# The Dan Winters Type look with digital



## Shelly1204 (Feb 10, 2010)

What's your most successful way of "borrowing" that Dan Winters low key painterly type look with your processing? (I'm talking a purely digital environment, not shooting color negative film and under exposing, etc.). Post some pics if you got 'em!

Dan Winters: Master Of The Timeless Portraits - Digital Photo Pro | DigitalPhotoPro.com


----------



## Derrel (Feb 10, 2010)

Most of Dan Winters' on-line portfolio portraits are shot on large-format Kodak VC 160 film. I cannot say that I have ever seen his photos until today, but I do like kind of lower-light, very simple portraiture shot with one main light and a large 4x6 foot reflector for fill,and a sort of old-school hair light/separation light done with a deep parabolic reflector with a grid, a diffuser, and a barn door set to control the separation light.

This is with very low levels of flash power; typically as little as 200 watt-seconds from the main light, 50 watt-seconds on the hairlight, and 50 watt-seconds on the background light. I shoot in RAW with the EOS 5D, and convert to monochrome with a Gradient Mask. I strive for "realism", which means very little makeup on women, pores that show, and no heavy processing, but just a natural,subtle look, lighted entirely in-camera and all done on a single layer.


----------



## epp_b (Feb 10, 2010)

I just wanted to point out something that I thought was interesting.

The first photo I saw on DW's website this portrait of Obama:





Funny how it disobeys all the "rules" on portraiture, particularly the one about the use of wide angles.  He clearly used anything _but_ a telephoto for this shot, yet, it really works.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Feb 11, 2010)

epp_b said:


> I just wanted to point out something that I thought was interesting.
> 
> The first photo I saw on DW's website this portrait of Obama:
> 
> ...



Really?  I think that photo is absolutely awful.  The second it loaded on his page, I was like, whoaaa, worst shot I've ever seen of President Obama.  THe first thing I noticed was the barely attached ear on the side of his head.  The a terrible angle,and it makes his ear look huge.  And the wide angle distortion makes his nose look giant as well.  It looks like he is using a 24/1.4 on a FF body or something.  His lips are sharper than his eyes, and the skin tone is washed out an pale.  Not a fan of the beauty dish glow on his forehead either.  But whatever, he gets tons of work, so people must like it.


----------



## thoughtcryme (Feb 12, 2010)

> I strive for "realism", which means very little makeup on women, pores that show


You do know that having pores showing with no makeup is something women hate, right?


----------



## DScience (Feb 12, 2010)

GeneralBenson said:


> epp_b said:
> 
> 
> > I just wanted to point out something that I thought was interesting.
> ...



LOL You're funny. 

I think that photo is amazing!


----------



## GeneralBenson (Feb 12, 2010)

DScience said:


> GeneralBenson said:
> 
> 
> > epp_b said:
> ...



Tell me why.


----------



## epp_b (Feb 12, 2010)

Perhaps it's because everything about the President is portrayed far too seriously.  Even when he's smiling for a press photo, it's a serious and disingenuous smile.  I'm not saying he's inherently dishonest; but no one is _that_ happy all the time.

That picture shows a seemingly natural, unforced expression of satisfaction.  The exaggeration created by the wide angle paints him in a lighter mood.


----------



## DScience (Feb 12, 2010)

GeneralBenson said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > GeneralBenson said:
> ...



Why you're funny? Or why I think the photo's amazing?


----------



## GeneralBenson (Feb 13, 2010)

DScience said:


> GeneralBenson said:
> 
> 
> > DScience said:
> ...



Why you like it.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Feb 13, 2010)

epp_b said:


> Perhaps it's because everything about the President is portrayed far too seriously.  Even when he's smiling for a press photo, it's a serious and disingenuous smile.  I'm not saying he's inherently dishonest; but no one is _that_ happy all the time.
> 
> That picture shows a seemingly natural, unforced expression of satisfaction.  The exaggeration created by the wide angle paints him in a lighter mood.



I pretty much agree with all of that.  And it's not the wie angle distortion that bother me, as much as it is the angle.  I like the light mood that the wide angle produces, but the floating camera left ear, and the fact that he has an extra inch of face in his camera left side due to wide angle interpretation, kills it for me.  His face just looks all sorts of tweaked, and not just in the wide angle way.  His eyes aren't centered under his forehead, his lips aren't centered under his nose, his head isn't centered over his neck, one ear is half buried in his cheek, and the other one is trying to escape his head entirely.  If the pose was slightly more straight on so his facial symmetry didn't get so jacked up, I would like it a lot more.


----------



## Foxman (Feb 13, 2010)

When I saw the Obama shot I was reminded of those caricature drawings that you get done at an amusement park such as:  www.fanpop.com/.../title/barack-obama-caricature

Pretty amusing drawings. Not sure what the intent of this particular photo was, but if it was intended to be unflattering and a bit caricature like then it achieved it's intended result.


----------



## andrew99 (Feb 14, 2010)

Foxman said:


> When I saw the Obama shot I was reminded of those caricature drawings that you get done at an amusement park such as:  www.fanpop.com/.../title/barack-obama-caricature
> 
> Pretty amusing drawings. Not sure what the intent of this particular photo was, but if it was intended to be unflattering and a bit caricature like then it achieved it's intended result.



Funny you say that, my first reaction was that it reminded me of Mad Magazine from when I was kid.  "What, me worry?"  

I do like the ring light effect, though, the lighting is really good.


----------



## thoughtcryme (Feb 15, 2010)

I nver heard of Dan Winters until now.
But I'm new.
Any style or look can be recreated.
But that won't get you anywhere.
It would be much more of an achievement to develop your own.
Even better than his photos themselves is his philosophy in general that he applies to his work.
He's not a general photographer in a technical sense.
He's an artist and he puts every bit of himself into his artwork.
Which is precisely why he's so renowned.
He doesn't take photos to earn a living, he lives and breathes his art.
Photography is a vehicle for him.

It seems like many photographers forget that it's about the work and the process.
Not the tools.
Cameras lights and lenses are great, and they are the tools of the trade.
But photography isn't about materialistic *stuff*.


----------



## rallysman (Feb 15, 2010)

GeneralBenson said:


> epp_b said:
> 
> 
> > I just wanted to point out something that I thought was interesting.
> ...



I think that's an amazing shot. I'm still a complete amateur but I love to hear why people dislike photos that others are fond of. 

Please show me the correct way. Link me to a photo that you've done correctly. I notice the things that you've mentioned but I'd love to see a similar picture that's more flattering.


----------



## thoughtcryme (Feb 16, 2010)

> Really? I think that photo is absolutely awful. The second it loaded on his page, I was like, whoaaa, worst shot I've ever seen of President Obama. THe first thing I noticed was the barely attached ear on the side of his head. The a terrible angle,and it makes his ear look huge. And the wide angle distortion makes his nose look giant as well. It looks like he is using a 24/1.4 on a FF body or something. His lips are sharper than his eyes, and the skin tone is washed out an pale. Not a fan of the beauty dish glow on his forehead either. But whatever, he gets tons of work, so people must like it.


That's his distinct style you're talking about.
By what you've said, I have a sneaking suspicion that you're a technical photographer, not an artistic photographer?
Only reason I say this is because the things you listed that you dislike are mostly rules of thumb that he has broken to achieve his signature look.
And only a technical photographer would have a problem with that.

The reason the skin tone is drab is because he wants it that way.
I read an article about him on the link above and it mentioned that he chooses to mute the colors.
Personally I think his shots are amazing.
Pretty much everything about them is great.
The thing I like most about them is that they're NOT technically correct.
Technically correct photos are a dime a dozen.
Which is boring  IMO.


----------

