https://www.flickr.com/photos/kylesipple/page1
how is he getting the perfect white balance and toning on every photo? also, does this look like a leica to any of you guys?
>>2856170
>how is he getting the perfect white balance and toning on every photo?
knowing how to use post production techniques to get images to look how he wants?
>>2856173
what
yeah and i'm asking how
clearly you don't know them yourself
>>2856170
> also, does this look like a leica to any of you guys?
she looks more like an Erica or Sandra to me desu
What are you asking dude? You look at the picture and get the white balance you want. And you choose the tones by a combination of what you shoot and postproduction (looking through his pictures, it's the usual hipster curves/color shifting thing).
What are you asking?
>>2856180
all of his pictures seem to have the exact same toning and very subtle attractive coloring. do you know any of these hipster curves/color shifting techniques?
>>2856185
>V
>S
>C
>O
>>2856170
You could take the same photo on pretty much any camera with interchangeable lenses.
Leica film cameras are where the reputation comes from. They're actually incredible machines, especially the M3
Leica digital cameras are really nothing special and cost far more than they are worth. The only thing that separates them from the competition is the rangefinder. The Leica / Zeiss 'glow' is a myth
>>2856174
I do know how to donit, use curves in Photoshop. Use the grey dropper to get the white balance how you want. Adjust the black and white points to your desired look. Them fiddle with the overall curve to adjust contrast. If you want more color control you could adjust the red, green, blue channels individually.
>>2856185
Basically >>2856201
But some things that you might want to check out:
- in curves: bring down shadows, slightly light highlights, lift blacks
- subtle sepia filter (5-7%) that evens out tonality
- selective saturation/desaturation coupled with thinking about color when taking the photos (for example people in the photos most often wear non-intrusive colors like black, white, beige, gray, pastel blue and green, etc.); in the OP photo for example there are no warm colors, which makes the photo look 'of a piece'
- add contrast, remove overall saturation is another thing, this is supposed to make things look more like film, but desaturation can also help with tone matching.
>>2856218
Nah he's not using a film camera, I'm saying that the modern Leicas are overhyped and it wouldn't matter if he were using one since it would look very similar to every other prosumer digital camera on the market
>>2856170
>tfw his flickrstream triggers my autism
>f-fucking normies reeeeeeeee
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
every single photo is tagged VSCO
>wonder what he's using
>>2856170
>how is he getting the perfect white balance and toning on every photo?
we have a post processing thread for the next time you have a question like this
>also, does this look like a leica to any of you guys?
it's just VSCO fàm
well that and mostly nice looking pictures
>>2856218
yes, just an app on your phone. or plug-ins for lightroom/photoshop. easily pirateable.
often it can do film better than actual film
>>2856170
these fucking pictures. Okay, we get it- you know attractive girls, and you go to cool places. Nobody gives the level of fuck that you do, so get over it already.
>>2857533
Yeah, we all know the true test of a photographer is what type of photos you get in your house at 9:45pm because you're bored and feel like playing with your camera. Assholes who actually go cool places with cool people need to just get over it already, nobody wants to look at things that they like to look at.
>>2856170
Probably the same way that he looks like a faggot in every picture. That shit only gets like that after years of practice.
>>2857533
look at the lighting. the girl was shot in a studio and added to the photo in post.
>>2857648
why the fuck would he do that? If you look at this collection, he's obviously already out there with a bunch of his friends.
the lighting also doesn't look suspect at all.
>>2857648
What? No, she wasn't. It's much more likely there's a big tree above the photographer's head that's preventing light from coming in from above and behind, but diffused ambient light is still coming from the front and sides.
He's using portable flash heads for fill light on a LOT of these. Post is basically VSCO.
>>2857533
Hahaha jealous fag detected
>>2857953
Interdasting. Please tell us senpai, how do you know what sort of focussing motor was used simly by looking at the picture? I want to learn your ways.
>>2857534
Not him but I'm not terribly into these either.
Nothing wrong with taking photos of your friends in interesting places, but truly the use of light, the compositions and the subject matter isn't engaging me a whole lot. Truthfully the processing kills it for me, I just don't like the VSCO look at all.
To be fair it's hard to get really great shots in places like these. And by great shots I mean stuff where the photographer obviously sought out just the right light and composition, stuff other than your standard mountain-reflected-on-a-lake shot. I feel like the focus of these images is the people and the moments shared, which is fine, but photographically lacking IMO.
>>2858016
Also, waaaaaaaaaaaay too many shots of people's backs. One or a few "environmental portraits" or "using people as reference shots in a vast landscape juxtaposition" is fine but it gets old quick.
>>2858016
You've said it yourself, the photography isn't lacking, you just don't like the end goal. That's fine, but don't confuse your difference in taste for a lack of ability on the photographer's part. he's absolutely achieving his goals.
>>2858036
>The photography isn't lacking
Almost all photography is "lacking" in some way. I don't mean that every photographer is shit, I mean that everyone has room to improve or make something better, at least I would encourage them to do so because it pushes their craft which leads to more enjoyment if handled correctly.
Some of the shots are pleasantly processed and composed, they feel like something taken by somebody who contemplated the shot and made a reasonable composition before pressing the shutter button, for example https://www.flickr.com/photos/kylesipple/24862210810/in/dateposted/
But then you have shots like this one https://www.flickr.com/photos/kylesipple/23354316542/in/dateposted/ and I can't understand the motivation behind shooting it. You were in a mountain town in the snow, OK, but when i open the photo my eye immediately goes to the Honda SUV in the front left because it's dominating the frame. Then my eye darts around the image only to be disappointed because nothing is happening.
Otherwise you have shots like https://www.flickr.com/photos/kylesipple/24365796799/in/dateposted/ where I can see what he was going for, but the wide angle distortion is too much and the positioning is kind of awkward. This feels very hastily composed and shot. He could've used the roadway to lead us in and the mountain as a nice backdrop but this is getting too "snapshotty" for me and I don't even like using that word often.
There's just little nitpicks I have about most of the images on there, and that's based on what I've learned about light, composition, etc. photographic fundamentals. A lot of these feel hastily shot, and leave me with the impression that photography wasn't really the aim of this trip. It was more "I'm bringing my camera with me to take photos of our trip, gonna put them online so they can see them later and maybe somebody else will like them too". There is *nothing* wrong with that, but there's room for improvement.
>>2858054
Also forgot to mention that I keep seeing a lot of similar looking shots posted together. On the first page even I see three shots of the same corner of the same cabin from different angles - why? Curate that shit and pick the one you like best. Then move onto something else.
>he's absolutely achieving his goals.
Really? If you asked him he might even say "yeah, I like some of my stuff but I don't think I'm that great, I'm always trying to get better". Maybe I'm wrong, but most photographers I know are pretty critical of their own stuff.
>>2857964
turns out he was right though. check kyle sipple's instagram and he tags everything with "canon" and on the second photo replies to a question about lens saying he used a 28-70 2.8 for that shot - both of which the 28-70 2.8 II and original are USM. he also answers some question thing where he said he uses a 6D.
it's fairly easy to tell the lens sometimes, especially with this because in my opinion the dudes photo's are outrageously sharp and Canon are still quite a way ahead with acute lens sharpness
>>2857688
>yeah. a magical fucking tree.
>there aren't trees all along the shore of the lake
>>2858057
True, I absolutely hate all of my own stuff but I'm kind of glad because that's the only way I'm constantly improving it. I always thought I'd eventually get that "perfect photo" if I stuck at it but I don't think it exists and I will go through the same process once I've finished editing it which is really liking it for about 20 minutes, having second thoughts at the 30 minute point then hating everything about it shortly after.
