# How does Lee Jeffries get this effect?



## jwbryson1

I LOVE this style of photograph and would like to do something like this, but I have no clue how it's done.  Anybody have an idea how he achieves this result?

Gripping Black and White Portraits of the Homeless by Lee Jeffries «TwistedSifter


----------



## invisible

I don't have a clue how he does it, but Lee Jeffries is probably my favourite photographer out there. And I'm not even into portraiture.


----------



## amolitor

Curves adjustment to push a great deal of contrast into wherever the skin tones are falling, and letting the rest of the tones fall where they may.

Frequently, a small softbox or similar moderately diffuse light source (maybe just a window) centered and high to create a lot of strong skin texture.

It's a trendy fashion trope these days, you shovel all the contrast into the midtones, more or less. But this guy is definitely putting it into the skin tones specifically.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Wow he does some nice pics. Some of this forum frown at pics of the homeless.


----------



## invisible

2WheelPhoto said:


> Some of this forum frown at pics of the homeless.


Yes. That link needs a "NSFI" warning.


----------



## e.rose

invisible said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of this forum frown at pics of the homeless.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That link needs a "NSFI" warning.
Click to expand...


NSFI???


----------



## invisible

e.rose said:


> invisible said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of this forum frown at pics of the homeless.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That link needs a "NSFI" warning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NSFI???
Click to expand...

Not suitable for iguanas. I thought it was obvious.


----------



## bhop

2WheelPhoto said:


> Wow he does some nice pics. Some of this forum frown at pics of the homeless.



I could be wrong, but I think it's the sneaky wannabe "street" pics with long zooms that are frowned on.  These were obviously done with permission and the knowledge of said homeless people.

further research reveals: 
quoted from his website:
«Situations arose, and I made an effort to learn to get to know each of the subjects before asking their permission to do their portrait.»  

also:"He uses his photography to draw attention to and raise funds for the homeless"
Portraits of the Homeless by Lee Jeffries - LightBox


----------



## amolitor

The issues are more complicated than that, but they're been covered in painful detail so I don't see any point in going over it again.

The look is very dramatic, but if you've been paying attention to the right corners of the industry it's actually pretty conventional. Not paying attention to every ridiculous corner of the fashion world is, of course, not a crime. He's combining some fashion tropes with some homeless-people-portraits tropes with some pretty dramatic looking people.


----------



## kathyt

I don't know, but I like his work.


----------



## jwbryson1

Are these shot in color and then converted to B&W?  I'm guessing yes, but that's just speculation because I keep hearing that shooting B&W in camera does not work that well...


----------



## invisible

jwbryson1 said:


> Are these shot in color and then converted to B&W?  I'm guessing yes, but that's just speculation because I keep hearing that shooting B&W in camera does not work that well...


He has a Flickr account (*&#8203;*Flickr: LJ.'s Photostream). I wouldn't expect him to reveal all his trade secrets to you or to anyone, but this particular question about colour/B&W I'm sure he'll be kind enough to answer. My guess is colour, converted to B&W.


----------



## tirediron

jwbryson1 said:


> I LOVE this style of photograph and would like to do something like this, but I have no clue how it's done. Anybody have an idea how he achieves this result?


I'm guessing he uses a camera....


----------



## invisible

amolitor said:


> The look is very dramatic, but if you've been paying attention to the right corners of the industry it's actually pretty conventional. Not paying attention to every ridiculous corner of the fashion world is, of course, not a crime. He's combining some fashion tropes with some homeless-people-portraits tropes with some pretty dramatic looking people.


Every time the TPF crowd is enjoying a photo or artist, you are there with a dismissive comment. In this case, to dismiss a photographer that's respected worldwide, your weapon of choice is the "it's been done thousands of times" argument. Newsflash for you: everything has been invented. Every new style or idea is a mesh of previous styles or ideas. Your posts tend to be a combination of 5% backhanded positive comments and 95% outright negative stuff that never comes across as constructive. Here's a novel idea for you: how about inverting the equation for a change?

I've only read two or three of your posts today, enough to tell you're on a roll.


----------



## jwbryson1

tirediron said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I LOVE this style of photograph and would like to do something like this, but I have no clue how it's done. Anybody have an idea how he achieves this result?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing he uses a camera....
Click to expand...


:taped sh:


----------



## amolitor

invisible said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The look is very dramatic, but if you've been paying attention to the right corners of the industry it's actually pretty conventional. Not paying attention to every ridiculous corner of the fashion world is, of course, not a crime. He's combining some fashion tropes with some homeless-people-portraits tropes with some pretty dramatic looking people.
> 
> 
> 
> Every time the TPF crowd is enjoying a photo or artist, you are there with a dismissive comment. In this case, to dismiss a photographer that's respected worldwide, your weapon of choice is the "it's been done thousands of times" argument. Newsflash for you: everything has been invented. Every new style or idea is a mesh of previous styles or ideas. Your posts tend to be a combination of 5% backhanded positive comments and 95% outright negative stuff that never comes across as constructive. Here's a novel idea for you: how about inverting the equation for a change?
> 
> I've only read two or three of your posts today, enough to tell you're on a roll.
Click to expand...


You'll notice that I wrote the _only reply_ to actually address the OP's question. My remarks on the guy's work are simply factual, if you want to read them as dismissive, feel free. I don't actually care what your opinion of me is.


----------



## tirediron

Okay folks, let's try and keep this at least semi on-topic and not turn it into a discussion on types or styles of photography or the photograph or don't photograph the homeless debate?

K?

Thanks!


----------



## invisible

amolitor said:


> invisible said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The look is very dramatic, but if you've been paying attention to the right corners of the industry it's actually pretty conventional. Not paying attention to every ridiculous corner of the fashion world is, of course, not a crime. He's combining some fashion tropes with some homeless-people-portraits tropes with some pretty dramatic looking people.
> 
> 
> 
> Every time the TPF crowd is enjoying a photo or artist, you are there with a dismissive comment. In this case, to dismiss a photographer that's respected worldwide, your weapon of choice is the "it's been done thousands of times" argument. Newsflash for you: everything has been invented. Every new style or idea is a mesh of previous styles or ideas. Your posts tend to be a combination of 5% backhanded positive comments and 95% outright negative stuff that never comes across as constructive. Here's a novel idea for you: how about inverting the equation for a change?
> 
> I've only read two or three of your posts today, enough to tell you're on a roll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll notice that I wrote the _only reply_ to actually address the OP's question. My remarks on the guy's work are simply factual, if you want to read them as dismissive, feel free. I don't actually care what your opinion of me is.
Click to expand...

You'll also notice that what I quoted is not your _only reply_. Your _only reply_ was fine and I'm sure the OP appreciated it.


----------



## jenko

It kind of reminds me of a digital version of a wet plate process. Personally, I love the haunted look of wet plates. A contemporary that uses traditional wet plate process is Sally Mann.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan

*# 11. *Striking resemblance to Gandalf the Grey???? Did anyone else notice. 

Strong set. The lighting looks modified in post to some extent.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

invisible said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The look is very dramatic, but if you've been paying attention to the right corners of the industry it's actually pretty conventional. Not paying attention to every ridiculous corner of the fashion world is, of course, not a crime. He's combining some fashion tropes with some homeless-people-portraits tropes with some pretty dramatic looking people.
> 
> 
> 
> Every time the TPF crowd is enjoying a photo or artist, you are there with a dismissive comment. In this case, to dismiss a photographer that's respected worldwide, your weapon of choice is the "it's been done thousands of times" argument. Newsflash for you: everything has been invented. Every new style or idea is a mesh of previous styles or ideas. Your posts tend to be a combination of 5% backhanded positive comments and 95% outright negative stuff that never comes across as constructive. Here's a novel idea for you: how about inverting the equation for a change?
> 
> I've only read two or three of your posts today, enough to tell you're on a roll.
Click to expand...


Its always good to have one or two very critical members  like him or it'd be a boring bland forum. And we'd bail out.


----------



## Robin_Usagani

Medium format.


----------



## Mully

This has the look of being shot on film.


----------



## leeroix

Ive been studying him for a while... 
To me looks like multiple layers, burning, dodging, painting,  mid-tone contrast bumps, Hi-pass filter adjustment, and the backgrounds are almost always changed to some gritty pattern, (some of which are the same on several pictures) with blending modes changed to get a more gritty feel. I just posted a dog picture with similar effects. The Hi-Pass filter is his friend. I think thats how he achieves the gritty, painful look. -every pore, and wrinkle is accentuated...


----------



## jenko

He shoots with a Canon 5D. Here is an interview with him. Talks a bit about his process.


----------



## rexbobcat

Looks like a lot of post processing. Not a bad thing - just my observation.

They almost approach and HDR-ish Dragan effect on some of the photos.

The only thing that I wish would be phased out or innovated somehow is the use of a gritty texture/background. This seems sooooooo prominent nowadays with fine art photographers (and popular ones at that) that it's almost cliche now...like selective color. I like to think of it as the "Brooke Shaden Effect." 

It does work in many of these images, but personally I'm a little tired of it....


----------



## leeroix

Are we going to talk about how he profits from the homeless????


----------



## runnah

This again?

Some people think this is exploitive, some think its art, and some don't care.

We are all entitled to our opinions.

There, can we all move on?


----------



## leeroix

I was joking forgot to put the


----------



## jenko

rexbobcat said:


> The only thing that I wish would be phased out or innovated somehow is the use of a gritty texture/background. This seems sooooooo prominent nowadays with fine art photographers (and popular ones at that) that it's almost cliche now...like selective color. I like to think of it as the "Brooke Shaden Effect."
> 
> It does work in many of these images, but personally I'm a little tired of it....



Agree. It feels rather nostalgic or something. 

Really, the whole series reminds me of Diane Arbus on digital wet plates. I don't know if that is good or bad.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

jenko said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that I wish would be phased out or innovated somehow is the use of a gritty texture/background. This seems sooooooo prominent nowadays with fine art photographers (and popular ones at that) that it's almost cliche now...like selective color. I like to think of it as the "Brooke Shaden Effect."
> 
> It does work in many of these images, but personally I'm a little tired of it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree. It feels rather nostalgic or something.
> 
> Really, the whole series reminds me of Diane Arbus on digital wet plates. I don't know if that is good or bad.
Click to expand...


^^^for him making money on it....its good


----------



## rexbobcat

2WheelPhoto said:


> jenko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that I wish would be phased out or innovated somehow is the use of a gritty texture/background. This seems sooooooo prominent nowadays with fine art photographers (and popular ones at that) that it's almost cliche now...like selective color. I like to think of it as the "Brooke Shaden Effect."
> 
> It does work in many of these images, but personally I'm a little tired of it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree. It feels rather nostalgic or something.
> 
> Really, the whole series reminds me of Diane Arbus on digital wet plates. I don't know if that is good or bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^^for him making money on it....its good
Click to expand...


Haha I'm not saying that he shouldn't do it. I just think it's a bit tired.

Hell he might have been one of the pioneers and everyone copied him, but it still makes me curious as to whether his "models" really look as much like caricatures from the Tim Burton universe.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

I agree indeed =)


----------



## LouR

jwbryson1 said:


> I LOVE this style of photograph and would like to do something like this, but I have no clue how it's done.  Anybody have an idea how he achieves this result?
> 
> Gripping Black and White Portraits of the Homeless by Lee Jeffries «TwistedSifter


This won't give the steps he takes, but comes close.


----------



## tirediron

jwbryson1 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I LOVE this style of photograph and would like to do something like this, but I have no clue how it's done. Anybody have an idea how he achieves this result?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing he uses a camera....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> :taped sh:
Click to expand...


----------



## cynicaster

I think what we have here is a guy who is firing on all cylinders in all facets of his craft: pre-visualization, photographic technique, and post processing.  That's an enviable skill-set to have.  

I don't typically care much for "homeless" photography because it makes me feel like the photographer is just going for easy points by appealing to sympathy, and all too often the potential impact is wasted due to uninteresting execution.  But with this set, we have the resounding thud of met potential; these photos made me feel genuinely uncomfortable--which I've no doubt is the point.


----------



## amolitor

Light from above, wide open for minimal DoF. Oversharpen the resulting file, I jammed the sharpen lever all the way over. Then curves, burning, dodging, work like hell to get contrast onto the skin. Burn down the background ruthlessly.

It turns out that pushing this much contrast into the skin tones (and the skin has very close to a full range of tones in it) makes everything else look weird, I do not know the photoshop idiom for this, but GIMP lets me create two layers, one with the right skin and one with the right everything-else. Then I add a "mask" to one of the layers, and I can airbrush in areas that are one layer, or the other, to blend them.

Sloppy airbrush technique in creating this mask mottles the skin in a gritty looking way.


----------



## leeroix

^ I think some elements still need some attention. Certain parts still look too smooth. And not nearly enough contrast in the skin. Did you use a high pass filter? the background needs more attention too, as you look superimposed onto it...

-just realized you DIDN'T use photoshop.

-nice pissed-off look though...


----------



## amolitor

I'm pretty unhappy with the lower 1/8 of the frame, but to get that right would really require a reshoot, and I'd spent enough time on it already. I probably should have just cropped it rather than making it a big airbrushed smudge, but the hoodie isn't really what I wanted to demo anyways.

I didn't mess with high pass/low pass processing, just curves and sharpening. GIMP can do that, but you pretty much have to do the math yourself 

Not sure I COULD get more contrast into the skin. My beautiful skin is just too baby smooth to come out looking right!


----------



## leeroix

^ that is part of the problem... The subjects he chooses are also ragged, and worn. Thus producing something interesting to look at.


----------



## leeroix

Just took this picture... and about 10 mins of photoshop. Couple things I already did wrong, ISO is too high, and I missed focus when running back in front of the lens. Also, the conversion to JPG sucks...



me...ragged by keips66, on Flickr


----------



## amolitor

You too have baby smooth skin, I see. We're just too god****ed pretty!

ETA: Also, you seem to have lost the midtones to a degree. It's surprisingly hard to avoid a halftone effect while simultaneously avoiding blocking up the highlights or shadows. The look when you get it right looks a bit like a newspaper, but ultra sleek and buttery too!


----------



## leeroix

The crop was off too...



me ragged by keips66, on Flickr
I suppose if I sat down and really tried, The results would be better, but this aint bad for 10 mins. And yeah, really sucks having baby smooth skin... haahah


----------



## leeroix

Maybe this is a little more appropriate. Not enough anguish in the first one...



me ragged II by keips66, on Flickr


----------



## LouR

LMAO! Now you just look like a geek who was just told Linux is no longer free.


----------



## amolitor

LouR said:


> LMAO! Now you just look like a geek who was just told Linux is no longer free.



homeless, loser, end of the world. Yep, pretty much!


----------



## leeroix

^hahaha whats linux?


----------



## Geaux

It's Double Raw Conversion technique:

Open Raw file into PS as smart object
right click on layer and "copy" as smart object (gives you two smart object raw layers independent of each other - if done wrong, one change to one, and that change affects other copy)
double click on the copy to open PS RAW and edit accordingly with high contrast, 75%-85% clarity slider, sharpen around 80-85% with .7 radius
add BW adjustment layer to the copy and adjust accordingly.
I wanna say you change the copy layer to blend mode "Luminosity" (but without program in front of me at work, I'll have to check with it when I get home - I'm better doing it than explaining it lol)

I think that's pretty much the logistics of it (of course, it won't work with EVERY image), but it has a lot to do with the lighting of the subject to get those harsh shadows.


----------

