|
Here's an example of a relatively quick one of mine:
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 03:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Here's the before/after of the latest shot of mine. I'm thinking of doing a thread where I just go through my whole post processing workflow for an image like this. Any interest? loving hell that's a lotta work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 04:30
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Here's the before/after of the latest shot of mine. I'm thinking of doing a thread where I just go through my whole post processing workflow for an image like this. Any interest? Do you deliberately shoot to give yourself a lot of post?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 06:32
|
|
|
That's not really a lot of post if you previsualized that result from the start.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 07:21
|
|
|
Kid-A posted:Here's an example of a relatively quick one of mine: I really like this conversion. It's much stronger than the original (as it should be).
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 07:26
|
|
|
brad industry posted:That's not really a lot of post if you previsualized that result from the start. Yeah it was maybe 1-2 hours? I dunno, maybe I'm just fast at photoshop, but while it was one of my more involving post jobs, I never spend more than about an hour per photo. Ok, I'll try to do a new thread (I'll link in here) on how I went about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 09:12
|
|
|
It's up: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3186994 And in blog form for pasting to non-SA members: http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2009/08/journeyinpostprocessing.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 22:42
|
|
|
edit: whoops
dunkleosteus fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Aug 18, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 21:25
|
|
|
brad industry posted:That's not really a lot of post if you previsualized that result from the start. I also hate doing a large amounf of post, and I don't do what I don't like unless it makes me money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 23:27
|
|
|
I made a tutorial today, some of you might be interested in it. Straight out of camera.  After processing  How to video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V1h0u5Dow0 Zoowick fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Aug 18, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 03:23
|
|
|
dunkleosteus posted:I have a handful of badly composed and out of focus shots of geese that I wanted to have a go at in post because they were all underexposed as they were all backlit on a sunny day and I just shot auto. I got stuck pretty quickly - I just took the exposure down and brought up the fill light in LR to relcaim the details on the geese but that resulted in them looking washed out and lifeless. I've tried increasing the saturation but it just ends up looking like a cartoon, any tips? Unsharp mask at 10.250.0 (maybe even twice) and a simple S curve would make them pop a bit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 09:21
|
|
|
Zoowick posted:I made a tutorial today, some of you might be interested in it. Dude, awesome, please please keep these coming!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 20:57
|
|
|
rigeek posted:Dude, awesome, please please keep these coming!! Before  After  How to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c11v5qe7jKk
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 04:14
|
|
|
Before  After  How to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn3d4MMKWnw
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 05:51
|
|
|
Zoowick posted:Before Really like how you improved the background, but there's something about the tones on the guy that feel off for some reason. Having a hard time putting it into words. Still, awesome tutorials, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 05:54
|
|
|
Zoowick posted:Before I've gotta be honest, I think the corrected one looks pretty horrible. WAY too much fill light and general HDR horribleness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 06:53
|
|
|
The last two you've posted almost look like chromakey cutouts. The subjects are really disconnected from the environment. The one before that, with the girl on the street, is quite nice though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 07:40
|
|
|
Aslan Bebop posted:I've gotta be honest, I think the corrected one looks pretty horrible. WAY too much fill light and general HDR horribleness. I've noticed on tutorials that I've watched even if I hate the final outcome there is usually some cool information or a little trick I pick up that makes the tutorial worth it to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 18:09
|
|
|
Zoowick posted:I've noticed on tutorials that I've watched even if I hate the final outcome there is usually some cool information or a little trick I pick up that makes the tutorial worth it to me. For what it's worth, I feel the tutorials are very useful - Not all of us are PS wizards, and this really helps to see how it's done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 19:52
|
|
|
I liked the fact that you are in love with your brand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 20:04
|
|
|
pwn posted:I liked the fact that you are in love with your brand. I should incorporate a little "me" loving my logo in the logo. Branding is good for business.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 20:18
|
|
|
I have to say, I think you take your warming way too far. Other than that, these are nice, as I'm too lazy to lookup keyboard shortcuts for stuff. I'm curious why you don't just make an action for vignetting though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 20:50
|
|
|
Toupee posted:I have to say, I think you take your warming way too far. The same reason you don't lookup keyboard shortcuts for stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 21:00
|
|
|
I'd like to thank all you guys for writing this stuff up. I've been reading it for the past few days and the amount of stuff I've learned is absolutely mind boggling. I know I will not remember hardly any of it, so I will definitely keep coming back to a lot of the tuts, and I still don't understand colour profiles haha! I just bought lightroom too because you guys make it look and sound like an excellent tool to go along side photoshop! I look forward to trying to learn it, do you guys have any places to start with it? Or just play around and see what happens?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 02:48
|
|
|
A5H posted:I'd like to thank all you guys for writing this stuff up. I've been reading it for the past few days and the amount of stuff I've learned is absolutely mind boggling. I know I will not remember hardly any of it, so I will definitely keep coming back to a lot of the tuts, and I still don't understand colour profiles haha! This. And for all the Zoowick haters, gently caress off. The guy is taking time out of his busy schedule to try to help everyone here, and all you do is poo poo on him. If you don't like the tutorials he posts, nobody forces you to watch them, GTFO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 15:16
|
|
|
rigeek posted:This. I don't think anyone is "hating." There is nothing wrong with legitimate criticisms: they can do nothing but help. You want to edit your photos that way, go crazy, but there is no reason it should be in a critical vacuum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 15:30
|
|
|
A5H posted:I'd like to thank all you guys for writing this stuff up. I've been reading it for the past few days and the amount of stuff I've learned is absolutely mind boggling. I know I will not remember hardly any of it, so I will definitely keep coming back to a lot of the tuts, and I still don't understand colour profiles haha!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 17:42
|
|
|
Zoowick posted:Before Question - You mention that you shoot almost excusively on iso50, just wondering why? My understanding of the extended iso modes on the 5d was that you sacrifice tonal range to enable it (I think it's highlights clip earlier at 50 ande shadows at 1600, without looking up that may be the wrong way round). Just seemed an odd thing to do when you say at the start that you pump up the fill light gain more tonal range in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 18:56
|
|
|
What is the filter action he mentions Lucius 30? I don't understand what it does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 19:03
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:What is the filter action he mentions Lucius 30? I don't understand what it does. Looked like it upped contrast,blacks and pulled the darker midtones back to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 19:18
|
|
|
Shannow posted:Question - You mention that you shoot almost excusively on iso50, just wondering why? My understanding of the extended iso modes on the 5d was that you sacrifice tonal range to enable it (I think it's highlights clip earlier at 50 ande shadows at 1600, without looking up that may be the wrong way round). Just seemed an odd thing to do when you say at the start that you pump up the fill light gain more tonal range in the first place. Least amount of noise possible. It just gives me more leeway when pulling from shadows. Also I like to incorporate dramatic skies in a lot of my portraits with strobes so you need a really low ISO to keep from going over your camera's sync speed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 21:10
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:What is the filter action he mentions Lucius 30? I don't understand what it does. It's a filter called "Lucis Arts" I have an action that uses that filter named "Lusic 30" I got the action from another forum. Basically it's like Topaz Adjust, I just like the way it deals with skin better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 21:12
|
|
|
Aslan Bebop posted:I've gotta be honest, I think the corrected one looks pretty horrible. WAY too much fill light and general HDR horribleness. Yeah, I agree. All the processing made it lose the fact that it was even shot with a light to begin with. There's very little pop between the subject and background with all the post work. The image looks flat and for my money, it's too warm which makes the skin look odd. I also think positioning him in front of the bushes rather than the barn would have helped a lot. It would have given a lot more contrast and depth to the guy. The beach one is nice though. The warm tones make it feel like sunset.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 21:26
|
|
|
Zoowick posted:Least amount of noise possible. It just gives me more leeway when pulling from shadows. Also I like to incorporate dramatic skies in a lot of my portraits with strobes so you need a really low ISO to keep from going over your camera's sync speed. It might be helpful to know that shooting at 50 doesn't actually help you pull from the shadows-- in fact it might be hurting you. Because it's not a native ISO in the 5D2, shooting at 50 actually reduces the dynamic range and should be reserved for when you absolutely must use it because of shooting with strobes or a large aperture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 00:23
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:It might be helpful to know that shooting at 50 doesn't actually help you pull from the shadows-- in fact it might be hurting you. Because it's not a native ISO in the 5D2, shooting at 50 actually reduces the dynamic range and should be reserved for when you absolutely must use it because of shooting with strobes or a large aperture. This has been my experience as well. ISO 50 is for when I need longer shutter speeds, but no other purpose. ISO 100 is the "base" and has the least noise/broadest dynamic range for the 5d.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 00:50
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:I don't think anyone is "hating." There is nothing wrong with legitimate criticisms: they can do nothing but help. You want to edit your photos that way, go crazy, but there is no reason it should be in a critical vacuum. If anything this has taught me people will pay for actions that are basically just curves 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 01:53
|
|
|
Zoowick posted:It's a filter called "Lucis Arts" I have an action that uses that filter named "Lusic 30" I got the action from another forum. Basically it's like Topaz Adjust, I just like the way it deals with skin better. Both Topaz and Lucis are very powerful, but I get into moods where I end up processing using them just for the sake of processing, not because it'll actually make them look better. They go from good photo to over processed very quickly. Still, it's dave hill effects without the dave hill budget :]
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 10:22
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Both Topaz and Lucis are very powerful, but I get into moods where I end up processing using them just for the sake of processing, not because it'll actually make them look better. They go from good photo to over processed very quickly. I honestly don't think either of them get even close to what Dave Hill does. Most of his work is done with lighting and is very well thought out, even if it is processed to no end. I didn't used to like his stuff at all, but his recent work, namely the epic themed shots he's been producing, like the Adventure Girl series are ridiculously good art.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 13:56
|
|
|
It's easy to over-use the Topaz / Lucis filters .. but when a properly lighted photo is processed with one of them correctly, the end result is usually pretty good, Dave Hill or not. I'll be the first to admit sometimes stuff looks over-the-top, but bottom line is, and I'm sure Zoowick will back me up here, that's what certain types of clients want these days .. they want over-the-top, larger-than-life type photos. Bands, HS seniors, etc. Gotta give 'em what they want! Now not to derail, a question .. been doing Google searches with not much luck .. where to find some good textures for Photoshop? Inspired by Zoo's latest tutorials, never really thought of using textures and overlays in processing, but I have a few shots it would work well with .. don't mind paying for them if reasonable but free would be better.. anyone?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
rigeek posted:It's easy to over-use the Topaz / Lucis filters .. but when a properly lighted photo is processed with one of them correctly, the end result is usually pretty good, Dave Hill or not. I'll be the first to admit sometimes stuff looks over-the-top, but bottom line is, and I'm sure Zoowick will back me up here, that's what certain types of clients want these days .. they want over-the-top, larger-than-life type photos. Bands, HS seniors, etc. Gotta give 'em what they want! I think it might be easier to just make your own with either photographs or a scanner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 14:34
|
|