how do i add life to my pictures, like the magazine covers?

[jugalo180]

hello all, i've been working with digital photography for a couple of years now, but i haven't been using it to it's full capabilities. i currently take pictures of people and design cd covers. my problem is that the pictures i take for cd covers compared to the pro's are like night and day. the pro covers have the subject looking very bright and alive. i take my pictures outside during morning and evening magic hours. my pictures come out very dull. i know that it has something to do with three point lighting, but i thought that i could fake it in photoshop.

this is what i'm looking to achieve
http://www.lilkimzone.com/photos/newwallp4_1024.jpg

http://www.coolbuddy.com/wallpapers/celeb/ashanti25.htm

http://www.pvh.com/BrandsProducts_VanHeusen.html

http://www.pvh.com/BrandsProducts_KennethCole.html


how i would like to get my outside pics

http://www.calvinklein.com/Welcome.html


these are how my pics come out

http://www.typeb.net/xl1/shot2.jpg

http://www.14ashanti.com/pictures/Ashanti062.jpg

http://www.14ashanti.com/pictures/Ashanti108.jpg



none of these are my pictures but they are an example of what i want and the last three is an example of what i get. the last three were taken in a professional studio, but they still lack that look that the others above it have.

is it my 5mb digital camera? i have an hp digital camera that was $800.00. will a higher end digital camera give me the look i need?
is it the contrast ratio of the consumer camera that's hurting me?

i have a smith victor three point lighting kit with 250 watt photo bulbs.

is there a site or a book that will help me get the look i need. like i said even some professional shots aren't what i need. i need to get that certain technique

[jugalo180]

here is another great example of the fashion high sheen look i'm talking about. this look is perfect for what i need. i like to do a lot of cgi backgrounds and digital manipulation in photoshop, so this look is a must for what i need.

http://www.pronovias.com/site2004/entrada_index.asp?idioma=2

[cprevost]

No one can tell you exactly what's wrong with your photo technique unless they see some photos. It could be a hundred different things. You can get good results from your camera.

[blinking8s]

very true, and most magazine agencies that I have even been around (horses mostly, its what my family does) have some wicked graphics people in back in the studio closet, you can do amazing things with Photoshop. Although as a n00b I try to avoid it and get as close to what I have in my head as I can.

[jugalo180]

thanks cprevost, for the response. i understand that with my photographs i can get a lot of helpful information on how to position my lights, but i have no place to host my photographs, so i'm trying to get the feedback i need on how to one would make the bottom three pictures come alive with brilliant, vibrant, rich lush coloring as the photo's above it.

the last three pictures of my first post has the type of dull pictures that i am getting. i'm really looking for someone to tell me the basic set up and technique on how to acheive this from scratch, not from correction, so that's why i thought my actual photos wouldn't matter.

judging from the high sheen professional studio shots to the dull professional studio shots, there has to be some advise that can be giving just off comparrison of the above shots. they are all professional shots it's just that i need to know the technique to get that bright brilliant high gloss look that is often found on fashion websites and magazine covers.


do i need something stronger than 250 watt photo bulbs? the first five pics are brighter and brilliant. even the one taken outside is bright and brilliant. my shots as well as the bottom three professional shots just look like someone posing with light on them. they are missing that high gloss look.

thanks again for the response

[jugalo180]

i use photoshop and i also use 3d graphics programs. the backgrounds that i create look really good, but the photos look so drab when they are composed with the background. those first five pics can go perfect in a 3d render or a photoshop manipulated image, but the last three professional pics lack that sheen that i need.

thanks for your response

[Andy_T]

Now I am far from being a photography expert ...

... but these are some impressions I had when I compared your photos to what you described as 'great' photos:

1) the pose of the model makes a lot of a difference
In picture 1 and 2, your models look into the camera as if you snapped them at a party or if they were posing for a passport photo.
The third picture you posted is the best, because the pose is interesting. However, it is too closely cropped for my liking.

If you don't yet have the experience to tell your models exactly how they should try to look, you could show them some of the pictures you think are good and ask them to try to 'get that look'

2) you seem to use the flash directly from the front so it is is too strong in the pictures. Actually, photos 1 and 2 look like you had used an internal flash. Have you tried bouncing the flash off from the ceiling or using a diffusor? This is the most basic 'lighting' suggestion I would have, I am sure that there are a lot of very good tips in the various threads on lighting on this forum.

3) Also related to lighting - the skin of your models reflects the flash a lot. Most likely the other photographers used some makeup to counter that effect.

Out of the three points, I think the look and pose of the model is the most important difference.

If I were you, I'd look at my local community college if they offer any photography classes for portrait photography.

Best regars,
Andy

[ssim]

If you had the opportunity to spend with anyone that has done alot of the sample images that you show you would probably find that they are using either something of a 1Ds or medium format equipment. The output from a medium format with a Phase One back is phenominal.

I agree wholeheartedly with Blinking8s that alot of the "punch" in these images are done in photoshop after.

[jugalo180]

i'm not familiar with a lot of camera equipment. is this phase one back used to let you use a medium format film camera as a digital camera? how much for a rig like this? i did a search on this but the website said to call for prices

[Andy_T]

Here is a link for used units with warranty ... my first estimate is that you pay about $ 800 - 1,000 ... per Megapixel :roll:

http://www.vistek.ca/Procentre/Phase/Promotions.asp

Kodak also offered the Pro Back 645, which is now discontiued.
You might pick one up cheaper than the PhaseOne.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/kodak_dcs645proback.html

Best regards,
Andy