How did she do it?

[brad.c]

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

...It might even help to explain partly for you why some shots seem to want more post-process warming than others.

Why be elitist, or at the least dismissive of post processing? I've spent years scanning, retouching and colour correcting from studio shoots and not many shots under such controlled circumstances didn't warrant a little work in post.

Sorry, I'm not trying to argumentative. My father was a portrait/commercial photog for years, and retired before digital hit big. Now he's discovering the freedom of post processing (as an aid, not a corrector of all errors) and loves to see what Photoshop can do.

 

[jessica claire]

Yes, I understand color cast, and how to achieve the look of my own photos . I wasn't familiar with the term "augmentation"--here is So. Cal of means something else entirely!

 

[wheelhot]

Wow, I just woke up, surprisingly see my post was active, and when I check it out, can't believe my own eyes that Jessica Claire herself would end up answering my questions .

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

Well I reach the point to realize that many photos these days went through some post processing, but in order to make the photos "better" it gotta be a good/great photo first.

Oh yea, and when I say filter, I meant special effects filter, you didn't use any of it? and now you inspired me to learn how to improve my shots considerably.

Now, I gotta reread to understand what you all just told me cause it was a lot to digest and to decipher

Anyway, thanks Jessica for answering my questions and hope you dun mind me askin and linking some of ur photos here and I guess I am now officially a fan of your work, thanks to one of my friend who is going "crazy" when seeing ur photos.

 

[jbernie]

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.

On occasion I have searched for a subject after posting on a site and within a few hours you can find your posting on google, maybe just good timing, maybe they just update specific sites that garner more traffic more often, but no need to wait a day or two.

That, and as Jessica noted, a sudden surge in visits to your site(s) does make you wonder who has been talking about you .

 

[duncanapple]

Jessica, I really enjoyed your site - the photos are awesome. I agree with what was said above, some of the photos look like they have a filter or something over them - like the one with the couple on the cab - it looks like its on textured paper or something? Sort of a raw feel to it? Not sure how to describe, but I suppose warm is spot on. Very nice work!

 

[chrono1081]

Thats awesome of you Jessica to come post on this forum I know the OP appreciates it.

You are correct about what I posted regarding flash. I should have worded more clearly. I use gelled flash when needing to overpower the sun for some serious fill, in your shots you got the sun at such a great angle you didn't need to do that. (Very tricky to do since you only have seconds to get it right ).

OP I hope I didn't confuse you with what I posted about the light. Best to always use natural light first, use flash only when natural light cannot give you what you need.

Also, to Jessica, your shots are making me contemplate on getting that 50 1.2...

 

[-hh]

Why be elitist, or at the least dismissive of post processing? I've spent years scanning, retouching and colour correcting from studio shoots and not many shots under such controlled circumstances didn't warrant a little work in post.

I wasn't thinking that this was elitist - instead, it merely comes from years of working with positive films (slides) where there generally isn't the option of post-processing. At least for the general hobbyist, slides are WYSIWYG.

Although in balance, I do admit to having somewhat of a hangup on being 'faithful' to reality: its fairly difficult for me to take a noon shot and try to fake it into a sunset, or turn a white beach orange, etc.

Sorry, I'm not trying to argumentative. My father was a portrait/commercial photog for years, and retired before digital hit big. Now he's discovering the freedom of post processing (as an aid, not a corrector of all errors) and loves to see what Photoshop can do.

Understood. I do post-processing as well. My preference is that if I'm seeking a particular look, I'd prefer to build it in (or at least most of it) during the image creation process, so as to minimize the amount of PP that it may later require.

I'm generally of similar bent when it comes to composition: I'd rather compose it upfront to the desired form to obviate much of the need to crop in PP.

Although I am still pragmatic on both: if I later see a "better" something later, I won't not crop, or not PP.



-hh

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

What makes this work unique? Every other wedding/senior/engagement photographer does the sun flare trick. Perhaps the OP needs to research this field a bit more. In the end, only a few people are truly pushing that genre in unique directions.

 

[Digital Skunk]

What makes this work unique? Every other wedding/senior/engagement photographer does the sun flare trick. Perhaps the OP needs to research this field a bit more. In the end, only a few people are truly pushing that genre in unique directions.

This is very true indeed. Even the ones that are pushing wedding photography to new heights aren't heard of much.

The biggest issue with pushing boundaries in wedding photography is that many of your images will be winners to the client, but won't hold their weight in your own portfolio.

As well as diversity in terms of shots. After some time shooting weddings on a consistent basis, a photog may end up with cookie cutter images.

 

[wheelhot]

fill flash gelled

What is this? I never heard of it.

And well I was certainly glad that she responded in my thread but If she dont use any flash, how did the get the subject as in a little bit underexposed but not become a silhouette? So far my attempt in shooting directly w/ the sun in it, ended up with silhouette. I also thought of using flash to counter the sun rays but it might end up losing the sun flare effect.

Oh yea and ur statement about the 1.2 made me look for some reviews bout it and so far I am impressed, I think I finally understood why some people would only go for 1.2 and not the 1.4 which is about 4x cheaper .

 

[chairbeat]

Most definitely.

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

I completely believe her. I'm a critic, and you can definitely tell when light is fake.

 

[valdore]

If I may interject, regarding backlit sunlight and sunrays, and so on (and pardon me for dropping a link to my personal photoblog in the process )


but in this photo of mine:




3 bracketed exposures were used for an HDR, then some reduction in Photoshop to get rid of the ghosting. Very narrow aperture for the most striking sunrays, ya know...

For instance, this photo is my absolute most "Photoshopped" and "manipulated" photograph I've ever done, although just by the looks of it you wouldn't necessarily guess so. Over 30 saved incremental edits over the course of two days. Since there was movement going on with the drummer, the pedestrians, and the cars in the background, and I knew this full well and wanted to do bracketed shots anyway, I figured I had my work cut out for me in the editing stage.

And, sorry but I must do the old eye-roll at any sneers at post-processing. As if we're morally inferior for using Photoshop and HDR or whatever else - which is uninformed nonsense (I'm not targeting anyone in particular in this thread with this last sentence, I'm just saying... ).

 

[chrono1081]

What is this? I never heard of it.

And well I was certainly glad that she responded in my thread but If she dont use any flash, how did the get the subject as in a little bit underexposed but not become a silhouette? So far my attempt in shooting directly w/ the sun in it, ended up with silhouette. I also thought of using flash to counter the sun rays but it might end up losing the sun flare effect.

Oh yea and ur statement about the 1.2 made me look for some reviews bout it and so far I am impressed, I think I finally understood why some people would only go for 1.2 and not the 1.4 which is about 4x cheaper .

Fill flash gelled is this:

Say you are using fill flash, well, since the sun is yellow and your flash is white, you will get some strange looking results. To get the most natural look you "gel" the flash (this is a general term). Stofen makes little caps that go over your flash in yellow (or green if your shooting under flourescent light) that mimic the light you are shooting in. I would put the yellow cap on to keep the fill flash light golden, just like the sun.

 

[wheelhot]

Say you are using fill flash, well, since the sun is yellow and your flash is white, you will get some strange looking results. To get the most natural look you "gel" the flash (this is a general term). Stofen makes little caps that go over your flash in yellow (or green if your shooting under flourescent light) that mimic the light you are shooting in. I would put the yellow cap on to keep the fill flash light golden, just like the sun.

Ah, thanks guess what my friend say that each diffuser has different effects is true cause sometime I wonder why would anyone own a Gary something lightbulb over StoFen which is much cheaper and such and why someone uses like a bouncer and etc etc.

But from her photos, I still not sure how she get a well done underexposed people shot and the sun flare is just amazing , would love to learn that trick.

 

[ajpl]

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

Noooo, don't tell them that. Lots of practice, knowing how to use your kit properly and most importantly, having some talent is a trade secret. Let them think it's simply using a plugin to make any dull photo look cool.

 

[ajpl]

But from her photos, I still not sure how she get a well done underexposed people shot and the sun flare is just amazing , would love to learn that trick.

She's told you how. Practice. Timing.

 

[AxisOfBeagles]

3 bracketed exposures were used for an HDR, then some reduction in Photoshop to get rid of the ghosting. Very narrow aperture for the most striking sunrays, ya know...

Valdore - did you use a star filter on this one? I've often used really small aperture for sun ray effect, but have not achieved the distinct rays you got there.

 

[valdore]

Valdore - did you use a star filter on this one? I've often used really small aperture for sun ray effect, but have not achieved the distinct rays you got there.

No filter - but what I did was set the aperture to f/22 (narrow as it will go on the Canon 17-40 L) and then after I did the HDR processing of the three bracketed shots in Photomatix, I took my original underexposed RAW file (which happens to have the most distinct sunray of the three by virtue of the underexposure), and dragged the tone mapped HDR on top of the original underexposed -2 RAW and took the eraser tool in Photoshop to get the sunray more how I wanted it to be.

 

[wheelhot]

She's told you how. Practice. Timing.

Well I only understood timing. And you mention practice, if I knew that I wouldn't even post a question regarding how she did it here, I tried it but I kept getting silhouette!! No matter what I do, as long as I point my lens towards the sun, the object I want to be properly exposed will end up as silhouette, I even tried metering and that doesn't help either. There must be something that I am missing or doing wrongly.

I recall some ppl say Pro Wedding Photographers do the sun flare effect all the time? How do they do it then? and how is her technique different then them

And I understand ppl will keep one say practice practice and practice, and I agree that is important but you gotta know where to start first.

 

[ajpl]

Well I only understood timing. And you mention practice, if I knew that I wouldn't even post a question regarding how she did it here, I tried it but I kept getting silhouette!! No matter what I do, as long as I point my lens towards the sun, the object I want to be properly exposed will end up as silhouette, I even tried metering and that doesn't help either. There must be something that I am missing or doing wrongly.

I recall some ppl say Pro Wedding Photographers do the sun flare effect all the time? How do they do it then? and how is her technique different then them

And I understand ppl will keep one say practice practice and practice, and I agree that is important but you gotta know where to start first.

Start with the basics. The real basics. It's the secret of mastering anything.
From your post above you simply don't know how to meter a scene. You need to use manual and expose for the subject not the background. In fact manual is easier for most shooting. Automatic guesses what you want and gets it wrong a significant percentage of the time.
I have cameras with umpteen modes of auto this and that and most of the time I use manual as it is easier. I even used to use manual when shooting concerts where the light changes a lot more than real life.
Practicing exposure is so easy with digital. You take a shot, see how it looks, alter a parameter see how that effects image and move on from there. Don't rely on being told how to do everything. It's easy enough to work out for yourself if you have any photographic capability and some basic knowledge.

 

[wheezy]

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.

What other lenses do you use? I'm a big big fan of fast L primes and have used the 50 1.2, but am also considering the 35 1.4L. (or is it 1.2...)

 

[RedTomato]

Let me also add many congrats to Jessica Claire for posting here and being so helpful.

Her photos aren't my favourite topic, but I fully respect the work and dedication she has put into them. It's not just good equipment and photoshop. It's also about the skill of composition, knowing your equipment well, picking your time, location, angle, and framing. These are things that can't be bought in a shop or on the internet.

I've learned a few new things from both looking at the photos and of her explanation of how she created the effects. I'm not keen on photoshop, but it was lovely to read about what she did/ didn't do with the light before it reached the imager element in her camera.

Ansel Adams, Capra and others often used primitive cameras, and also often did image manipulation and post-processing - i remember a hubbub over some cannonballs, and also a mark on a hill that got removed.

Thanks again to the OP and Jessica for this thread.

 

[wheelhot]

Start with the basics. The real basics. It's the secret of mastering anything.
From your post above you simply don't know how to meter a scene. You need to use manual and expose for the subject not the background. In fact manual is easier for most shooting. Automatic guesses what you want and gets it wrong a significant percentage of the time.
I have cameras with umpteen modes of auto this and that and most of the time I use manual as it is easier. I even used to use manual when shooting concerts where the light changes a lot more than real life.
Practicing exposure is so easy with digital. You take a shot, see how it looks, alter a parameter see how that effects image and move on from there. Don't rely on being told how to do everything. It's easy enough to work out for yourself if you have any photographic capability and some basic knowledge.

Zzzzz...so far I must admit that your attempt to 'help' me has been utterly disappointing, and I wonder r u really trying to help me or just repeating things people usually told when someone ask these kind of questions, are you even able to get the same effect as what I want or not cause so far all your 'helps' has been asking me to do things that I've already tried! And sorry me for whining but I need to get a rough idea where to start.

And I kept telling you, I played with the metering, exposure, shutter, manual focusing and the result is still the same, when I take a picture w/ the sun in it the subject will end up becoming a silhouette, over exposing might help to get back the image but it will end up causing the sky to become pure white. And now I got another question, doesn't your eye hurt shooting directly in direction of sunlight? Cause my eye now surely hurts

 

[jessica claire]

Well I only understood timing. And you mention practice, if I knew that I wouldn't even post a question regarding how she did it here, I tried it but I kept getting silhouette!! No matter what I do, as long as I point my lens towards the sun, the object I want to be properly exposed will end up as silhouette, I even tried metering and that doesn't help either. There must be something that I am missing or doing wrongly.

I recall some ppl say Pro Wedding Photographers do the sun flare effect all the time? How do they do it then? and how is her technique different then them

And I understand ppl will keep one say practice practice and practice, and I agree that is important but you gotta know where to start first.

I think the mistake you may be making is shooting in AV or P mode. If you do that into a backlit subject, most of the time, your camera will expose for the light in the background, giving you a silhouette. You need to shoot in MANUAL mode, at 1.2. It's tough to autofocus into a backlit subject, so I try to angle the camera so the sun is off to the side of the frame, streaming in from a corner, unless it is only 15 minutes before sunset. This is the part that takes most of the practice--getting the exposure exactly right for the desired express, figuring out the composition to control the flare, and focusing so that you have sharp subjects. It's just going to take some time!!

Manually expose so that your subject is about one full stop underexposed and then bring it up in Post Processing while leaving the background as you shot it. Add the WARM IT UP KRIS action if the photo is too cool.

jc

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I think the mistake you may be making is shooting in AV or P mode. If you do that into a backlit subject, most of the time, your camera will expose for the light in the background, giving you a silhouette.

Hmm, that must be my problem. I usually shoot in AV or P mode, but I need to try and graduate to using full manual. I wonder if I can use my 50mm 1.8 to get at least vaguely similar results to the portraits you're taking? It's obviously nowhere near the quality of your 1.2.

I've just begun to use RAW a little, so I'm learning several things at once right now...mostly by trial and error.

I'm not a very skilled photographer, strictly a casual amateur. But it's fun to play around!