Given the nature of his subjects (actors and major label bands and whatnot) I think it's safe to assume that he has quite a hefty budget for those shoots.
I disagree it's HDR because it's models. I don't know how fast cameras can bracket exposures, but I would think it would be hard to hold still enough in some of those dynamic poses (the paddle ball, etc) to allow multiple exposures.
I guess you could process the same shot over again, but that doesn't take advantage of the full range of HDR and his results are extreme.
we've been seeing susi do this for a while now, you can also create an effect like this by using way too much fill light in raw, and adding it as another layer.
Some of the things, like the one of the guy on the hanglider ( I forget his name, he's in 'Emplyeee of the Month') took A LOT more than just the HDR processing.
I disagree it's HDR because it's models. I don't know how fast cameras can bracket exposures, but I would think it would be hard to hold still enough in some of those dynamic poses (the paddle ball, etc) to allow multiple exposures.
I guess you could process the same shot over again, but that doesn't take advantage of the full range of HDR and his results are extreme.
I don't know what it is though.
I think you could approximate the results if you used fill light on some of the layers though, I wish I had CS2 so I could at least experiment. There will no doubt be an .atn file up somewhere pretty soon.
we've been seeing susi do this for a while now, you can also create an effect like this by using way too much fill light in raw, and adding it as another layer.
Some of the things, like the one of the guy on the hanglider ( I forget his name, he's in 'Emplyeee of the Month') took A LOT more than just the HDR processing.
I really dont think the 2 are comparable though really. For me they seem a world away
Maybe it's just me - but to me this is not photography (and I don't like it at all)
But from a technical perspective the pictures are impressive.
How is it not photography, he's using the HDR technique, yes. But if you also look into the pictures with a more criical eye, his lighting is amazing, some of the effects you think might just be HDR, are his use of flashes outdoors and underexposing the backgrounds to heighten the effect.
It is photography, he's not even adding anything in with a paintbrush, he's using pixels captured in camera, and modifying them just as you could do (with a whole LOT more work) on a piece of film.
IMHO it works as a forum of photography art. There are all kinds of styles. I like it but wouldn't want a steady diet of it. Some of them are truly interesting, fun and beautiful.
It's definitely not multiple exposure HDR. It might be HDR from a single RAW file. I'm thinking wavelength is correct about using Fill in RAW conversion. Probably some tweaking on the Highlights/Shadows, which would create a drawn look if you had very concise control of lighting as he apparently does.
This is work by a very skilled artist and can't be duplicated by just PP alone.
I really dont think the 2 are comparable though really. For me they seem a world away
I dunno, I think the biggest difference is the subject matter, the second being the LaChappelle setups, lights, and backgrounds. I was speaking just of the processing technique in mentioning Susi.
Maybe it's just me - but to me this is not photography (and I don't like it at all)
But from a technical perspective the pictures are impressive.
How is it not photography, he's using the HDR technique, yes. But if you also look into the pictures with a more criical eye, his lighting is amazing, some of the effects you think might just be HDR, are his use of flashes outdoors and underexposing the backgrounds to heighten the effect.
It is photography, he's not even adding anything in with a paintbrush, he's using pixels captured in camera, and modifying them just as you could do (with a whole LOT more work) on a piece of film.
Yes of course it's photography due to the fact that the original picture was captured by the use of a camera. But the final pictures are so far away from what the camera saw that it's no longer photography - at least not in the way that I understand (and like) photography.
Let say that an artist makes a pencil drawing of something - and when he returns to his studio he makes and oilpaint on top of and based on the drawing - you wouldn't call that a drawing any longer I guess - and to me this is just the same. It's no longer a photograph but it's based on a photograph.
Yes of course it's photography due to the fact that the original picture was captured by the use of a camera. But the final pictures are so far away from what the camera saw that it's no longer photography - at least not in the way that I understand (and like) photography.
First, how do you know? I'd love to see one of his RAW files, as I'm sure in themselves they are damn good.
Secondly, I think a lot of what you are seeing is an ability to use lighting. PP is secondary, not primary to the effect.
First, how do you know? I'd love to see one of his RAW files, as I'm sure in themselves they are damn good.
Secondly, I think a lot of what you are seeing is an ability to use lighting. PP is secondary, not primary to the effect.
Yes I'm sure his raw files are good - no doubt about that. And he knows how to light his pictures as well. But, unless he lives on a planet very different from where I live, I do not believe that these pictures are "what the camera saw".
But hey - that's just how I feel about them. In the end it's probably just a matter of taste...
we've been seeing susi do this for a while now, you can also create an effect like this by using way too much fill light in raw, and adding it as another layer.
Some of the things, like the one of the guy on the hanglider ( I forget his name, he's in 'Emplyeee of the Month') took A LOT more than just the HDR processing.
I really dont think the 2 are comparable though really. For me they seem a world away
She has a DVD for sale on her website that explains how to process these images. Susi DVD
