File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Sup /p/!

Lately I've been doing alot of research on the Dragan/Greenberg/Fiscus/Saudek style of editing, and I have come to the conclusion that a good tutorial is nonexistant.
As far as I understand, the concept is pretty much:
1. A picture that should already be a great portrait straight from camera. Im guessing great lighting is necessary.
2. To flatten the picture, by removing all shadows and highlights.
3. Paint the shadows and highlights back on by either brush or dodge/burn.
4. Induvidual contrast and colour settings.

Am I totally of track here? If any of you guys know about a good informative forum thread, tutorial, or maybe sit on some knowledge of your own, it will be much appreciated.

Pic sort of related, but a very harsh and bad example. (not mine)
>> Anonymous
Show a better example
>> Anonymous
If you dont get it, you probably never will. As far as I know, that stuff requires massive painting skills. You should probably be able to actually pain a decent portrait from scratch before you can do it properly without anny shadows/highlights-tricks or HDR-faking.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Ok, here is an example from the master himself.
>> Anonymous
>>149929
Its not that hard. Its just that the people who know how to do it good refuse to share it. They may write a pretty long tutorial, but they will leave out importent parts, usually resulting in lots of people spending days and days of trying, and then giving up, which is exactly what those guys wanted in the first place. They wanna keep it to themself.
>> Anonymous
>>149941
Hahah, I totally agree. I absolutely cant understand how this whole dragan-style is still a mystery.
>> Anonymous
Why would lighting be necessary? If it's like you're saying, it's just removing the tones that are created by any original lighting and painting new ones on.

Which is stupid. I'll touch up the tones sometimes if they're a little off, like if a shadow under the eye is a bit too strong, but FFS, buy some clamp lights.
>> Anonymous
>>149984
gtfo.
>> Anonymous
>>149989
Five minutes arranging strobes, or if on the cheap, clamp lights

vs.

Five hours playing with dodging and burning in Photoshop to get the tones you would've gotten anyway by careful lighting design.

The choice is yours.
>> Anonymous
>>150028
You obviously dont understand. Its about the combination. You dont actually delete the shodow and highlight information in the pictures, you just flatten it, and repaint it to make it "pop" or whatever.

You cannot do this http://andrzejdragan.com/ only with strobes, and you cannot do that without them.
>> danchr !AZ2XAk0.RQ
     File :-(, x)
Im actually very interested in that technique as well, and I have been experimenting abit. I guess it all comes down to finding your own style within the "painting with light" or whatever. I find that you need pretty great PS-skills to be able to do it any good. I suck at PS, so this is the kind of results im getting right now.
Yes, the pic sucks, im only posting it for its relevance.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 400D DIGITALCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:28 19:33:06Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height849RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
http://www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72157604293682977/
>> Anonymous
>>150075
pj harvey - rid of me
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>150075
I actually kinda like this pic. Is it yours?
>> Anonymous
Why was my OP-pic deleted?
>> Anonymous
>>150103
Hey, thanks! :]
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>150201
>rules:post your own work only

dont say it isnt yours then!
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>150201
>Pic sort of related, but a very harsh and bad example. (not mine)
vs.
>1. Only upload images that you, the photographer, have taken.
(From the /p/ rules)
>> danchr !AZ2XAk0.RQ
     File :-(, x)
>>150126
Yes. Heres another one. The background is messy in all of these because I used a white door (the only white surface in the room) on the left to bounce my flash in most of them.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 400D DIGITALCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:29 19:23:25Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width756Image Height800RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>150231

Hilarious!
>> Anonymous
>>150231
This is more in the Dave Hill direction. Dragan's pics are much more "realistic" in a way. I like it though. Got any more?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>150466
Yeah, I know. As for the topic, I really dont know how to do this in a more Dragan-way. There is a plugin called the Draganizer. I dont like letting a plugin to that much of the job. The problem is that it cant tell different pictures apart, so some may turn out good while others are just shadows. I know some people love it, though.

http://www.atncentral.com/Pages/draganizer.htm

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 400D DIGITALCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:30 02:04:54Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width670Image Height800RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> danchr !AZ2XAk0.RQ
>>150493
Thats me btw.
>> Liquefied !!CF1+3tSFCce
     File :-(, x)
Is this sort of what we're going for here?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:03:29 20:35:09Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length28.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width561Image Height800RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>150536

hmm, no just no
>> Liquefied !!CF1+3tSFCce
>>150547
That's helpful.
>> Anonymous
you asked a simple question

i gave you a simple answer
>> Anonymous
>>150495
O VRY NISE
>> Anonymous
>>150557
Well, its hard to help without knowing what you wanted, and also without knowing how to get the results you would have wanted. But.. I think the pic looks ruined by some kind of sharpening. Its far too rough.
>> Anonymous
>>150645

that and it's just nowhere remotely close to this kind of effect
>> Anonymous
Dave Hill lookalikes are becoming cliche. No one ever pulls it off like him, and even if they did it would still look like shit without the ideas that he and only he can come up with..
>> Anonymous
>>150711
It looks like shit with the shitty ideas he comes up with, too.
>> Anonymous
You guys know how any of those photographers light their subjects?
>> Anonymous
>>150711
I like pskaught better, though.
>> Anonymous
>>150711
hill takes it way too far, he overshops it, where jill greenberg still keeps it subtle. And hills ideas are fucking boring, its just overshooped portraits, like his solja boy shit. Fucking boring. but he's still skilled.
>> Anonymous
>>151722
I will never understand what people see in greenbergs photos. Her lighting techniques and such are good, but not any better than I think most people could accomplish with the same tools and budget. As for her ideas, I will just use one example which by itself sais it all.

Her most famous set is a bunch of children crying. Just single portraits of children crying. This set of pics is her interpretation of the subject "global warming". "The children are sad because of the state of the world they will grow up in". I think that is so cheap, I actually have serious trouble taking her seriously.
>> Anonymous
>>151727
I think it's hilarious honestly. She literally took candy from babies to get the expressions - gave them a lollipop then snatched it back.
>> Anonymous
>>151727
Not so much "global warming" and more about the current state of the world. For me, its really less about whatever message is attached to it but more about the expressions she captures, and the subtle editing she uses on her pictures and the amount of time she spends "painting" them.
>> Anonymous
relevant to /p/'s interests?

http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/1094
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
I gave it a shot.

Original | Post-Processed | Attempt at Dragan Effect

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:04:01 00:53:41Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1500Image Height750
>> Anonymous
>>151995
Hahaha, if you look at it from the thumbnail the guy looks like he's progressing in age.
>> Anonyfag of Borneo !bHymOqU5YY
>>151995
Gee Hannibal, you're looking kinda cool.