Reverse engineering needed :)

Hello.

I'm trying to achieve processing effect like this, but I have no luck. Any idea what has been done to this image? Thx
http://www.facebook.co​m …9303416737&type​=1&theater

Being there at the right time?

Its not only done by photoshop, its done with filters which are better than "digital filters" as those found in photoshop and other editing software

Lowner wrote in post #14482756
Being there at the right time?

Of course, without that nothing, but I'm referring to the characteristic tones/colour of the image that I can't find almost anywhere among other authors.

His whole gallery has that unique look, but mostly you can see it on examples like these:
http://www.aleksandarg​ospic.com …llery=4e3ec714a​3da7&tags=
http://www.aleksandarg​ospic.com …llery=4e3ec714a​3da7&tags=
http://www.aleksandarg​ospic.com …llery=4e3ec714a​3da7&tags=
http://www.aleksandarg​ospic.com …llery=4e3ec714a​3da7&tags=
http://www.aleksandarg​ospic.com …llery=4e3ec714a​3da7&tags=

etc.

What I refer to is.. dark shadows, that almost looks desaturated and colorful midtones. But when I try to do that (boost contrast, desaturate shadows...), I don't get even similar results. It must be something else here. Also boosting saturation does not give colorful results like this. I have pretty good SLR equipment and shoot in RAW, and go to same places as this photographer do (I know him personally ), but my pictures comes not even close to this even if I try to actually copy his results.

400dabuser wrote in post #14482900
Its not only done by photoshop, its done with filters which are better than "digital filters" as those found in photoshop and other editing software

I didn't mentioned neither photoshop, neither digital filters What do you suggest? However, I doubt he use any special filter in the field except polarizer and sometimes graduated ND.

Do you have an image of yours that you want to use to try to achieve the same look? Post it here and let folks have a whack at trying to emulate the photographer's look. Also, if you know the photographer, you may want to ask him.

kirk

Besides "Being there at the right time?", he's probably blending the best part of two/several RAW conversions together. It's really simpler than it looks. Look at Three pages on Layer Masks
&
Adjustment layer basics

More in post #8: Tough Exposure question

coldplug wrote in post #14483054
I have pretty good SLR equipment and shoot in RAW, and go to same places as this photographer do (I know him personally ), but my pictures comes not even close to this even if I try to actually copy his results.

Seems as if you'd save a LOT of time by just asking him what his process is?

kirkt wrote in post #14483170
Do you have an image of yours that you want to use to try to achieve the same look? Post it here and let folks have a whack at trying to emulate the photographer's look.
kirk

This is good idea!

Let's try!

First goal:
http://a8.sphotos.ak.f​bcdn.net …37_919872_83956​1556_n.jpg
Source:
http://www.meteoadriat​ic.net/pub/potn/_DSC66​92.NEF
(I know, Nikon, D700 and he has also Nikon (D300) so it should be even easier to get it). This one is not exactly the same frame but it is very much it.

Second goal:
http://a1.sphotos.ak.f​bcdn.net …7_919077_180501​6681_n.jpg
Source:
http://www.meteoadriat​ic.net/pub/potn/_DSC66​50.NEF
This is completely same framed shot, same lens, only body is different (D700 vs D300). No filters attached on lens on either examples.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #14483285
Besides "Being there at the right time?", he's probably blending the best part of two/several RAW conversions together. It's really simpler than it looks. Look at Three pages on Layer Masks
&
Adjustment layer basics

More in post #8: Tough Exposure question

Thanks, I'll look at this

Won't work, he is one of those secret keepers

PhotosGuy wrote in post #14483285
Besides "Being there at the right time?", he's probably blending the best part of two/several RAW conversions together. It's really simpler than it looks. Look at Three pages on Layer Masks
&
Adjustment layer basics

More in post #8: Tough Exposure question
Seems as if you'd save a LOT of time by just asking him what his process is?

Some great information in these threads.
Subscribed!

coldplug wrote in post #14483355
Won't work, he is one of those secret keepers

Buy him beer.

You probably want to convert the raw with a neutral tone and color to start. Then slam the contrast and saturation. THis will result in very deep blue shadows that may plug up more than desired. You can use the Shadows/Highlights tool in PS to lift the shadows back to a desired range and use the Color Correction slider with negative values to desaturate the blue out of the shadows.

kirk

I would thing to slightly desaturate the land and selectively saturate the colour of the sun. Have done with some landscapes before and seems to work well. Possibly a slight bit of dodging on the landscape..


Denis

kirkt wrote in post #14485729
You probably want to convert the raw with a neutral tone and color to start. Then slam the contrast and saturation. THis will result in very deep blue shadows that may plug up more than desired. You can use the Shadows/Highlights tool in PS to lift the shadows back to a desired range and use the Color Correction slider with negative values to desaturate the blue out of the shadows.

kirk

Hmmm this does the good job toward wanted result. However, lot of tweaking after that I had to perform, I spent about 20 minutes to tune the image so it looks pretty much close to goal. But still thanks, this approach with overcontrasting and then getting back some shadows while in the same time desaturating them with Color Correction looks promising, thanks!

can we some of the progress anyone is making with these?

Without standing over his shoulders, it is a tough call. As mentioned by others, it looks like some selective desaturaiton is involved as explaining at least part of the results.

If we give the guy the benefit of the doubt, and make the assumption that the sky/reflection WAS NOT created, and that it does represent the actual colors at the time of the shot, then I would thing that there was some exposure bracketing as well.

When shooting in the direction of a sunset - as this one is* - and the shaded foreground is properly exposed, the sky stands a good chance of being washed out. When the sky is properly exposed, the foreground is most often too dark. This can happen even if you are not shooting at the sun itself A clear sky in the same general direction as the sun can be several steps brighter than the ground.

Multiple exposures of the same scene with different exposure factors can give you at least a couple of shots properly exposed for each area - sky and ground. Put them together in PS and you will be able to show a dynamic range that you would not otherwise be able to with just one press of the shutter.

Here is a sunset shot that I took near Stuttgart. The sun is somewhat obscured by clouds, so it is less intense than it might have been. Still, the when exposing for the foreground, the sky is nearly whited out. In the example you linked to, I would expect the sky to look somewhat like this when the foreground is well lit. No amount of post will give the sky the intensity of your example if it is not there in the first place.

it almost seems like an HDR photo. a lot of the photo seems to be in focus to me, but seems to be too great of depth to accomplish in 1 photo. You would as others have said, layer multiple focused photos on each other