photography technique or ps?

[beingme]

Can I pull off the same lighting condition look with some sort of photography technique or do i have to resort to ps and use burning and dodging tools? At first I thought that maybe it was spot metering or something like that, but I don't really know.

 

[gr8tfly]

It's a spotlight. Burning-in won't create the shadows or details brought out by the lighting.

Spot-metering hasn't anything to do with how the image is lighted. It only means the area measured is small (narrow angle).

 

[SolracSelbor]

It's a spotlight. Burning-in won't create the shadows or details brought out by the lighting.

I dunno, try a gradient and overlay it...

 

[gr8tfly]

I dunno, try a gradient and overlay it...

Look at the shadow from her hair (or under her chin). How's a gradient going to reproduce that by itself?

 

[phiberglass]

Yea, that would be tough to reproduce in photoshop, you'd need a great original source.

 

[mashny]

Something like that is very easy to do in Photoshop:

1. Make a layer that is a duplicate of the original image
2. If necessary, darken the copied layer using curves
3. Add a curves adjustment layer over the picture that lightens the entire photo.
4. Add a layer mask to this adjustment layer and fill with black to negate the lightening
5. Use a radial gradient going from white in the center of where you want the lightening to begin, outward to where you want it to end
6. If you want the gradient to be more of an oval, use the marquee tool to draw an oval over the blackened layer mask, do a large feather on the oval's border, and create your gradient in this oval
7. The shadows can easily be added after

Some fine tuning might be necessary after the above steps (such as adding a layer mask to the darkened layer and painting with black where necessary if re-lightening the darkened layer makes the image too grainy in this area), but this is the basic idea.

I'm not saying that this image was Photoshopped, but that the effect can be easily achieved with Photoshop.

Burning and dodging would take too long and be to clumsy for this effect. A gradient is the way to go.

 

[gr8tfly]

Something like that is very easy to do in Photoshop:

1. Make a layer that is a duplicate of the original image
2. If necessary, darken the copied layer using curves
3. Add a curves adjustment layer over the picture that lightens the entire photo.
4. Add a layer mask to this adjustment layer and fill with black to negate the lightening
5. Use a radial gradient going from white in the center of where you want the lightening to begin, outward to where you want it to end
6. If you want the gradient to be more of an oval, use the marquee tool to draw an oval over the blackened layer mask and create your gradient in this oval
7. The shadows can easily be added after

I'm not saying that this image was Photoshopped, but that the effect can be easily achieved with Photoshop.

Why not use the proper lighting in the first place? That was the OP's question: Camera vs. PS. PS is NOT the correct way to get the lighting effect. edit: It doesn't matter whether it's gradient or burn, or ?. PS isn't the way to go. And, it would take about two minutes to set up the basic lighting for the effect.

The method you describe will create the bright "spotlight" effect, and you could put in the shadows I mentioned without too much trouble - but, what about skin texture, hair highlights, details in the fabric, etc?

 

[mashny]

Why not use the proper lighting in the first place? That was the OP's question: Camera vs. PS. PS is NOT the correct way to get the lighting effect. edit: It doesn't matter whether it's gradient or burn, or ?. PS isn't the way to go. And, it would take about two minutes to set up the basic lighting for the effect.

The method you describe will create the bright "spotlight" effect, and you could put in the shadows I mentioned without too much trouble - but, what about skin texture, hair highlights, details in the fabric, etc?

Of course the proper lighting in the first place would be ideal. What I'm saying is that if the picture were mediocre and flat to begin with, Photoshop could be used to give the picture the drama it now has. It's possible the texture in the skin, hair, and fabric was already there, but that Photoshop was used to enhance it. Or that it was added after the fact. I don't doubt that a good photographer could achieve this effect in the studio, without the use of Photoshop.

An ideal original image is always the goal, but if you want to enhance a picture to "change reality," Photoshop is the closest any of us will ever come to playing God.

 

[gr8tfly]

An ideal original image is always the goal, but if you want to enhance a picture to "change reality," Photoshop is the closest any of us will ever come to playing God.

Or, if you've ever worked in a darkroom, making funny shapes with your hands under the enlarger lens to dodge/burn.

"I love the smell of fixer, in the morning... "

 

[SolracSelbor]

Or, if you've ever worked in a darkroom, making funny shapes with your hands under the enlarger lens to dodge/burn.

"I love the smell of fixer, in the morning... "

makes me love photoshop even more.

"I Love the sound of mouse clicks in the morning..."

 

[mashny]

Or, if you've ever worked in a darkroom, making funny shapes with your hands under the enlarger lens to dodge/burn.

"I love the smell of fixer, in the morning... "

I used to develop black and white images but would use either one of those sticks with the round thing at the end to dodge, or a piece of cardboard with a hole cut out to burn. I don't think I used my hands too much.

I guess some of the craftsmanship of developing images has been lost, but I way prefer the power and flexibility of Photoshop, not to mention the lower cost and the smell and mess of those chemicals. I usually did my developing/enlarging in the evening, so I never got to enjoy the smell of fixer in the morning...

 

[gr8tfly]

makes me love photoshop even more.

"I Love the sound of mouse clicks in the morning..."

Actually, seriously, MUCH better than fixer fumes (not to mention developer & stop-bath mixed in for flavor).

I'm so happy to have had that experience, but I'm MUCH happier it's past-tense.

 

[mashny]

Actually, seriously, MUCH better than fixer fumes (not to mention developer & stop-bath mixed in for flavor).

I'm so happy to have had that experience, but I'm MUCH happier it's past-tense.

Yep, ditto.

 

[phiberglass]

Actually, seriously, MUCH better than fixer fumes (not to mention developer & stop-bath mixed in for flavor).

I'm so happy to have had that experience, but I'm MUCH happier it's past-tense.

I agree it was great to learn all that, but much better this way.

 

[harcosparky]

Something like that is very easy to do in Photoshop:

1. Make a layer that is a duplicate of the original image
2. If necessary, darken the copied layer using curves
3. Add a curves adjustment layer over the picture that lightens the entire photo.
4. Add a layer mask to this adjustment layer and fill with black to negate the lightening
5. Use a radial gradient going from white in the center of where you want the lightening to begin, outward to where you want it to end
6. If you want the gradient to be more of an oval, use the marquee tool to draw an oval over the blackened layer mask, do a large feather on the oval's border, and create your gradient in this oval
7. The shadows can easily be added after

Some fine tuning might be necessary after the above steps (such as adding a layer mask to the darkened layer and painting with black where necessary if re-lightening the darkened layer makes the image too grainy in this area), but this is the basic idea.

I'm not saying that this image was Photoshopped, but that the effect can be easily achieved with Photoshop.

Burning and dodging would take too long and be to clumsy for this effect. A gradient is the way to go.

So let's see the choices are ......

1) Take an OK shot and run it through at least SEVEN steps in Photoshop.

2) Use the proper lighting to begin with and get a great shot.

Hmmmmmmm ... I'm gonna have to think about this!


I was always taught to get it right IN the camera, and minimize darkroom time. Well today the darkroom is your computer, so I guess it's more comfortable. It's nice to be able to use Photoshop to do some of these effects, but I think it's more exciting to be able to do it in the camera!

 

[princealfie]

use your head and the camera, not photoshop!

 

[Abstract]

Something like that is very easy to do in Photoshop:

1. Make a layer that is a duplicate of the original image
2. If necessary, darken the copied layer using curves
3. Add a curves adjustment layer over the picture that lightens the entire photo.
4. Add a layer mask to this adjustment layer and fill with black to negate the lightening
5. Use a radial gradient going from white in the center of where you want the lightening to begin, outward to where you want it to end
6. If you want the gradient to be more of an oval, use the marquee tool to draw an oval over the blackened layer mask, do a large feather on the oval's border, and create your gradient in this oval
7. The shadows can easily be added after

I don't really understand Photoshop. What I do is very basic, so let me ask you a question: Why not just use the radial gradient on the original, or on a new blank layer, and kind of blend them? What you said sounds really difficult to me, and I don't know the difference between what you're saying, and what I'm saying, or whether there's a huge difference in the quality of the end product.

Also, how would you add the shadows in afterwards? You said it was easy, right?

 

[compuwar]

PS has a lighting effects filter that does a fair spot and can clean up an otherwise flat photo pretty well, but ideally you'd shoot with a spot light or perhaps a grid or a fresnel on a strobe.