic, because it can't be both.

 

[Phil V]

Has it occurred to you Phil that he may all ready have an image that he wants to add some vibrancy and a vignette to it all ready?

I don't see how my advice is so wrong, like I said, high horse and all that.

You can't possibly see that your advice might be wrong?

But it's me that's on a High horse

If the OP already had an image - surely they'd be bright enough to have posted it asking for help? Or is there just you that's smart here?

High horse?

 

[On the Huh]

School playground stuff going on now time for mod intervention maybe?

 

[Ivan S]

You can't possibly see that your advice might be wrong?

But it's me that's on a High horse

If the OP already had an image - surely they'd be bright enough to have posted it asking for help? Or is there just you that's smart here?

High horse?

Good god man, reread will you, I said all along you are right, HELLO YOU ARE CORRECT, but it won't change my opinion on what the OP wanted, you being correct or not, I don't much care, I only offered advice, he is free to take it or leave it, you have offered your advice, no where have I said that your advice is wrong, jeez.