How did she do it?

[wheelhot]

Hello,
Well I have a hard time understanding how Jessica Claire get her photos, it seems there is this special thing which I am not able to understood. So far I can only think is use of filters and metering.

Jessica Claire

The biggest thing I cannot get my mind to understand is how she gets the sun flare to look so good and how did she get the glow in people and why is the person seem like exposed properly eventhough it was taken directly in direction of the sun?

Here are some examples, hopefully to make you all understand what I'm talking about:
Photo 1 : How did she get the beatifully redish lens flare? and the skin tone looks just awesome
Photo 2 : Just look at the colors! and the sun, how did she get it to work it that way?
Photo 3" Another shot of the same one


Where there are more and some of it is just like soo perfect.
And anyone got idea what lens she might be using?

Thanks.

 

[iBlue]

Wow, those are nice.

I don't know squat about photography but I think you do need some sort of filter or protection for your lens to take photos into the sun like that.

Her logo is brilliant.

 

[shady825]

Her logo is brilliant.

Yea that JC is pretty cool!
Shes probably using some type of filter as well as backlighting the subjects... Other than that I dont really know

 

[chrono1081]

I dont think shes using a filter, but stopping down when shooting into the sun is fairly comming to get a sun flare. Works more on wide angle which is why you dont see so much of a star shape here.

She may be using a bit of fill flash gelled to match the sun. Thats what I do anyway to get this same effect.

Another thing if the sun is too bright and completely overpowering, you can use a neutral grad filter probably a soft edge to tone down the sun.

 

[Mantat]

Easy:
back lit subject expose for the sky then lit the subject with a flash.

In post production add a sepia layer with about 10-20% opacity.

Optional: Add some vignetting, play with levels and desaturate a bit

Done...

The hardest part is to find a good location to get the sun at the right level.

 

[Sdashiki]

Photoshop...(shadows/highlights, levels, exposure, color, saturation any combination of things)
Warming lens filters...
Bracketing...

Nice shots definitely, but not hard with a little forethought.

 

[mcavjame]

Photoshop...(shadows/highlights, levels, exposure, color, saturation any combination of things)
Warming lens filters...
Bracketing...

Nice shots definitely, but not hard with a little forethought.

I agree. I wasn't going to post anything, but I am glad that someone else thinks their OK and not unbelievable.

 

[jessica claire]

Easy:
back lit subject expose for the sky then lit the subject with a flash.

Actually no. Using a flash, you will never get this result because the subject will be TOO clean and crisp. The point is not to get the subject well-lit, but to get the flare placed in such a way that it adds to, not detracts from, the photo.

Most of the photos where I have such a look were shot with the 50 1.2, an EXCELLENT quality piece of glass. All were shot in natural light about 1/2 hour before the time of sunset.

Also, I do NOT use lens filters. Why would I want to cover a $1600 piece of glass with one that costs $30 or even $100?!

The hardest part is to find a good location to get the sun at the right level.

Yes, because sometimes your flare will wreck the subject of the photo, which isn't desirable either.

I usually warm the photos up using an action called Warm it Up Kris, from THIS ACTION SET (set #1). There's actually a $25 off sale right now, as well as $60 off if you buy both sets. I use them on every photo.

Hope this helps!!

I agree. I wasn't going to post anything, but I am glad that someone else thinks their OK and not unbelievable.

I don't personally think they are groundbreaking either! I do one thing very well, practice it often, and get other people to recognize it when they see it. I'm not trying to be the best at everything, or even the absolute most creative person in the world--I try to be consistent and I try hard to have a "look" to be known for.

xo
jc

 

[iBlue]

^ Blimey, sounds like you heard it from the source, wheelhot. Thanks jessica claire.

 

[mcavjame]

I don't personally think they are groundbreaking either! I do one thing very well, practice it often, and get other people to recognize it when they see it. I'm not trying to be the best at everything, or even the absolute most creative person in the world--I try to be consistent and I try hard to have a "look" to be known for.

xo
jc

Cool of you to find this thread. I hope you understand that I was responding the the OPs over the top praise of some very competent work.

 

[jessica claire]

Seriously, no big deal. As long as my clients like it, and I can pay my bills, it's fine with me! I don't need everyone in the world to think I'm the best photographer out there, just a few great clients a year.



jc

 

[brad.c]

Also, I do NOT use lens filters. Why would I want to cover a $1600 piece of glass with one that costs $30 or even $100?

Wow, I'm very happy you posted, Jessica. I don't shoot professionally per se, but as a graphic designer and hobbyist photographer, I ACHE for decent glass. Great shots on your sight, by the way,

 

[AxisOfBeagles]

One of the more interesting threads of recent.

I admire the way you describe your work Jessica - the photos are warm and flattering of their subjects, and there is definitely a style that is uniquely yours - whether others love it or not is immaterial insofar as it only matters that your customers enjoy the photos. And I love hearing someone stress the lens - too much emphasis is placed on the cameras, and not enough on quality glass. I recently picked up a new 15mm prime fisheye and am in love with the image quality.

Now to show off my skeptical self. I can't help but be curious as to how Ms Claire knew to step in here immediately upon some less than flattering remarks.

 

[iBlue]

Now to show off my skeptical self. I can't help but be curious as to how Ms Claire knew to step in here immediately upon some less than flattering remarks.

There is some sort of internet jiggery pokery where you can be alerted if your name or other such keywords are placed on the internet. Google indexing hard at work.

 

[bartelby]

There is some sort of internet jiggery pokery where you can be alerted if your name or other such keywords are placed on the internet. Google indexing hard at work.

Sounds like witchcraft to me!!

 

[jessica claire]

actually I was flattered people even bothered

I'm a stats junkie. several hundred hits on my site within an hour or two makes me click and check it out. no mystery, sorry!

jc

 

[-hh]

I...She may be using a bit of fill flash gelled to match the sun. Thats what I do anyway to get this same effect...

...Using a flash, you will never get this result because the subject will be TOO clean and crisp. The point is not to get the subject well-lit, but to get the flare placed in such a way that it adds to, not detracts from, the photo.

Most of the photos where I have such a look were shot with the 50 1.2, an EXCELLENT quality piece of glass. All were shot in natural light about 1/2 hour before the time of sunset.

Also, I do NOT use lens filters. Why would I want to cover a $1600 piece of glass with one that costs $30 or even $100?!

{...}

Hope this helps!!

It does help some. My thought was that something along the lines of bouncing-in of the natural light, not a strobe, would be a way to get the 'golden hour' light backlit on the subject. And given that you can go low ISO/ high f, one won't get the 'freezing' effect that one would from a strobe.

Don't want to ask the author to divulge 'trade secrets' (if she considers it to be one), but it is pretty clear IMO that the subjects are receiving some degree of backlighting - - the only question then becomes one of how (& how much): in simplest terms, it could simply be natural ambient reflections, but I'd suspect that some degree of man-made 'assistance' would be wise to use because it would provide more consistant & reliable results, resulting in better overall yield from a shoot.

Either way, I'd still consider the result to effectively be "natural light backlighting", if that's a reasonably good name for how to describe this.

Personally, I've not played around with reflectors to know the pros/cons of the various types ... I see that B&H has some metallic (gold/silver) collapsable reflectors, plus Flexfill has a silk diffusion one, plus one could always just hang up a big old sheet (varying colors, including white) to catch the sunlight and provide some backlight back onto the subject(s).

Guess the general question I'd have is more or less twofold:

a) Am I generally on the right track with suggesting that there was reflected (albeit well diffused) natural light backlighting present?

b) Ignoring these specific examples & specific photographer (nice work, BTW), what would be some useful generic pointers for someone who hasn't yet experimented at all with bounce reflectors of (what I assume) this sort?

For example on (b), I assume that the gold metallic surface exists on these bounce reflectors explicitly for the purpose of warming up the light. Is this a correct assumption, and if yes, do they really work as desired?

In general, my impression is that the hard part of the art here is to blend in the backlighting in a natural fashion (eg, subtle), which generally requires a healthy dose of diffusion to prevent it from being overwhelming.

-hh

 

[jessica claire]

No, there were no reflectors, flashes, lights, assistants, screens, filters, or anything else present at these shoots.

It's just good old fashioned good lenses, good light, and good post processing. The only secret is hundreds of shoots and hours of practice.

jc

 

[pdxflint]

Jessica - I'm a fan of the backlighting, it's something I tended to try a lot, especially in b/w when I was using prime lenses. You definitely do it well, and now I think I'm going to go back to trying this out a lot more... cheers. -phil

 

[jessica claire]

The photos are warm because I shot them so close to the end of the golden light that the world actually looks that way. the warm color is a PS action to accentuate it.

I said this above, but I usually warm the photos up using an action called Warm it Up Kris, from THIS ACTION SET (set #1)

 

[Sdashiki]

...and good post processing.

I think thats all someone who would ask "how did you do that", needs to know.

 

[-hh]

No, there were no reflectors, flashes, lights, assistants, screens, filters, or anything else present at these shoots.

So in other words, there was whatever 'natural' backlighting that occurs from your ambient surroundings. Interesting.

FWIW, have you ever considered any 'augmentation'? Wondering if you tried & rejected and if so, why you rejected it.


-hh

 

[jessica claire]

So in other words, there was whatever 'natural' backlighting that occurs from your ambient surroundings. Interesting.

FWIW, have you ever considered any 'augmentation'? Wondering if you tried & rejected and if so, why you rejected it.


-hh

I have no idea you're talking about, but whatever it is, I'm getting the results I want already, so why should I find a more complicated method of doing the same thing?

 

[Consultant]

1. good quality lenses allows that, shooting into sun and not wash out the whole lens
2. professional lense + proper exposure (not auto-exposure)

 

[-hh]

I have no idea you're talking about, but whatever it is, I'm getting the results I want already, so why should I find a more complicated method of doing the same thing?

Perhaps I've done a poor job explaining.

My understanding is that you're working (to some degree) with natural reflected light, because the subject's shadows are being filled with some amount of light and that light has to come from somewhere.

The use of natural reflected light means that it can be biased by what it is reflecting off of. A simple example is the yellow buttercup flower: hold one under your chin and your chin appears to turn yellow.

When I said it was interseting that your backlighting was occurring from your ambient surroundings, I was assuming that you were aware of this. Thus, I'm kind of surprised that you have 'no idea'.

Hypothetically applying the buttercup flower here, if you were to have a big yellow building behind you, then the natural diffuse reflected light that's going to be created by it ... and thus be the backfill of your subject's shadows ... is going to be biased towards yellow.

That's great if you want a yellow cast on your subjects.
But its not so great if you didn't want yellow.

Now change from a building to a green forest, and the color cast becomes green.

Now change the time of day to the golden hour and your light source changes from white to yellow/gold.

These are all just ways in which we manipulate light within the environment, even before we introduce other tricks, such as man-made reflectors, etc.

Please understand I'm not trying to suggest that you're doing anything wrong or to change.

My opinion is that awareness of variables isn't a bad thing, even if we choose to ignore them. Here, it is of the potential variability of the color tone (color cast) for reflected natural light present in a shot. It might even help to explain partly for you why some shots seem to want more post-process warming than others.


-hh