ARRRRRRRRGH!!!

[u8myufo]

I dont believe it. They did an eight page spread in the Digital SLR mag on the Dave Hill effect. And they did not tell us how its done, but some really awsome images, this guy rocks as far as I am concerned.

 

[toonamp]

Google has this

http://dev.qd-creative.co.uk/index.php/photoshop/achieving-the-dave-hill-effect-in-photoshop/

Amongst many other things.

 

[Gary]

can you call them photos, though? some of them blatently arent (guy falling from building with helicopter behind him and various explosions for example)

pretty cool, though

 

[Dangermouse]

HDR is better ....simple it does not alter the image except for light and colour so no manipulation needed unless you need to add something to it you forgot

 

[MisterE]

I dont believe it. They did an eight page spread in the Digital SLR mag on the Dave Hill effect. And they did not tell us how its done, but some really awsome images, this guy rocks as far as I am concerned.

I thought it did tell you how he does it. Multiple images composited and layered in Photoshop. There's no straightforward 'how'. Every image is different with hours of Photoshop.

 

[Dangermouse]

I thought it did tell you how he does it. Multiple images composited and layered in Photoshop. There's no straightforward 'how'. Every image is different with hours of Photoshop.

Instead of full HDR simply tone map..same process same result

 

[Chewy]

HDR is better ....simple it does not alter the image except for light and colour so no manipulation needed unless you need to add something to it you forgot

Instead of full HDR simply tone map..same process same result

Not really Dangermouse,

Haven't read the article but the stuff Dave Hill does, whether you like it or not (personally i'm not too keen), is skillfully done. Each composite part of the end result is shot individually with as much care as any other tog would take. Theres more of his stuff on Strobist. HDR wouldnt really get anywhere near the same result.