Just 1 Shot of the Bride and Groom (35L portrait)

i think this shot is possible without a flash.... i have taken similar.

basically, you just have to use an adjustment layer (or adjustment brush in LR iirc, i do this kind of processing Photoshop) and just selectively lighten the skintones/foreground with a layer mask. In Raw there is usually more than enough headroom to do it.

that's how i'd have done it. as long as the skintones aren't massively underexposed this is easy to do.
 
mithrandir said:
Been following your OCuk thread Raymond, your pics are really stunning.
Click to expand...

Thank you :)


cuthbert said:
i think this shot is possible without a flash.... i have taken similar.

basically, you just have to use an adjustment layer (or adjustment brush in LR iirc, i do this kind of processing Photoshop) and just selectively lighten the skintones/foreground with a layer mask. In Raw there is usually more than enough headroom to do it.

that's how i'd have done it. as long as the skintones aren't massively underexposed this is easy to do.
Click to expand...

Normally I would say yes, but on this photo, i didn't need to do that at all. :)
 
I think they are both gorgeous shots and if they had been my wedding pics, I'd have been over the moon!
 
well, the tree above the B&G on the shadow side is lit better than any other foliage on the shadow side. This could be a reflection from the back of the dress

However the B&G seem to be about 3 stops too bright compared to the rest of the scene. So if you dialed in 1.5 stops, you may have selectivly lightened the B&G and tree in LR. Ignoring the vignette, the rest of the sky seems to bright for what you are suggesting, even with selective dodging and burning

What gives this away is the lens flare and the shadows. The lens flare is consistent on the B&G and the foliage., and the shadows seem different in the front and back of the shot... that suggests no dodging and burning, or the flare & sun intensity was added changed in PP
 
Bendihossan said:
Whether it's real or not I'd have deleted it. Don't like flare, and neither do a lot of Jo Publics. Some will look at it and think "Oooh, arty!" and others will think "Yuch, rubbish!". Definitely not my thing and not one I'd call a keeper.
Click to expand...

I think thats a bit harsh they are great shots and one's im sure the b+g would like, and sod jo public its not their album:D But id still like to see the original:cautious: Come on Raymond dont be shy show us your crap:LOL::D

Dave(y)
 
In the second shot something else wierd is going on - the shadow on the LHS of the dress on the grass looks like a shaddow applied to a cutout, and the color and position of the reflection in the Grooms shoe is totally inconsistent with he scene

I like the idea, not sure that the technique quoted is how the shot(s) were taken
 
Love it Raymond however 'real' it is :)

BUT (and you'll note it's a serious 'BUT' :LOL:) why is it that so many photographers have 'secrets' like this when talking to other photographers keen to learn. I rarely 'discover' anything in PP but simply see/read/hear useful tips from other photographers who don't mind sharing things they've found/seen/heard, and we all swap these tips to help each other out

A LR 'bit of magic' that can render a shot as if it's had some serious fill lighting (flash or reflector) would help an awful lot of people. If you've EVER picked up a tip from TP then surely its only fair to share??? :thinking:

However secretive you wish to be I still love them though :) just allow us mere mortals a bit of scepticism ;)

DD
 
Raymond, I want to just add that I do like the shots, I too enjoy a bit of shooting into the sun occasionally, but what I am trying to do is get to the bottom of how you achieved the near impossible so I/we can all have a go - I even have a couple of raw files from a wedding a months ago that are perfect for trying it out on - so I guess the next question is what exactly is the preset doing? I mean did you design it yourself or is it one you have downloaded from another source?


edit: dammit, dave beat me to it :LOL:
 
Richard King said:
In the second shot something else wierd is going on - the shadow on the LHS of the dress on the grass looks like a shaddow applied to a cutout, and the color and position of the reflection in the Grooms shoe is totally inconsistent with he scene

I like the idea, not sure that the technique quoted is how the shot(s) were taken
Click to expand...

Richard I'm fairly confident that the shadow is a by-product of a heavy lean on the clarity slider, not helped by a contrast and black level boost. As for the highlight on the shoe it would appear to be sunlight coming between the grooms legs and reflecting off what, let's face it, will be one incredibly shiny shoe, to the point that it is a couple of stops brighter than anything else. It also appears to be blown out in the blue channel so if the exposure has been pulled back everywhere else the difference will be even more pronounced.

I think it all stems from the fact that a shot taken into the sun has a lot of scope for boosting contrast and colours. I guess we'll never know. :)
 
I think you guys forgot to consider that there are more than one light source. No, there was no reflector or white suits lol

Source 1 - light from behind, the sun.

Source 2 - the sky in front of them.

As you can see, they are standing under a branch, there are trees either side so it created a kind of tunnel. With no light coming from directly above but with the sun setting, it came from behind them (direct) and in front of them (diffused) from the sky/atmosphere.

There were no local exposure adjustments done here, no dodging or burning. I processed it same as how i do with all my shots really, this one just cames out with more pop than normal, i think the shallow DOF helped too.
 
You see I think the problem we are having is that we assume the exposure on the picture is going to be overal very dark when infact it simply can't be.
 
i just don't get why you cannot put up an original RAW file so we can see what has / hasn't been done......

At the end of the day the result is pretty positive and good (accoring to taste*) so why not share instead of "some jiggery pokery" in lightroom...........

*pesoanlly does nothing for me, and I wouldn't want in my wedding album, but "horses for courses Rodney", - the 2nd looks oversaturated in blue and green........
 
Raymond Lin said:
I think you guys forgot to consider that there are more than one light source. No, there was no reflector or white suits lol

Source 1 - light from behind, the sun.

Source 2 - the sky in front of them.
Click to expand...

so you are saying you got this differential between forground and background, whilst shooting into the sun, because the sun was reflecting off a cloud or the sky in front of them....

That reflected lightsource being just right to make the subject pop, but not leave a shadow on the grass?
 
whilst I love the shots. I think the white spot on the grooms foot in picture 1 is very questionable. Is it even possible for the sky to reflect the onto the dress and then create what looks like a catchlight on the shoe?
 
Bendihossan said:
Whether it's real or not I'd have deleted it. Don't like flare, and neither do a lot of Jo Publics. Some will look at it and think "Oooh, arty!" and others will think "Yuch, rubbish!". Definitely not my thing and not one I'd call a keeper.
Click to expand...

Well then you probably wouldn't be one of the people perfectly happy to hand over a wodge of cash to Mondo to photograph your wedding. It suits his style pretty well, although personally I prefer the second shot.

As for 'is it possible', LR is a pretty powerful application and I can't see why on earth he would waste his time coming on here to lie about how he took a photo. Looks perfectly feasible to me.
 
Ray's sent me the unedited images and I put my hands up: he's not bluffing...

Suffice it to say, it's a very nice bit of 'shopping', though I still reckon there may be a white-painted house or something maybe 50m behind him somewhere...(sorry Ray...lol)

There are no reflectors or lights used though, which is what I'd initially thought... it is a 'straight' shot that has been carefully edited in post.
 
Arkady said:
Ray's sent me the unedited images and I put my hands up: he's not bluffing...

Suffice it to say, it's a very nice bit of 'shopping', though I still reckon there may be a white-painted house or something maybe 50m behind him somewhere...(sorry Ray...lol)

There are no reflectors or lights used though, which is what I'd initially thought... it is a 'straight' shot that has been carefully edited in post.
Click to expand...

Great :)

But unlike the majority on TP then he's showing us a good PP technique then refusing to tell us how it was done :(

Not very sporting that

Some time ago I had another Pro on TP question me at length about a shot via pm - I gave them (not mentioning who) every detail, just as I would anyone asking. When they posted a shot I asked about they simply ignored me :shake: I guess some people want to help others and some don't - fair do's - Ray mate, sorry but for me you're in the latter category now

DD
 
Arkady said:
Ray's sent me the unedited images and I put my hands up: he's not bluffing...

Suffice it to say, it's a very nice bit of 'shopping', though I still reckon there may be a white-painted house or something maybe 50m behind him somewhere...(sorry Ray...lol)

There are no reflectors or lights used though, which is what I'd initially thought... it is a 'straight' shot that has been carefully edited in post.
Click to expand...


there must've been something that's for sure ! :) ...
Now I have a quest - to make a shot that looks like this.
 
DiddyDave said:
Great :)

But unlike the majority on TP then he's showing us a good PP technique then refusing to tell us how it was done :(

Not very sporting that

Some time ago I had another Pro on TP question me at length about a shot via pm - I gave them (not mentioning who) every detail, just as I would anyone asking. When they posted a shot I asked about they simply ignored me :shake: I guess some people want to help others and some don't - fair do's - Ray mate, sorry but for me you're in the latter category now

DD
Click to expand...

I understand your frustration: there's a regular contributor to the 'Nudes and Glamour' section whose work I particularly like, who has a very distinctive editing style (pinkish, even) - I've asked on more than one occasion how he's achieved this look (as have a few others), but to no avail...:shrug:
 
Arkady said:
I understand your frustration: there's a regular contributor to the 'Nudes and Glamour' section whose work I particularly like, who has a very distinctive editing style (pinkish, even) - I've asked on more than one occasion how he's achieved this look (as have a few others), but to no avail...:shrug:
Click to expand...

there is always a possibility that the reluctance to share how certain post processing things are done is because they are using a 3rd party or commercial action/script/plugin to achieve the look

i don't know which poster you are specifically thinking of here but if you drop me a pm with a link, i'll gladly have a go at reverse engineering it. i like a challenge.
 
I guess the cat is out of the bag now I have shown Arkady.



:)

I honestly don't understand why you guys would think i would lie. :thinking:
 
cuthbert said:
there is always a possibility that the reluctance to share how certain post processing things are done is because they are using a 3rd party or commercial action/script/plugin to achieve the look
Click to expand...

I know Mondo doesn't use 3rd party scripts, but does have his own series of presets that he has worked out over time. His processing is incredibly consistent and I can tell his work a mile off, if I were him I would be reluctant to go into detail how I process my images too.

If you use Lightroom and look at the before and after, you should be able to take a pretty reasonable guess at what he does.
 
This just proves exactly what I have said. There was no magic it was just misunderstood (I too originally thought it)
That the exposure of the scene HAD to be good regardless.

Everyone just assumed the exposure of subject was poor due to shooting into the sun.
 
Sorry to revive this, been busy for last 2 or 4 days, but also wanted to add thanks to Ray for posting original, though with some frustration as your preset seems to be doing something pretty much what I suggested originally and was totally ignored. All you had to do was show and/or explain this to begin with :(

Either way, they are very nicely done and I DO seriously appplaud you for that :clap:



...and I suspect I know who Rob is talking about and he will find it easier to get blood from stones :LOL:
 
lol - nothing unusual about this shot at all. come over from the stone age guys.
and as for him not wanting to share - so what? As foggy said - he has worked hard on his own unique style so i wouldnt share either.
Ray - fab shot bud - stunning light. well done.
 
Yv said:
Sorry to revive this, been busy for last 2 or 4 days, but also wanted to add thanks to Ray for posting original, though with some frustration as your preset seems to be doing something pretty much what I suggested originally and was totally ignored. All you had to do was show and/or explain this to begin with :(

Either way, they are very nicely done and I DO seriously appplaud you for that :clap:



...and I suspect I know who Rob is talking about and he will find it easier to get blood from stones :LOL:
Click to expand...

I hope you can understand my reluctance to post my processing methods. It is not a 3rd Party Preset, it is a method/preset that came about from months of experimentation and shooting and eventually settled on when it is a look that I love. Even after applying the preset it only can take the photo so far, I then have to "micro adjust" each photo indivdually depending on the ambient light that it was shot it to get it the way I like it.

It was very boarderline even posting the Before/After screenshot, but being accused of lying is not something that sits well with me. I had no reason to and to be honest, that is most disappointing. I had explained that there was no reflectors, many times and people are still picking "holes" :shake:

Anyway, I do hope that the above screenshots settles it, but I would not revealing my presets, and I do hope you can understand my reasons. Although it can't be difficult to work out as you can see the Before/After shot there.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I hope you can understand my reluctance to post my processing methods. It is not a 3rd Party Preset, it is a method/preset that came about from months of experimentation and shooting and eventually settled on when it is a look that I love. Even after applying the preset it only can take the photo so far, I then have to "micro adjust" each photo indivdually depending on the ambient light that it was shot it to get it the way I like it.

It was very boarderline even posting the Before/After screenshot, but being accused of lying is not something that sits well with me. I had no reason to and to be honest, that is most disappointing. I had explained that there was no reflectors, many times and people are still picking "holes" :shake:

Anyway, I do hope that the above screenshots settles it, but I would not revealing my presets, and I do hope you can understand my reasons. Although it can't be difficult to work out as you can see the Before/After shot there.
Click to expand...

(y) That's the polite version of what I would have written if I'd been on the receiving end of some of the comments.

Great shot.
 
kmlc said:
lol - nothing unusual about this shot at all. come over from the stone age guys.
and as for him not wanting to share - so what? As foggy said - he has worked hard on his own unique style so i wouldnt share either.
Ray - fab shot bud - stunning light. well done.
Click to expand...

Thank you Katy :)

:)
 
Blimey, what a palava!!

Why should the guy have to prove anything!
 
slimboy fat said:
(y) That's the polite version of what I would have written if I'd been on the receiving end of some of the comments.
Click to expand...

Ditto. Very disappointing to read so many childish remarks in this thread - I'm quite shocked by it all. Some are bordering on tantrums, how pathetic :(

Raymond - I love both shots, lovely light and great PP too :)
 
Whatever the technicalities, I don't like it, sorry :shrug:
 
Have to say Ray, I applaud you for not getting ****ed off by all the people essentially calling you a liar in this thread. Having been on the receiving end of a similar experience when I posted an image at ISO 5000 with little noise saying how impressed I was with it and then called a liar even when I left the exif intact ... even went to the trouble of uploading the original raw - it's not nice!

I like the shot, although the flare is a little too much for me (y)
 
joescrivens said:
Have to say Ray, I applaud you for not getting ****ed off by all the people essentially calling you a liar in this thread. Having been on the receiving end of a similar experience when I posted an image at ISO 5000 with little noise saying how impressed I was with it and then called a liar even when I left the exif intact ... even went to the trouble of uploading the original raw - it's not nice!

I like the shot, although the flare is a little too much for me (y)
Click to expand...

I personally wouldn't bother proving anything if people act like that. I don't think attitudes shown warrant any sort of proof. If a photographer doesn't wish to tell people how his shot is taken/processed, it says a lot more about the person calling them a liar, than the photographer for preserving his look to make a living from his style than openly share it and have someone pinch the look with no effort.

I like the shot, not the flare so much, and the processing is something I've long been a fan of, from Ray. I'm a simple bunny, I like pretty pictures :D
 
Last edited:
Wow, holy thread revival

Look how many people have been banned since this thread ha ha
 
joescrivens said:
Wow, holy thread revival

Look how many people have been banned since this thread ha ha
Click to expand...

:LOL:


I thought that when reading through it....

Funny what names crop up...

MD(y)
 
Bluesmachine said:
*cough* may not have noticed thread age when looking at a link on another forum *cough*
Click to expand...

Not the 1st and wont be the last...:LOL:


But to be fair I am glad I looked at this again It has given me a few ideas to try with my new lens....


MD(y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top