bifcake Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I've noticed that many shots posted here have this peculiar look as though the image is composed of multiple acetate sheets: one for foreground, one for middle ground and one for background. This is especially noticeable in night shots. The first time I've seen this look was about 15 years ago when digital cameras first became popular. That look has kept me from getting into digital for a long time because it looks so unnatural. It's as if the image is almost too sharp. I've shot with Nikon D3000, Canon 550D and Canon 5D MKII and none of my images have had that sort of a look (which is good as far as I'm concerned). So, I was wondering if this is the look that a lot of people strive for and it's a result of post processing or whether it's a function of the cameras these folks are using? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post MJP Posted July 4, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted July 4, 2014 Good topic. I have, somewhat unsuccessfully tried to replicate the film look using LR and various plugins. I start by using old manual focus lenses, the modern glass designed for digital is as much to blame as the digital sensor. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhythmworx Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I don't know what look you mean, multiple acetates? The only acetates I know are test cuts for vinyl records. Nice shot BTW MJP. Can you post a sample Image of one of these sharp shots from 15 years ago with that same look? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post bifcake Posted July 4, 2014 Author Popular Post Share Posted July 4, 2014 These shots are really good examples of what I mean: Notice how it looks as though various layers of acetate sheets containing foreground, midground and background were laid one on top of the other. I don't know how else to describe it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJP Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Do you mean contrast Bifcake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bifcake Posted July 4, 2014 Author Share Posted July 4, 2014 No, I mean this over-sharpness, over vividness and that unnatural look of 3D almost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Dancealot Posted July 7, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted July 7, 2014 (edited) Thanks for asking, bifcake. Here's how I shot that one originally in RAW. In comparison I agree with you my cut looks rather "plastic" but I love it nevertheless. I'll explain: Personally: I am just starting to learn to combine PP with photography and I feel I'm in my extreme phase now where I am testing all the limits and possibilities. My logic behind this is after I have tested and played with the extreme's, only then, I'll be capable to focus on achieving the natural look you mentioned. Unnatural as it may seem to you, I'm very happy and excited with my results. But I suspect when I grow my taste will develop to be more refined like MJP for example. Thanks again for raising the issue. Yours, DAL Edited July 7, 2014 by Dancealot 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhythmworx Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Nice to see the RAW there DAL for a comparison. I think you did alright TBH, slightly over saturated maybe (I'm on 2 TV's though and neither hive a decent colour representation) but I do prefer your edited version than the SOOC RAW. Paint the picture as you want it painted, not how others want it to look. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dancealot Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Nice to see the RAW there DAL for a comparison. I think you did alright TBH, slightly over saturated maybe (I'm on 2 TV's though and neither hive a decent colour representation) but I do prefer your edited version than the SOOC RAW. Paint the picture as you want it painted, not how others want it to look. There should be an easy way to calibrate your TV's. I am curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJP Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 DAL, your low light work is smokin' hot. I was about ask about your workflow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bifcake Posted July 7, 2014 Author Share Posted July 7, 2014 Thanks for asking, bifcake. Here's how I shot that one originally in RAW. In comparison I agree with you my cut looks rather "plastic" but I love it nevertheless. I'll explain: Personally: I am just starting to learn to combine PP with photography and I feel I'm in my extreme phase now where I am testing all the limits and possibilities. My logic behind this is after I have tested and played with the extreme's, only then, I'll be capable to focus on achieving the natural look you mentioned. Unnatural as it may seem to you, I'm very happy and excited with my results. But I suspect when I grow my taste will develop to be more refined like MJP for example. Thanks again for raising the issue. Yours, DAL Hi Dal, Thanks for posting the original and explaining the technical aspects, as well as the reasoning behind it. It may come as no surprise to you that I prefer the look of your original, unedited file. Then again, to each, his own. When digicams first became popular, it seems that you would get that processed look right out of the box. I remember seeing the results and thinking to myself that digital has a long way to go before it acquires the feel of film and its palette. Now, it seems like the tables have turned and folks are turning to post processing to get the look of the first generation digicams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dancealot Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 (edited) Hmmmm. Interesting.. Edited July 7, 2014 by Dancealot 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dancealot Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I figure I'm still on-topic.. RAW 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhythmworx Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 (edited) """" (non RAW) out of likes when they are truly deserved ...now I know what SJ and sunshine must feel like each day Edited July 7, 2014 by rhythmworx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dancealot Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 """" (non RAW) out of likes when they are truly deserved ...now I know what SJ and sunshine must feel like each day Thanks but please be advised SJ and sunshine are quite capable.. They just have different approaches. I wouldn't be so quick to judge myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJP Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Phenomenal DAL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuijimmy Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Phenomenal DAL. Well let's not over inflate DAL's ego! I really should do more with RAW, I usually delete them unless an exceptional image.... it eats up too much harddrive space Great images above though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaggy1969 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 """" (non RAW) out of likes when they are truly deserved ...now I know what SJ and sunshine must feel like each day Thanks but please be advised SJ and sunshine are quite capable.. They just have different approaches. I wouldn't be so quick to judge myself. I think He's referring to how they feel about running out of likes everyday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dancealot Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 """" (non RAW) out of likes when they are truly deserved ...now I know what SJ and sunshine must feel like each day Thanks but please be advised SJ and sunshine are quite capable.. They just have different approaches. I wouldn't be so quick to judge myself. I think He's referring to how they feel about running out of likes everyday Right Shaggy , that never crossed my mind. Apologies rhythmworx, I thought you were mocking them.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhythmworx Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 """" (non RAW) out of likes when they are truly deserved ...now I know what SJ and sunshine must feel like each day Thanks but please be advised SJ and sunshine are quite capable.. They just have different approaches. I wouldn't be so quick to judge myself. I was referring to them running out of likes on a daily basis, nothing more. I am more than sure they are capable. Was a bit drunk when I posted that hence why it might not have made sense. Back to the pictures..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunshine51 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) ^^^ All is forgiven on my end. Not that I thought anything else than me running outta likes. If I like a pic, looking at it from a photo editors POV...then I hit the like button. My professional work is easily available on Getty & Corbis if one knows where to look, however I cannot post links to those here. Nor do I really want to as I do not believe the photography thread is a place to have pro's showcase their work. To me it's a place where we who are pro's & serious enthusiasts can help others who aspire to become better photogs. Edited July 8, 2014 by sunshine51 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fimgirl Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) Ironic Sunshine. Prior to retirement I too was a Getty staff photographer. Maybe we met? I attended many meetings with the shooters during my time with them. Good days for sure. Who were you assigned to? I was with Michael Gee. Jeeze, he was a task master. Small world eh? Long since fallen out with them. Alamy and Age are my outlets these days. Edited July 8, 2014 by fimgirl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunshine51 Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I was always a "contributor" never staff...as I didn't want to be transmitting heaps on a daily basis, had the staff offer & declined. I was staff with Sygma in my early days for a while though...OK gig. Time was a great gig...just stringing but good folks to work with. Then I got into television...everything changed in due course, rapidly. And there was just more $$$$ in TV than stills for news. Was branded a traitor by some old stills photogs but heck...I did it for the $$$$. Never really did sell out as some stills work came along on TV assignments...but try telling that to stills only lads/lassies...hah! These days though...it's back to stills with minimal TV work & I like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJP Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Ironic Sunshine. Prior to retirement I too was a Getty staff photographer. Maybe we met? I attended many meetings with the shooters during my time with them. Good days for sure. Who were you assigned to? I was with Michael Gee. Jeeze, he was a task master. Small world eh? Long since fallen out with them. Alamy and Age are my outlets these days. Now you tell us and there I was thinking you spent too much on gear and just got lucky shots. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fimgirl Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) Ironic Sunshine. Prior to retirement I too was a Getty staff photographer. Maybe we met? I attended many meetings with the shooters during my time with them. Good days for sure. Who were you assigned to? I was with Michael Gee. Jeeze, he was a task master. Small world eh? Long since fallen out with them. Alamy and Age are my outlets these days. Now you tell us and there I was thinking you spent too much on gear and just got lucky shots. Hands up. Correct. Edited July 10, 2014 by fimgirl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dancealot Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Ironic Sunshine. Prior to retirement I too was a Getty staff photographer. Maybe we met? I attended many meetings with the shooters during my time with them. Good days for sure. Who were you assigned to? I was with Michael Gee. Jeeze, he was a task master. Small world eh? Long since fallen out with them. Alamy and Age are my outlets these days. Now you tell us and there I was thinking you spent too much on gear and just got lucky shots. Hands up. Correct. Ouch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJP Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Ironic Sunshine. Prior to retirement I too was a Getty staff photographer. Maybe we met? I attended many meetings with the shooters during my time with them. Good days for sure. Who were you assigned to? I was with Michael Gee. Jeeze, he was a task master. Small world eh? Long since fallen out with them. Alamy and Age are my outlets these days. Now you tell us and there I was thinking you spent too much on gear and just got lucky shots. Hands up. Correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now