aka /ppg/ aka how do I achieve this look aka how did he do it aka what presets do I need for my snaps to resemble this one aka I can't be bothered to try shit for myself
as anons suggested here's a thread where to ask about how to "get that look" in post, since people are obviously interested in it but having these threads around steals space from more meaningful things like pictures being posted, or sony shilling
obviously the purpose of this is to get better and learn from this so you can stop being told how to do stuff and we can stop spending time telling you
to get the look in pic related, which I found on google and have no idea who it belongs to, you need to
reduce contrast
reduce saturation a bit
make everything yellower, use curves or apply a mask or however you prefer
make the blues/light blues greener by using the hue slider
apply a lot of grain
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark III Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.2 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2480 Image Height 1860 Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014:11:28 18:27:38 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/10.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/10.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 720 Image Height 540 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
Resources ---
>http://www.diyphotography.net/how-good-are-you-with-curves/
>https://helpx.adobe.com/pdf/lightroom_reference.pdf
>http://photography.tutsplus.com/categories/post-processing
>>2830611
I love the idea of having this thread. Thanks for posting.
Don't forget to add a section about "To match the look of an image, you must first match the scene, the light, the color, and the exposure of the image in your own work"
Bumping so newfags see this.
I suggested making this thread in a shitpost thread. Thanks OP for helping out.
I'll start. I'm going for @chuck's style on my next shoot. Big, soft key (generally a window) with incidental fill, all natural.
As far as color goes--do you think he does a local adjustment on the skin, or can I achieve these tones just by grading globally?
If anyone has a decent, softtly-lit raw that they would be willing to share, I'll try my hand at it and share the results.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2016-05-03T18:02:25-04:00 Flash No Flash Function Image Width 1200 Image Height 1200
>>2830657
There's definitely some skin processing in there. In the two on the right, moreso than the two on the left. The top right has had its white point lowered pretty noticeably, which is why they highlights look pretty gray overall.
The bottom right I would think has some detail accentuation layers (like a high pixel high-pass layer set to soft light) with some dodging and burning.
The two on the left seem more natural in terms of tone, but have still had some color work done to them. Desaturation done to individual colors separately, mostly.
The left two images are very different than the right two, so be sure you assess them separately.
>>2830657
With curves:
- Crush the highlights
- Flatten the midtones (stretch the curve upwards)
- Crush the blacks a little bit
- Bring up the shadows a little bit
- Desaturate
- Temperature is kind of cold. You'll probably have to cross-process to get the same coloring.
Kind of overdone imo
Find a curve that you like, and stick with it. Can fuck with the hues in HSL if you say prefer more cyan to dark blue, dark greens to warm greens etc. That's one way to get a more filmic look.
>>2830664
>>2830704
Thank you both, that's very helpful.
First pass at it. Excuse the out of focus selfie. Light is meh, but the tonal range is about what I intend to work with.
- started with the suggested global adjustments, subtracted contrast and saturation
- made an adjustment layer for skin, pushed it warmer and more uniform, took brightness and saturation down slightly
-new adjustment layer for background, lowered temp, increased clarity
-also pulled out a lot of red from the background, which looks weird but matches the aesthetic better (I won't be shooting anywhere with ambient reds)
-added a wee bit of cyan to the highlights to make the skin mesh a bit better with the cooler background
If you look through his stuff, it looks like he tries to make the the skin or clothes match elements of the background, tone-wise. This would have been more successful if I had chosen a better setting.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2016-05-03T20:22:22-04:00 Flash No Flash Function Image Width 2000 Image Height 800
Does anyone have any insight into what techniques going into the post-processing for photos like the ones here?
http://envyavenue.tumblr.com/
Pic related
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2048 Image Height 1365 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:12:30 20:01:36 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 800 Image Height 1200
>>2830783
Glad it helped. Looks like you're onto it. I suspect the style looks better with high-key pictures, though. I always avoid Photoshop, stick with the tools that are available in Camera Raw. That way I only have to keep the .dng's and can undo.
> made an adjustment layer for skin, pushed it warmer and more uniform, took brightness and saturation down slightly
I think you could do this with HSL
>it looks like he tries to make the the skin or clothes match elements of the background, tone-wise.
Hmmm. Interesting. Earth tones as well.
Looking at the pictures again, I think you should go back and resaturate, mess around with cross-processing a little bit until you're able to get more earth tones. Maybe use split toning to put a little gold in the midtones and navy in the shadows. Then use hue in HSL to move the colors around. The colors aren't THAT desaturated in those pictures, more flat and crushed on both ends.
>>2830786
Desaturate all colors except blue.
>>2830786
Jacking up clarity and sharpness.
>>2830807
I actually made all of those adjustments in capture one. I switched over because fuji.
Resaturated and worked the colors a bit more, finished it off with contrast-killing s curve. The face is a little more orange than I would like, but I think if I shoot high key like you suggested in softer light I'll be able to hit it.
Thanks again for your help.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-T1 Camera Software Capture One 9 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 84 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:03 14:11:13 Image Created 2016:05:03 14:11:13 Exposure Time 1/950 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Brightness 4.0 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 56.00 mm Image Width 1500 Image Height 1200 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
What does it mean for blacks or highlights to be "crushed"? Is that the same as eg "lifting blacks" by pulling the left end of the RGB curve up a few notches?
>>2831220
Crushing usually means turning dark areas that are not black to black, or turning bright areas that are not white to white, with detail being lost.
However, I think this anon >>2830704 used "crush" to convey the opposite meaning, to make what is black not black, and to make what is white not white, so there are no true blacks or whites. You can see in the photo there are no true blacks or whites.
Also, I suppose you can crush the blacks and whites with, say, the Blacks and Whites sliders in Lightroom, and then you can use the curves to make it so all the new blacks are now not true blacks. I don't know if this is really recommended though
>>2831220
A crushed black is an area that is so under exposed that the color picker just reads "0,0,0" across a whole area of the scene. No information, no tone, just black.
Blown whites are the opposite. A whole area where it's just "255,255,255" with no variance, and therefore no texture, color, or variance.
Raised blacks and lowered whites are just when you take the "0" point that should be black, and bring it up so that the darkest areas of the shot aren't at 0 anymore, they're brighter.
The "fade" that's popular right now comes from a mixture of both. Bringing up the black point into the shadows, without letting the shadows get brighter along with it, so things that WERE dim, but detailed, suddenly get crushed out into black, as black becomes "gray"
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1135 Image Height 569 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 144 dpi Vertical Resolution 144 dpi Image Created 2016:05:04 10:50:49 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1125 Image Height 1689
>>2831246
Hmm. Looking back, I did this wrong.
The third image, "raised" should just be dragging the black point straight up, and not to the right at all.
The current third image should be labeled "raised and crushed"
But I can't be bothered to do it again.
>>2831246
>explaining blacks with a picture without blacks
Thank you for your contribution
>>2831280
A normal photo should not have "blacks" because if it's black, it means there's no information in it.
The photo then creates blacks with a curve, to show what crushed blacks look like.
Where is the confusion?
>>2831281
What the fuck nigger, have you ever seen a good photograph in your life?
>>2832112
What a well expressed point. You definitely know what you're talking about and I can tell because you're both vague and aggressive!
vsco my man, the one stop shop for all postprocessing.
>>2835576
Just saying "VSCO" is like replying "Tools" when someone asks how you built a dresser.
>>2831281
Black isn't no information, it's the information that there was no incoming light. Having 000 (or 255255255) just means you probably didn't expose spot on but lost some detail to differentiate between very, very little light and a little more light.
Am I being a filthy fucking scrub in post? I do sports photography, generally don't have too many issues with over-exposed or under-exposed photos, and I go with the photos that are in focus, not a case of picking the best 2 of 35 similar images for me.
In lightroom I do the following base editing and then tweek for each photo:
>add a little contrast - around +20
>reduce highlights and increase shadows, around 30 either way
>slighly lower whites and blacks
>don't touch clarity because I want my photos to not look like a 14 year old girl edited them
>add sharpness and luminence, around +30
>crop if needed
>add some vignette and move based on where focus of image is in frame
I find the results usually come out pretty good and the images are what I'm wanting to take, I'm please with the shots.
BUT, I see everyone talking about all kinds of shit like curves. I know how to look at the light curves in LR, but I find some photos aren't rounded as I see being touted as the aim in post, they're all over the place but the photo looks good.
Have I achieved something not many on /p/ achieve, not shitposting about having a technically perfect edit and just focusing on the photos being decent, or am I missing something that could improve my photography?
ignoring the logo, how would I achieve something like this?
>>2835679
this is not an achievement
>>2835674
>having a technically perfect edit and just focusing on the photos being decent
technically perfect edits don't exist, it's just an editing that makes picture look in a certain way that you see as "right" or "perfect"
if that's good enough for you noone's telling you that you should do thing in a different way
photos being decent is a pre-requisite, the fact that part of /p/'s recent photos thread doesn't satisfy it isn't an indication of the fact that you should be proud for being a decent and sensible guy
>am I missing something that could improve my photography?
well you're limiting yourself because you're afraid people will tell you your pics look like they were taken by a 14y/o girl if you add sharpening, microcontrast and whatnot
>I know how to look at the light curves in LR
you can achieve something with the sliders, but luma/rgb curves will give you more options
I can't work with curves in Lr for my life, but if you can, do try and see if you can achieve results you like
if you can't then your way of editing is good enough for you, that's what matters in the end to be honest family
>>2835679
take a picture with good, soft lightning, so that your shadows are filled already and you have an ethereal looking background
lower saturation
take up a luma/rgb curve, draw a point near the 220 (or wherever your highlights are) value and bring it right, then make the part of the curve at the left of that look more like it was at the beginning
possibly raise the shadows
>>2835679
Take a back-lit portrait where the background is over-exposed
Open curves, and drag up your black point.
>>2835687
The only thing I won't touch is clarity, just makes photos look incredibly fake.
I usually go back to re-edit photos a week or so after I take them to get a fresh take on them, as I'm usually trying to get them edited and uploaded asap so just go for a consistent and realistic look in post. I'll try with curves then!
>>2835674
I think +30 luminance is a bit high generally
And as a general aside I've seen a few people say that they use the Google Nik collection (which is free now) for noise removal over lightroom
too much orange?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2016:05:10 22:34:41 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1622 Image Height 2092
>>2835746
I like it.
>>2835674
I'll tell you this. I've been quite disinterested in polishing my shots besides cropping, slapping on a preset and letting lightroom take care of the tone adjustment. I just wanted to get the shots out for people to enjoy and reminisce about. But lately I've looked more into post processing. How does one bring more details out from tones, add more or remove punch without making things garish, affect a certain mood with colour...
> so much more impact and feeling
> how the fuck did I ever let these shots out of my hands unedited
My gf tells me "it's only in your head, nobody else will think your past shots are shitty or know the difference", but suddenly people are praising my work more openly and putting them up as profile pictures. Perhaps I'll think different given time, but right now I regret not realising a lot of these things earlier.
>>2835746
Way too much, especially on his face.
Hey /p/
I'm really new in this post processing think and I would really appreciate if you guys could help me out.
I'v got this image here, and I want it to look more lonely and cold but I don't know what should I do in Lightroom.
What would you guys suggest on changing in this pic to make it look better?
>>2836012
I'm going through the same crisis right now. How I went so long without seriously learning how curves work or paying attention to histograms is beyond me
>>2836049
I wish I could'v made the background more blury but I took the shoot on the widest aperture and its still look like this :(
>>2836056
I'll tell you what to do for 25 shekels.
How in the fuck does Harley Weir get these colours?
1/3
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2700 Image Height 1800 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi Image Created 2015:04:16 22:21:56 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1344 Image Height 1800
>>2836118
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3800 Image Height 4695
>>2836153
Don't be a faggot
>>2830611
Did Nivea ever post his processing?
>>2836116
This doesn't look like it has much color work done to it at all. Maybe a low opacity yellow layer pulled from her skin or hair, set to color. She just mostly IS that color. The rest is lighting.
>>2836118
This looks like it has some tone unification (taking reds and yellows and pushing them both towards a central point to keep from having too much distracting color variety) and then a yellow/orange layer on top of everything set to low opacity.
>>2836119
This will have the same skin tone unification, then masked saturation adjustments (shooting a pale girl will help a lot there). Well applied contrast to keep colors rich elsewhere, and to keep shadows dark, and then raising the black point a bit
Honestly, most of this is good lighting, correct framing with the right focal length, good styling and emotion, and basic color unification work.
Unless you have the light, and the model, your photos won't look like this.
>>2836049
Just fucking around with curves and vignettes. Removed the green tinge and added a bit of hipster contrast, i.e. slightly rasied, blue-tinted blacks.
>>2836828
Thanks man! I appreciate it
Nice girl
>>2830611
>how do you wnat your clarity senpai?
>just bump my shit up
>>2836116
It's the color yellow-orange, across the whole frame.
Alternatively fucked up WB. Hard to tell, 'cause it can effectively do the same.
Can you guys recommend some tutorials for a complete fucking noob? So far I just mess with sliders in Rawtherapee until the image looks a bit nicer.
>>2840494
Lynda.com
>>2836049
>>2836828
I went for the complete opposite and cooled it down heaps, I don't know if its any good
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 1000 dpi Vertical Resolution 1000 dpi Image Created 2016:05:19 17:07:13
>>2835679
colorful scarfs, colorful hair, and colorful skin
what was done to this photo?
>>2843860
It was taken on film with a certain look to it, with a flash, and then developed with the appropriate chemicals, and likely printed.
>>2843860
Shitty paintjob.
>>2843860
Black and white photo that was "colorized". Look it up if you want to see tutorials. It's the latest fad in photo manipulation that is corrupting historical accuracy.
>>2843891
Oh shit! Nice! It's well done, I didn't even notice!
>>2843893
It isn't done well if you see two men with absolutely identical monotonous skin and hair tone.
>>2843905
Well... yeah okay that's fair.
Maybe they're related though, you know?
(That's a joke, don't get mad)
>>2843893
I think people who do it well are very skilled but I think it's unnecessary. It's cool for a blog post but they are starting to pop in documentaries. If they keep growing in popularity, soon people will wonder why someone used black and white photos in a documentary instead of colorized ones. It will be expected that all historical black and white photos be colorized.
Total amateur here guys.Trying to get into Landscape Photography as a hobby. Can you guys tell me what I'm doing right/wrong or post links to helpful info. I'm just fucking around with shit until I like it, but I still don't know all the controls.
>let the hate begin
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS REBEL T4i Photographer POMMERYARBROUGH Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2016:05:17 23:31:37 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/11.0 Exposure Program Landscape Mode ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/11.3 Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 5184 Image Height 3456 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2843925
The edited version is just a bit too yellow.
Not sure which program you used, but if you desaturate the yellow channel, it should look a bunch better.
The sky is also maybe a bit too vivid.
>>2843932
Sounds good. I'll tone it down a bit
>>2843925
is this california?
>>2843925
>buetifel
>>2843925
- composition is boring
- no subject
- blown out highlights
- too saturated
- orange skin
>>2843925
What I like most is that they look like they're hiking the surface of Mercury.
>>2843925
I love the edited one!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2844158
I HOPE YOU DEPOSITED $5 INTO HIS PAYPAL ACCOUNT. HIS FAMILY AIN'T GONNA GROW ITSELF.
If I edit 24-bit image in Photoshop should I convert the image to 36-bit before editing?
>>2835746
Man, some people really think post processing is like a coloring book. Why do you want his clothes to turn orange?
>>2836049
Adjusting the white balance to make it less yellow/green (or whatever it is, I can barely tell orange from green).
>>2836116
Half of German women and two thirds of Dutch women legitimately look like this in everyday life, just Earth tones everywhere.
>>2843925
Everything is wrong, it makes Far Cry 3 look pastel. There's nothing really wrong with the colours in your original picture that need fixing, it's the composition that needs fixing, your subjects are tiny.
>>2844389
>36-bit
wut. I assume you mean you mean 32-bits per channel, and if so yes actually you should. Others might wonder why, no, it's not for increased precision or any of that, it's because Photoshop only does the pixel math correctly in 32-bits per channel. Photoshop directly plugs gamma-compressed pixel values into its math, which is wrong, and if you know the difference you'd know it fucks with things like blurring, blending, adding, etc... big time.
Which is except in 32-bits per channel mode, in which it converts all pixel values from sRGB (gamma-compressed) to floating point linear, which means it's the only time it does the math right. Also why they haven't implemented Invert in 32-bit mode, because these idiots can't figure out how to do an invert with linear values (using the naive approach of 1.0 - value gives you an image that's inverted properly but way too bright so they figured that's not working as they'd like, when a proper solution would be to invert using a temporary conversion to perceptual intensity values).
t. image-processing developer
>>2843925
this is so yellow and you need to walk closer to the subjects. i'm no pro, but i always look to check the skin tones after i've messed around to make sure it hasn't gone totally awry
>>2844066
Yes, its the hike to the Punchbowls near Ojai.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS REBEL T4i Photographer POMMERYARBROUGH Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2016:05:19 14:30:53 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Landscape Mode ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 5184 Image Height 3456 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2843932
>>2844076
>>2844080
>>2844123
>>2844158
>>2844410
>>2844435
Looking at it now I can't believe I didn't see how over the top I went.
Let's try this again with a better picture. Minimal changes. What else should I do?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS REBEL T4i Photographer POMMERYARBROUGH Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2016:05:17 23:31:32 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/11.0 Exposure Program Landscape Mode ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/11.3 Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 5184 Image Height 3456 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2844664
Still prefer the original one.
>>2830611
Hey OP, I tried to recreate your stuff.
What do you think?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Panasonic Camera Model DMC-G70 Camera Software GIMP 2.8.16 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2016:05:22 06:35:01 Exposure Time 1/640 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 14.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1148 Image Height 862 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Image Quality Fine White Balance Auto Focus Mode Auto Spot Mode Unknown Image Stabilizer Mode 1 Macro Mode Normal Shooting Mode Aperture Priority Audio No Flash Bias 0.00 EV Color Effect Off Contrast Low Noise Reduction Standard
>>2844664
if it doesn't need fixing don't do any fixing. Not every image requires you to tweak every slider or curve available. Maybe that's what you need to learn.
>>2836049
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:22 00:46:22 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 667
gave it a shot, this is what i came up with
if there is anything i couldve done differently, i'd love to hear it
finished photo sort of looked like it was painted and idk if i like it
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 540 Image Height 675 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:22 00:45:36 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1080 Image Height 675
>>2844883
left being pre-edit and right being post-edit
>>2836049
get on my level, plebs.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:22 04:16:37 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 942 Image Height 667
>>2844883
>>2844891
rotated and cropped, and reset the wb so the walls arent blue, but masked her hair to have the old wb. i honestly like how this came out better than my first
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:22 01:25:30
>>2844899
dude this looks ridiculous. everything except the eyes have raised blacks, then the eyes have soo much deeper blacks. that looks fake and gay. level it up.
>>2844837
too much vignetting
>>2844876
topkek
>>2844891
good advice
>>2844898
no because that would be a downgrade
>>2844800
>your stuff
not really mine as I wrote
>What do you think?
the grain in the pic I posted is bigger and smoother, yours looks something like luminance noise
apart from that they look quite alike, congrats brother
if I had to give you my opinion, which has nothing to do with the pic I posted, I'd tell you to raise the exposure by some half stop and reduce vigneting
>>2844800
You tried to recreate hard light model skin tones and contrast with a softly lit overcast shot of a flower outside? How'd that work for you?
>>2844883
Went too crazy on the skin smoothing. Just do a heal brush over the blemishes and leave the rest be. Even the original has no detail to speak of, no point in going further.
>le oversaturation man
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 1200D Camera Software Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:08 18:33:45 Exposure Time 1/400 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/6.4 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 180.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 5184 Image Height 3456 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>split toning
absolutely
disgusting
Ok so it looks like he used a soft lighting source (window?), wide aperture, and maybe some desaturation?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4800 Image Height 6000 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:05:13 13:50:00 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1440 Image Height 1800
>>2847368
its way more than that.
>>2842642
This one looks really good.
>>2847370
I was trying to get the obvious ones out of the way, but get what you mean
>>2836049
>>2847368
Could you get the same kind of look with digital? Does someone have any examples of very good digital portraits that have the same natural look?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2848929
kek, at this point I don't even know how serious it's meant to be
How do i acheive this look guys ?
Also this one, thank you.
>>2849338
all you have to do is to merge with an AI and look down upon the city with that romantic momentum
>>2849398
thank you anon
>>2844883
you crushed the iris detail
