# What makes these two photographs so stunning?



## Photo Marksman (Feb 14, 2011)

Please look at these two photographs, can anyone please tell me whether they think that there was any post processing and how they think such stunning images were achieved? This is pure magic to me.

Disclaimer, these pictures do not belong to me nor am I the artist.

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/297/d/3/breath_me_by_littleflair-d31f4q8.jpg

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/244/8/0/8078bf21419a660cc2617c9b314940ee-d2xsfoq.jpg


----------



## McNugget801 (Feb 14, 2011)

nothing.


----------



## Photo Marksman (Feb 14, 2011)

Are you serious? I find these two pictures captivating.


----------



## lyonsroar (Feb 14, 2011)

McNugget801 said:


> nothing.




^^
DING DING DING!!  Is that your FINAL answer?  You are correct.

Oh and you'd best take those pics down before a mod gets in here and lays down the ban hammer. 

I'm only joking, mods here are more rare than unicorns...


----------



## mwcfarms (Feb 14, 2011)

Just so you know. Your not supposed to post other togs work, just links so you might (probably) get your hand slapped.

First one is nothing special to me while I do enjoy the second.it looks slightly overexposed on purpose.


----------



## Photo Marksman (Feb 14, 2011)

Done, I removed the images and put some links. The second one just has a high ISO then? You don't think there was post processing?


----------



## Sbuxo (Feb 14, 2011)

lyonsroar said:


> McNugget801 said:
> 
> 
> > nothing.
> ...



what about _robot _unicorns?

i dont really find these photos captivating, the girl in the 2nd one looks like she's having menstrual cramps.


----------



## Photo Marksman (Feb 14, 2011)

Here are some more pictures that I love:

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/239/4/e/mon_dieu_by_LittleFlair.jpg

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/190/e/e/Freckles_by_alliethiessen.jpg

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/330/0/1/01f2e58beea6650d0c118917f12e6c4d-d33mru5.jpg

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs24/i/2008/335/a/0/Passionate_redhead_by_FurtiveLungs.jpg

I wish I could shoot like that.


----------



## lyonsroar (Feb 14, 2011)

Sbuxo said:


> lyonsroar said:
> 
> 
> > McNugget801 said:
> ...



I heard a tale of a mod appearing in a thread, but by the time I arrived, alas, it had disappeared...:er:


----------



## Fujito (Feb 14, 2011)

I like them. The girl on the dock is my favorite. A good subject is an integral part of a good photo. Join MM and find some amateur models to work with.


----------



## xjoewhitex (Feb 14, 2011)

Theres no need to wish, just go out and shoot. The first set of pictures you linked were somewhat boring but I liked the second group, good find.


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 14, 2011)

First of all you should tell us what you like about the images ... then maybe we can tell you how that effect is done.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 14, 2011)

Both are boring to me.

This should be a valuable lesson in art. People have widely different tastes.


----------



## kundalini (Feb 14, 2011)

The first one looks like she's being choked by a tiny pair of mittens and the stubbles have gotta hurt in the second.


----------



## mwcfarms (Feb 14, 2011)

Photo Marksman said:


> Here are some more pictures that I love:
> 
> http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/239/4/e/mon_dieu_by_LittleFlair.jpg
> 
> ...



Love the last one you linked here even if her uneven skin tone in the hands bugs me the more I look at it.  All the others are ok but i don't find them standout. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Feb 14, 2011)

that second one really looks like it hurts!!


----------



## mwcfarms (Feb 14, 2011)

Wheat stubble is softer than one might think, now if it was canola stalks I would agree.


----------



## Jinkxproof (Feb 15, 2011)

I like the creaminess of the skin in the second shot. I'm not sure how the photographer has achieved such an even milkiness but its lovely.


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 15, 2011)




----------



## KmH (Feb 15, 2011)

Photo Marksman said:


> *What makes these two photographs so stunning?*


A young man's hormones (hormoans?).....or an untrained eye.


----------



## Photo Marksman (Feb 15, 2011)

KmH said:


> Photo Marksman said:
> 
> 
> > *What makes these two photographs so stunning?*
> ...



I appreciate pictures of men too you know. It has nothing to do with the fact that all these women are beautiful. If you look at this picture, I also think it is a very interesting image.

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs42/i/2009/086/f/d/That_Smile____by_DeviousClown.jpg

I don't know what I like about the other images but it may just be the fact that they stand out. What makes a good picture in your opinion?


----------



## Sbuxo (Feb 15, 2011)

You should check out Nirrimi Hakanson, she's amazing (in my opinion).
On flickr, search for Lucia Pang and Alexandra Sophie, they're also good, their photographs are captivating to me, they're more like fashion portraits though.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Feb 15, 2011)

kundalini said:


> The first one looks like she's being choked by a tiny pair of mittens...



Exactly what I thought!!

I find nothing captivating about these from an artistic standpoint, nor do they have much merit from a technical standpoint either. 

I suspect that they are captivating to you because they look different than most of what you've seen, which gives them a uniqueness in your eye. But mostly, I think they are captivating because you don't know how they were pulled off. As you learn more and more about techniques and how things are done, you'll be surprised how many images you used to think captivating were just so on the basis of their mystery of creation. Once you know the how, you'll find that a lot of the stuff used to captivate you so much was just bad photos with pretty good processing. 

The same thing goes for lighting. So many people see images with in-your-face, complex, multiple light setups, and are all like, "OMG, that's so amazing! I'm so captivated by the lighting!" When in reality, they're just captivated by the mystery of how it was done. I went through the same phase. And the more I learned about lighting and began to understand how things were done, the more I realized that most of them were just pretty good lighting setups, for otherwise pretty crappy photos. 

Post-processing and lighting are both nothing more then skills. Nothing more than means to an end. It doesn't matter if it was natural light on a cloudy day, or a 5 light setup. It doesn't matter if you spend 3 days in photoshop, or just bumped contrast and sharpened. The final result is what matter, and if under it all there isn't a good photo, than it doesn't matter what you pile on top of it. If all your photos have going for them is great lighting, then you're just a lighting technician. If all your photos have going for them is great post, then you're just a photoshop artist. Nothing wrong with either of those, I'm just saying. But if you make great images, regardless of how, then you are a photographer.

That's my two cents, atleast...


----------



## Photo Marksman (Feb 15, 2011)

GeneralBenson said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> > The first one looks like she's being choked by a tiny pair of mittens...
> ...



You speak true!  I am indeed very curious about the technique used. With three of these pictures I contacted the creator asking me how they had been made, they had gotten it right in the camera. The others all did some sort of post processing.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Feb 15, 2011)

Well, neither of the photos that are linked in the original post are straight out of the camera. They might have gotten it right, out of the box, and far as exposure and such goes. But there is still additional post work on both of those.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 16, 2011)

Photo Marksman said:


> Done, I removed the images and put some links. The second one just has a high ISO then? You don't think there was post processing?



They shot it at 200 ISO for whatever reason at f/2.8 (this is the second photo you posted, the one in the field). If it were me, I would have just over exposed at ISO 100; as their shutter speed was 1/5000s @ ISO 200, so they definitely had some shutter speed leeway. However they were shooting with a 5D2 so there's not going to be much, if any noise at ISO 200 as it is. 

That's really the only photo I cared for, and it was mostly for the location.


----------



## djacobox372 (Feb 16, 2011)

Looks to me like you prefer washed out skin tones, and limited/controlled color palettes. 

All easy to achieve in photoshop.


----------



## robEMPire (Feb 17, 2011)

What I'm seeing is a bunch of wide-eyed women with pale skin and dark hair in a setting that contains other contrasting textures.


----------



## Christie Photo (Feb 17, 2011)

KmH said:


> Photo Marksman said:
> 
> 
> > *What makes these two photographs so stunning?*
> ...



Well...probably.  Really!

These images are meant to portray beauty.  The first best step in achieving this is securing beautiful models.  These same images made with less beautiful models would be less stunning.

-Pete


----------



## thomphoto (Feb 17, 2011)

Garbz said:


> Both are boring to me.
> 
> This should be a valuable lesson in art. People have widely different tastes.



Ditto!


----------



## RyanLilly (Feb 17, 2011)

Over smoothing of the skin, Imo, a bit overexposed as well, but this was intentional, just not my style. They are also desaturated, the the point of almost being monochrome, again easy in photoshop, but not to my personal taste. The second one also have very shallow DOF, but it is well controled with the subject well in focus, though both are a bit soft by intention.

These are just the thing that stood out to me, as different from typical photos.


----------



## ghache (Feb 17, 2011)

RyanLilly said:


> Over smoothing of the skin, Imo, a bit overexposed as well, but this was intentional, just not my style. They are also desaturated, the the point of almost being monochrome, *again easy in photoshop*, but not to my personal taste. The second one also have very shallow DOF, but it is well controled with the subject well in focus, though both are a bit soft by intention.
> 
> These are just the thing that stood out to me, as different from typical photos.


 

lol really?


----------



## ghache (Feb 17, 2011)

Most of these images are really well done, beautifull models, and magazine quality post processing, I can't believe most of you really think they are boring and not well done. it might not be your "taste" but cmon, ive seen some **** images not even close to these gettiong some "WOW ITS AMAZING" on here.


----------



## Lucky.charm (Feb 18, 2011)

First set boring


----------



## Cinka (Feb 18, 2011)

What makes them stunning? Your opinion, no offense, but it's true. I think they're nice, but I wouldn't call them stunning. 

As for technique....looks like heavy photoshop, lots of hand/manual blurring - notice the DOF in a lot of them don't match - for example: The cupcake image...her face is blurry, but the hand closest to her face isn't. Lots of skin smoothing (can be done with Photoshop or software) and some light desaturation, perhaps even some selective coloring. Beautiful models help.


----------

