# How is this style of shot done?



## Hair Bear (Dec 12, 2006)

This is not my work but fasinates me

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/6594/296911408c3268ce4e9ozy3.jpg

The guys full set can been seen here and its worth a look. I find all of his images very very good.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/all_the_names_are_already_taken_pfff/296911408/in/set-1705874/

I have emailed him to ask but got no response.

I'm not sure if he is digital but I did see a tag on one pic for 30D but others have neg boarders?

I'm interested in how you get so much contrast in the shots, is it done in PS after or captured on the image?

Can anybody help or know how its done?


----------



## Flash Harry (Dec 12, 2006)

this effect is very similar to UV photography results I did at college, if memory serves correct. Other than that its probably on a grade 4 paper and an overexposed (enlarger) overcooked normal portrait.


----------



## Hair Bear (Dec 12, 2006)

Hi Flash

Are you suggesting this is done by filter or by processing onto a specific paper ie grade 4?


----------



## fmw (Dec 12, 2006)

He made a photograph of a man with a dirty face.


----------



## ndroo (Dec 12, 2006)

Maybe the Dragan action was used. Not too sure but you can try this

http://www.atncentral.com/download.htm

Look for Dragan. Might be the monochrome version.


----------



## Hair Bear (Dec 12, 2006)

fmw said:
			
		

> He made a photograph of a man with a dirty face.


Clearly a technical observation there thanks, but that doesn't tell me how to get that sort of tonal quality and range.

Look at the balance between the skin tones and hair

If you look at his shots they are all very similar in style and its not just because they all have dirt on their faces


----------



## Hair Bear (Dec 12, 2006)

ndroo said:
			
		

> Maybe the Dragan action was used. Not too sure but you can try this
> 
> http://www.atncentral.com/download.htm
> 
> Look for Dragan. Might be the monochrome version.




Thanks, I just had alook at that and ran it on an image taken by a supplier. It puts out some interesting results. Not sure if its the answer but thank you


----------



## myopia (Dec 12, 2006)

fmw said:
			
		

> He made a photograph of a man with a dirty face.



you win the most-helpful award hands down.


----------



## fmw (Dec 12, 2006)

Come on, guys chill out.  It is simply a low key high contrast image of a human face.  There wasn't anything special about the way it was shot.  It was worked carefully in the darkroom and some effort was made to reduce dynamic range through the use of PS or through burning and dodging.  I fail to see any magic in it.  Don't mistake me,  I think it's a good image but I don't understand why people see some mystery in the way it looks.


----------



## Alex_B (Dec 12, 2006)

actually i go along with Fred here ... that looks just like some play with levels and curves to increase contrast without blowing too much of the highlights.

It is a great image though and the effect works really nicely!


----------



## Mad_Gnome (Dec 12, 2006)

That guy has had his nose broken pretty severely at some point in his past.


----------



## sigmuh (Dec 12, 2006)

I would also have to agree. There's nothing worth praising in that photo.
We're all talking about that B&W photo of the man with the broken nose, right?
If you slap it into greyscale (or do it a better way by changing your Levels and then using the Channel Mixer or Gradiant Map), then jack up the contrast.. you'd get that image.


----------



## Hair Bear (Dec 13, 2006)

fmw said:
			
		

> Come on, guys chill out.  It is simply a low key high contrast image of a human face.  There wasn't anything special about the way it was shot.  It was worked carefully in the darkroom and some effort was made to reduce dynamic range through the use of PS or through burning and dodging.  I fail to see any magic in it.  Don't mistake me,  I think it's a good image but I don't understand why people see some mystery in the way it looks.



The magic, too me, is that I don't know how it was done. 

What is low key high contrast and how is that done?

And frankly I don't see anybody who thinks this style, and the way the picture is taken, actually showing examples of how 'they' have done or would do similar.

In order to be able to adjust the contrast on an image like that you need a very good base.

You also need to get close to get that detail, very close I think.

Did any of you, who think this is easy, actually look at his photo stream? It seems most of the images are of people on the street. They are hard to shoot, you have to be carefull and sensative.

Remember you are stood infront of somebody who sleeps on the street with £?k worth of kit in your hand and probably cash in your pocket. They have nothing to loose, you do.

Not withstanding the fact that I like the style and I am instersted in how it was actually done. And given they are street shots, they are well composed, balanced, sharp and interesting. Can we all say that our shots are the same? < thats a not aimed at anybody, just a general question to us all.


----------



## Hair Bear (Dec 13, 2006)

sigmuh said:
			
		

> I would also have to agree. There's nothing worth praising in that photo.
> We're all talking about that B&W photo of the man with the broken nose, right?
> If you slap it into greyscale (or do it a better way by changing your Levels and then using the Channel Mixer or Gradiant Map), then jack up the contrast.. you'd get that image.


Sigmuh, post some of your work up for me to see. 

Frankly anybody who thinks there is nothing worth praising in that photo is clearly a genius and I would love to see his photos so I could lash an equal amount of praise on him.


----------



## Digital Matt (Dec 13, 2006)

I'm pretty sure this is digital, and not film here, so I think it's safe to end the discussion of graded paper and burning.  It's just natural light.  Look into his eyes.  It's a very simple vignette added to darken the edges and draw your eyes to the center.  You don't need to be very close to get detail in skin.  You just need to have a good lens, and sharpen the photo very well in photoshop.  Also, yes, the contrast was maximized.  By low key, Fred meant that the image overall, contains a lot of contrast and shadow tones, as opposed to high key, in which the photograph would have a lower contrast and contain mostly highlights.


----------



## Alex_B (Dec 13, 2006)

Hair Bear said:
			
		

> In order to be able to adjust the contrast on an image like that you need a very good base.
> 
> You also need to get close to get that detail, very close I think.
> 
> Did any of you, who think this is easy, actually look at his photo stream?



Yes

Yes / or a very good lens

Yes

and none of us said this was a bad image.. actually that person probably knows well how to take technically very good images! We are not saying his photography is not good! Just, his postprocessing seems to be not magic .

Keep in mind, that some of the people who answered have been pros for a long time (even decades) and others (like me) have seen a lot of pro work at least (not saying that this did have an effect on my own work though  ) ... so you get somehow used to technically good photography and don't cheer that loudly anymore 

In terms of his models ... apparently people on the street ... they appear to have been quite willing to be models as they seem totally aware of the camera and joined in the game.... my respects go out for the photographer for this, and for the composition of some of his images ... but all this was not the centre of this debate


----------



## Hair Bear (Dec 13, 2006)

Alex_B said:
			
		

> Yes
> 
> Yes / or a very good lens
> 
> ...



Thanks for the feed back Alex

I felt the indirect, its just a shot of a guy with a dirty face, and in one case direct, There's nothing worth praising in that photo, inferance was that the image wasn't really that good, hence why I have asked to see a good sample from anybody that cares to post one.

Its because some of the people on here have worked for decades and are or have seen pro work that I posted the question, looking for help from people who know etc.

And I agree his work in general was not the point of the thread, more to gain an clear understanding of how it might be done. Although I still feel his work is very good on a lot of levels but would agree it is highly processed.

And I still don't think it has been explained that well either. Its a little like the lens question I asked a while ago, people quote standard answers but never really back them up.

I would have thought, given the number of semi pros and worked in the industry for decaes types, that it would be a simple thing to explain how that type of shot happens.

1 get close to subject, whils controlling light even if out side
2 I don't know thats why I'm asking
3 If its a PS job then refere to 2 because I still don't know
etc etc etc


----------



## Hair Bear (Dec 13, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure this is digital, and not film here, so I think it's safe to end the discussion of graded paper and burning.  It's just natural light.  Look into his eyes.  It's a very simple vignette added to darken the edges and draw your eyes to the center.  You don't need to be very close to get detail in skin.  You just need to have a good lens, and sharpen the photo very well in photoshop.  Also, yes, the contrast was maximized.  By low key, Fred meant that the image overall, contains a lot of contrast and shadow tones, as opposed to high key, in which the photograph would have a lower contrast and contain mostly highlights.



So the lens thing might be an example of the difference between my older Nikon slr Kit and the moderen day D80 or D200 for example.

Like cars they get better/more advanced? And therefore capture more detail?


----------



## Digital Matt (Dec 13, 2006)

I don't think it's fair to say that any modern lens is better than any older lens.  A good prime lens is going to be sharper than a cheap zoom, and any lens is sharper when stopped down a few stops from wide open.  Knowing how to get the most out of your lenses is important.  Lighting is crucial to bringing out detail as well.


----------



## Hair Bear (Dec 13, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> I don't think it's fair to say that any modern lens is better than any older lens.  A good prime lens is going to be sharper than a cheap zoom, and any lens is sharper when stopped down a few stops from wide open.  Knowing how to get the most out of your lenses is important.  Lighting is crucial to bringing out detail as well.



thanks Matt, I just learned something about lenses.

So rather rather than having it on max aperture to get light its always better to stop it down to keep quality in the pic. That might explain a few problems I have had recently!

I have a 35-70 on my nikon and a fixed 45 on the Yashica but you have to get in very close with both to fill the frame on a portrait shot! A fixed 50mm would be the same but with better F stop.

So I may be better investing in a 150mm for these types of full frame shots?


----------



## Digital Matt (Dec 13, 2006)

Hair Bear said:
			
		

> thanks Matt, I just learned something about lenses.
> 
> So rather rather than having it on max aperture to get light its always better to stop it down to keep quality in the pic. That might explain a few problems I have had recently!
> 
> ...



I wouldn't say "always" for anything art related.  There are no rules.  If you want shallow depth of field, then you gotta open up the aperture.  Better lenses are sharp all the way through.  I don't know about the quality of your lenses, but they might not be very sharp wide open.  Also, generally you shouldn't be using something less than 80mm, (50mm on a digital aps sensor) for portraits, because you are distorting the face.  For head and shoulder portraits, a focal length of 135mm or around there is preferrable.


----------



## Hair Bear (Dec 13, 2006)

Your a star Matt. 

In two simple posts I've learnt two things I didn't know - thank you.

I just had a scan on Ebay for a 150mm and there not cheap, may have to start putting pennies in a jar for it.


----------



## Digital Matt (Dec 13, 2006)

Lenses are usually the most expensive, and most important part of your setup.


----------



## sigmuh (Dec 13, 2006)

Hair Bair:
Clearly, you cannot get an image like that straight-out-of-the-camera. Therefore, where did I conclude that their photography was ****? What I meant was, as somebody already mentioned, there's nothing AWESOME about the post-processing that was involved. DID YOU READ MY HINTS ON HOW TO POST-PROCESS THAT IN PHOTOSHOP?


----------



## Digital Matt (Dec 13, 2006)

sigmuh said:
			
		

> Hair Bair:
> Therefore, where did I conclude that their photography was ****?





			
				sigmuh said:
			
		

> There's nothing worth praising in that photo.



Anyway.  It's over.  No need to get upset.


----------



## Hair Bear (Dec 13, 2006)

sigmuh said:
			
		

> Hair Bair:
> Clearly, you cannot get an image like that straight-out-of-the-camera. Therefore, where did I conclude that their photography was ****? What I meant was, as somebody already mentioned, there's nothing AWESOME about the post-processing that was involved. DID YOU READ MY HINTS ON HOW TO POST-PROCESS THAT IN PHOTOSHOP?



I read your post Sigmuh - There's nothing worth praising in that photo - thats what you said.

Then you went on to give a vague, IMO, HINT on how it might be done.

This part of the forum is called beyond the basics and I was expecting a more detailed description of a technique to gain that result.

I'm willing to concede that reading posts on a forum can be open to interpretation and therefore I may have taken it too literal when you said things like, 'There's nothing worth praising in that photo, we are just talking about a man with a broken nose'. Although that seems fairly clear to me and I don't remember asking for description of the image content.

However, if I have read into your post too much then please could you expand on how you think your 'HINTS' would result in a picture like that and what sort of base photo you think would be needed?

I don't think its as easy as your making out, hence why I have asked for more details. I have images I can try your 'hints' on and see what comes out.

I think the base shot is well composed, well focused and well balanced. I have no real idea how that gets processed into that look and thats why I posted the question.

Post up a picture with a before and after for me to look at and marvel at your magic.


----------



## newrmdmike (Dec 13, 2006)

heres how i got similar results.

lab sharpening, curves, mask out around the eye so i can still see it, bw conversion near green channel.  resize, resharpen.  the sharpening is a bit much here, but i wasn't sure how much to oversharpen to accomadate picturetrails quality loss.

also i could have made his skin a little lighter, but what the heck

and this is my uncle, not some homeless dude with an uber rough face.


----------



## ANDS! (Dec 13, 2006)

I think its a fabulous image - or is to someone who is new to Hobby Photography - and is probably the source of amazement.  Cant imagine if you showed a child an airplane, they wouldnt be amazed the first time.


----------



## Hair Bear (Dec 13, 2006)

newrmdmike said:
			
		

> heres how i got similar results.
> 
> lab sharpening, curves, mask out around the eye so i can still see it, bw conversion near green channel.  resize, resharpen.  the sharpening is a bit much here, but i wasn't sure how much to oversharpen to accomadate picturetrails quality loss.
> 
> ...



Good post thanks, thats getting really close to it.

Do you mind me asking what the original was like.

I didn't think on the image I posted there was much sharpening as the hair was still OK and no signs between the dark and light transistions


----------



## fmw (Dec 13, 2006)

I think you folks are mistaking me.  I didn't say the image didn't deserve praise.  In fact I said it was a good image.  My original answer was genuine.  The photographer took an photo of a man with a dirty face.  It speaks about hard work and even possibly exhaustion.  I have no problem with the image at all.  But there is nothing unusual technically with the image.

Nobody would imagine that it was a surreptitious shot.  Im sure the photographer asked for the shot and the subject agreed to it.  I don't know how close the photographer was.  I would guess ( just a guess) based on the perspective that it was shot with a medium telephoto from about 6 or 8 feet or so.  Yes, the photographer used a good lens and made a sharp image.   That is one of the reasons it is successful.  Assuming it is digital, the contrast was raised and the overall image darkened to produce the low key presentation.  If it was printed in a darkroom it would be underexposed some and printed on hard paper to produce a similar thing.

This shot is no different than a snapshot you might take of your child except that the subject has a more weatherbeaten (and dirty) face that is interesting for that reason.    You could produce the same presentation with one of your family snapshots and without any real difficulty.  

Sorry, I didn't mean to seem condescending.  I was just trying to figure out why it seemed mysterious to some.  Successful images evoke thought on the part of viewers.  Obviously this was a successful image.


----------



## newrmdmike (Dec 13, 2006)

heres the original.







and yeah, the first one i put up was perhaps overly sharp, but i have problems with my image host with maintaining the quality, so normally i lose sharpness.

im switching to photobucket


----------



## Hair Bear (Dec 13, 2006)

fmw said:
			
		

> I think you folks are mistaking me.  I didn't say the image didn't deserve praise.  In fact I said it was a good image.  My original answer was genuine.  The photographer took an photo of a man with a dirty face.  It speaks about hard work and even possibly exhaustion.  I have no problem with the image at all.  But there is nothing unusual technically with the image.
> 
> Nobody would imagine that it was a surreptitious shot.  Im sure the photographer asked for the shot and the subject agreed to it.  I don't know how close the photographer was.  I would guess ( just a guess) based on the perspective that it was shot with a medium telephoto from about 6 or 8 feet or so.  Yes, the photographer used a good lens and made a sharp image.   That is one of the reasons it is successful.  Assuming it is digital, the contrast was raised and the overall image darkened to produce the low key presentation.  If it was printed in a darkroom it would be underexposed some and printed on hard paper to produce a similar thing.
> 
> ...



thank you


----------



## Hair Bear (Dec 13, 2006)

newrmdmike said:
			
		

> heres the original.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cool, you can see the difference in his beard with the sharping. Great example of how it might be done and its strarting to make some sense.

I'm not sure if I have the type of image I can play with but ill have alook through what i got and have a go based around your comments.

Thanks again


----------



## newrmdmike (Dec 13, 2006)

i think i've got it down now . . . 






to 






now, if only i could do that backwards!!


----------



## Hair Bear (Dec 14, 2006)

lol, I wouldn't show her that!

Need to get the lips back and its there.

Good pics btw


----------



## Iron Flatline (Dec 14, 2006)

LOL newrmdmike, you've taken a well-kempt mature woman and made her look like a Walker Evans subject. She'd never forgive you. 

I'm a little late in piping into this conversation. I agree that the original picture that set off this thread is a good image, but I agree that it takes experience in fine-tuning the image to its current point. Whether dark room or Photoshop, there is a lot of subtle perfection that someone lacking experience might find daunting. I've seen very simple-seeming B&W shots actually be the result of several layers, each adjusted for luminosity and transparency. I cannot contribute much in terms of specific techniques, but there a lot of tutorials around the internet that specialize in rendering B&W in Photoshop. Follow them, and build up an understanding of what each setting does.

Good luck.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Dec 14, 2006)

Hair Bear said:
			
		

> You also need to get close to get that detail, very close I think.
> 
> Did any of you, who think this is easy, actually look at his photo stream? It seems most of the images are of people on the street. They are hard to shoot, you have to be carefull and sensative.
> 
> Remember you are stood infront of somebody who sleeps on the street with £?k worth of kit in your hand and probably cash in your pocket. They have nothing to loose, you do.


One more thing: let me be the most cynical I can for a moment: not all homeless people are sage-like gentle folk who've had nothing but bad luck and need to be treated gently and sensitively. I am NOT about to get into a conversation about how someone ended up homeless, I will NOT blame the victim, and I KNOW for SURE that I don't envy their life. Having said that, I know guys (me included at college in NY 20 years ago) that would ask these guys to take their pictures in return for $5 or a six-pack of beer. A lot of these guys don't want to be treated like charity cases that need to be cradled in strong defending arms, they would rather be dealt with like grown-ups, or better even would prefer it if you just gave them a bottle of something decent, take your pictures, and then go away. If you REALLY want to take expressive pictures of poor people, think about compensating them for their modeling work. And if they prefer booze over money than don't be moralistic or condescending - either give them what they want or go find a different model. 

...and have some sense about you. Some WILL beat you and sell your camera.


----------



## newrmdmike (Dec 14, 2006)

true that, i was at an abandoned theme park-sea world type thing in galveston and a homeless guy kind of snuck up on us, scared us to death. . . after a while my friend gave him some beer money and boom, he was off to the store for somthin cheap.


----------



## Hair Bear (Dec 14, 2006)

Iron Flatline said:
			
		

> One more thing: let me be the most cynical I can for a moment: not all homeless people are sage-like gentle folk who've had nothing but bad luck and need to be treated gently and sensitively. I am NOT about to get into a conversation about how someone ended up homeless, I will NOT blame the victim, and I KNOW for SURE that I don't envy their life. Having said that, I know guys (me included at college in NY 20 years ago) that would ask these guys to take their pictures in return for $5 or a six-pack of beer. A lot of these guys don't want to be treated like charity cases that need to be cradled in strong defending arms, they would rather be dealt with like grown-ups, or better even would prefer it if you just gave them a bottle of something decent, take your pictures, and then go away. If you REALLY want to take expressive pictures of poor people, think about compensating them for their modeling work. And if they prefer booze over money than don't be moralistic or condescending - either give them what they want or go find a different model.
> 
> ...and have some sense about you. Some WILL beat you and sell your camera.


All good points, I have been trying to work with some of the Big Issue sellers around the town. Some are Ok and freindly and a bit surprised when you want to actually talk to them

A couple of the beggars are Ok, one guy I have been buying him a tea when i see him - if I take his pic or not. I don't do the booze thing, cash maybe but a cuppa or a sarnie seems to hit the spot.

Plus my gears not too flash, I can run quite well if required or I'm a reasonable size if I need to stand my ground!!

I would like to take some shots where they sleep but that is into the lions den. I'm building up to it as I get to know 1 or 2 of them.


----------



## Nurd (Dec 18, 2006)

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59644

we did a photoshop challenge thing ..if you scroll threw the pictures and see one you like, I'm sure that person would be happy to tell you what they did if you pm'd them. Just trying to help


----------



## Alex_B (Dec 18, 2006)

Iron Flatline said:
			
		

> ...and have some sense about you. Some WILL beat you and sell your camera.



Well, that is one thing I am never really aware of, but people keep telling me and they are probably right ... when you walk around with all that expensive gear on you, you are the perfect catch for any bad guy or gang to boost up their income. Not sure if those white lenses from Canon were a good idea  

But what can one do? Even if you are a good fighter, with all that gear on you, you can only  run (potentially dropping some), or fight (most likely getting a lot of the things seriously damaged), or just give it all to them with a smile (just to get beaten up yourself afterwards).

It is really harder to defend your camera gear than to defend your cash (as it is not as bulky and heavy).


----------



## neea (Dec 18, 2006)

wow. so much debating going on here.

I love this effect also. It seems to bring something out in peoples faces.
Makes me think 'Now what is their story?'

I think that's what is so appealling here... at least for me.


----------



## thebeginning (Jan 3, 2007)

i havent read all the comments so i dont know what the last several comments are about or if the subject has changed...

...but there was definitely more than just a simple bw conversion, vignetting, and sharpening in that photo, as well as most of his others.  trying to duplicate that effect takes more work than that.  there's a good amount of burning and dodging, and he probably converted it with a mixture of channels (looks like a mixture between green and blue).


----------



## thebeginning (Jan 3, 2007)

i gave something a try with an old photo and ended up with this...just a bunch of dodging and burning...mixture of gray and green channels for the face.


----------



## Hair Bear (Jan 3, 2007)

Good try, i like where you got to with it but would like to see the original to compair


----------



## Mad_Gnome (Jan 3, 2007)

Just finished this one a few minutes ago. Converted to B&W with Channel Mixer, turned down the red channel and bumped the green and blue, added a curves layer and sharpened.


----------



## thebeginning (Jan 3, 2007)

here's the original:


----------



## Hair Bear (Jan 5, 2007)

thebeginning, thats quite a transformation and I think about there


----------



## tulie (Jan 15, 2007)

I worte R and told him there was a whole thread dialoge going on over his images. He was surprised. Here's a man that I am sure R's influenced by who's work I think is similar

http://andrzejdragan.com/


----------



## thebeginning (Jan 15, 2007)

oh yes, dragan.  i think he was mentioned earlier, thanks for posting the link though, tulie!


----------



## newrmdmike (Jan 15, 2007)

i gave it another go, and this is what i've got . . .


----------



## Hair Bear (Jul 13, 2007)

Sorry only just came back to this after taking a street shot that could be used

great shot above


----------



## danalec99 (Jul 14, 2007)

Thanks for sharing that flickr link. Some powerful shots in there.
The 'face' is an exciting subject. The more aged and rough, the better. It's a personal project that I plan to start someday.

There is another photographer that you might want to check out for inspiration. Chuck Close. 
PDN covered him in the January 2007 issue if you can get it. That cover shot alone is worth the subscription! Here is the link to the article if you have a subscription.


----------



## holga girl (Jul 17, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


> One more thing: let me be the most cynical I can for a moment: not all homeless people are sage-like gentle folk who've had nothing but bad luck and need to be treated gently and sensitively. I am NOT about to get into a conversation about how someone ended up homeless, I will NOT blame the victim, and I KNOW for SURE that I don't envy their life. Having said that, I know guys (me included at college in NY 20 years ago) that would ask these guys to take their pictures in return for $5 or a six-pack of beer. A lot of these guys don't want to be treated like charity cases that need to be cradled in strong defending arms, they would rather be dealt with like grown-ups, or better even would prefer it if you just gave them a bottle of something decent, take your pictures, and then go away. If you REALLY want to take expressive pictures of poor people, think about compensating them for their modeling work. And if they prefer booze over money than don't be moralistic or condescending - either give them what they want or go find a different model.
> 
> ...and have some sense about you. Some WILL beat you and sell your camera.




well said. my husband was homeless for 5 years before we met. over the years that we have been together i have had the chance to get to know several 'street' people. and i can say this, that is just what they are, people. some are there of their own actions and some are there due to holes in the government. no matter what their reason, they are still people, and people worthy of respect. if you met my husband now, you would never believe he used to eat out of dumpsters and sleep in allies.  

a great example of how none of us are immune to anything.

okay, back to your thread...sorry.


----------



## Chronicle (Jul 17, 2007)

sigmuh said:


> Hair Bair:
> Clearly, you cannot get an image like that straight-out-of-the-camera. Therefore, where did I conclude that their photography was ****? What I meant was, as somebody already mentioned, there's nothing AWESOME about the post-processing that was involved. DID YOU READ MY HINTS ON HOW TO POST-PROCESS THAT IN PHOTOSHOP?



Jericho effect on fine grain B&W would result in high contrast.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 17, 2007)

Seen that effect a million times before. It's so terribly played out by now, though a number of people become intent upon their images looking like that after discovering it. It's a mix of high pass, sharpening, and contrast adjustment layers.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jul 17, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> Seen that effect a million times before. It's so terribly played out by now, though a number of people become intent upon their images looking like that after discovering it. It's a mix of high pass, sharpening, and contrast adjustment layers.


There's nothing wrong with adapting a style that's been around for a while. Not everyhting needs to be dead original every time out. I like a lot of new alternative bands, but I'll listen to the Blues or a lot of Jazz as well, even if it's being played by a younger musician.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 17, 2007)

I didn't say there was anything wrong with adapting anything. Emulating others' work is simply part of the artistic process to a great extent. Most people do not adapt that style, however. They copy.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jul 17, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> Seen that effect a million times before. It's so terribly played out by now, though a number of people become intent upon their images looking like that after discovering it.



Max's stock answer "It's all cliche."  I'd love to see some of your innovative photography, Max, but you seem reluctant to share it:  very few posted photos, no website link, etc..., just a lot of hot air about how lame everyone else's photos are.  Let's see what amazing things you are doing.

Anyway, my opinion as to why it looks the way it does is local contrast effects.  There are a lot of ways to go about tweaking local contrast:  lens choice, developer choice, lighting, split contrast printing, burning/dodging, numerous ways in digital processing....  An easy way to tweak local contrast in a similar manner as the example posted would be to use unsharp mask with a low amount percentage, and a high radius:  something like 15%-20% amount, and 20+ radius.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 17, 2007)

ksmattfish said:


> Max's stock answer "It's all cliche."  I'd love to see some of your innovative photography, Max, but you seem reluctant to share it:  very few posted photos, no website link, etc..., just a lot of hot air about how lame everyone else's photos are.  Let's see what amazing things you are doing.



It should be painfully obvious to anyone who follows digital post processing trends that the draganizing effect has been around for quite some time, and has been copied by everyone and their mother, including a million people who have made PS actions emulating it. Just because some people haven't been exposed to it yet doesn't make it any less overdone, and it doesn't take a brilliant photographer or post-processor to see that. So go to your medicine cabinet, get out the Preparation-H, and come back when you're ready to stop acting macho.


----------



## Nikon Norm (Jul 18, 2007)

Hair Bear said:


> This is not my work but fasinates me
> 
> http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/6594/296911408c3268ce4e9ozy3.jpg
> 
> ...



This maybe the effect you are looking for, : http://www.comunidadeweb.com.br/materias/heidertorres/at10/dragan-effect.zip

It is a non English langague, but you can follow the process with photoshop.


----------

