Jordan_E wrote:
I don't understand why this is so cool.

Duh. The less real a photograph looks, the cooler it is. Everyone knows that. (mine included)

Karl Blessing wrote:

If they made it 25 to 50 cheaper per bottle.

I still don't think so.  The smart people would take advantage, but I am sure most would still buy coke under the idea that more expensive MUST be better

Brooks Ayola wrote:
Hey.. If anyone has any questions on how I do anything photography related, just ask. There are no secrets, only insecurities. :-)

They're either insecure... or maybe that they only come on here to f**k around and aren't getting paid enough to put any effort into consultation or advice

Brendan Fenn wrote:
This technique will look dated in another year or so. Personally, I'm bored of it already. Just my opinion don't nobody get offended.

It will get lumped in with overdone trends or techniques like the 'rubber skin' look from a few years ago, or that soft focus "porno mist" look from the late 70's early 80's.

It was neat to see the first few times, but overkill is setting in for me.

Photography is one of the few creative mediums where blatantly copying someone else's work is widely acceptable. We saw that with Terry Richardson's point 'n' shoot style a couple years ago.

What's next?

Kinda like Solarization in the late 70-80s.

Black Ricco wrote:
I once read where Dave Hill was quoted as saying he didn't do much in Photoshop.



LOL

He probably doesn't ... His re-touch team does.

Black Ricco wrote:
I once read where Dave Hill was quoted as saying he didn't do much in Photoshop.



LOL

haha nice

Black Ricco wrote:
I once read where Dave Hill was quoted as saying he didn't do much in Photoshop.

He's never said that .  He's said he doesn't use HDR or any HDR type plugins.  Hes always stated he never uses Lucis Arts , which is what everyone accuses him of
He usually implies that all his stuff is from just straight Photoshop , never that he doesnt use it.

Dallas B wrote:
OP, as others have suggested, there are a ton of threads on MM discussing the exact same thing as you're asking...give this forum a search, and you'll undoubtedly come up with a number of ways to approach the style.

There's also a Canadian photographer by the name of Martin Prihoda that uses this stylized look a lot in his work. He has some great examples.

I looked at Martin's stuff , while nice its not close to Dave Hill.
http://martinprihoda.com/index2a.php
Its similar to  Joey Lawrence if anyone .

http://www.joeyl.com/

I find it interesting that Dragan and Dave Hill get lumped together when they arent the same at all.
If you have a multi tabbed browser open up the above and these , the first 3 are closer to each other than to Dave Hill

http://www.andrzejdragan.com/

http://www.davehillphoto.com/

Jeff Wayne Photography wrote:
is there a plugin that will do my laundry?

Yep, it's called "Wife 1.0" and I better shut up now...

Jeff Wayne Photography wrote:

what do you want a step by step? sorry not gona happen. just as im sure dave hill doesnt going around telling everbody how he posts an image.
(not that im on the same level as him...just an example)

I am very curious about you. You have hand full of commercially viable pictures on your MM site and your professional web site, yet you have this killer little studio in the high rent district. How did you pull that one off?

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:
I am very curious about you. You have hand full of commercially viable pictures on your MM site and your professional web site, yet you have this killer little studio in the high rent district. How did you pull that one off?

by finding a place that is half the price per sq ft than everything else around

*edit* that and i have alot of other work that i dont bother putting up because its of no interest to me. such as alot of event and real estate stuff

Jeff Wayne Photography wrote:

by finding a place that is half the price per sq ft than everything else around

*edit* that and i have alot of other work that i dont bother putting up because its of no interest to me. such as alot of event and real estate stuff

Are you breaking into commercial ad work while breaking away from event/real estate?

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

Are you breaking into commercial ad work while breaking away from event/real estate?

thats the plan! hard thing to break into though

Jeff Wayne Photography wrote:

thats the plan! hard thing to break into though

Worth the effort though, have fun with your journey.

Jeff Wayne Photography wrote:
the fact of the matter is that every other photographer on the site is in essence a competitor. if i were to give away a step by step process to how i post my images it would be the same as coca cola giving away its secret recipe.

What makes you think we don't prefer Pepsi?

Sorry, but this look has never appealed to me at all, so you could fly over here and spend 3 days showing me how to do it in person but I would still probably never use it.

Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

Briggs Photography wrote:
I'm not looking for step by step. But how does he get this look? Is there a name for it?

http://www.davehillphoto.com/

I don't get it.

I can't stand that look...I hope it's not a bandwagon everyone jumps on.

swhnyc wrote:
I don't know, I used to like his stuff... now that I look through his page I feel like he's a little cartoonish and relying way too much on the post processing aspect of it.  The people in these shots look like they've been drawn almost from scratch.  What's the point?

All opinion.  I'll shut up now.

I totally agree with you, actually. It gets a little redundant after a while.

Brendan Fenn wrote:
This technique will look dated in another year or so. Personally, I'm bored of it already.

What's next?

Bless your soul.

Jeff Wayne Photography wrote:
the fact of the matter is that every other photographer on the site is in essence a competitor. if i were to give away a step by step process to how i post my images it would be the same as coca cola giving away its secret recipe.

Think about what you're saying for just a second. Up until a few years ago most photographers made their living from the use of the same tools as everyone else. Camera, film, darkroom and not too much else. During the few hundred years that photographers used that equipment, a fair number of people made their chops with completely different styles and approaches. Brady was different from Steiglitz was different from Penn was different from Weston was different from LaChappelle, and so on. All those guys knew exactly what the other was doing, yet they seemed to survive quite nicely on their own merits.

Along comes Digital and all of a sudden everyone is afraid to tell their secrets because they think letting the info out is going to bite them in the ass. I've given away the house when it comes to digital secrets and what I've found is that the people I've tutored have gone on to do things completely different from me in terms of style. Like a hammer, the digital tool box is still just a tool. My friend Jack is a carpenter. Do you suppose he handles his hammer the same way Robert Hague handles his? Never!

I'm not suggesting you go ahead and divulge your trade secrets, I'm suggesting you don't really have any. I could replicate you avatar in about 10 minutes given the tool set I possess. Many of the folks on this site could do the same thing. The folks that can't do it, like the OP, probably aren't willing to jump into the same market you want to get into, so where is that competition. Guys like me have been doing imaging for so long we can do jobs in our sleep, so we will never be your competition. By the time you learn what we know, we'll be dead and you'll be doing stuff in your sleep. What I'm suggesting is that people will be less likely to come to your aid if you aren't willing to come to theirs.

Imaginis wrote:

Yep, it's called "Wife 1.0" and I better shut up now...

LOL!

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

Think about what you're saying for just a second. Up until a few years ago most photographers made their living from the use of the same tools as everyone else. Camera, film, darkroom and not too much else. During the few hundred years that photographers used that equipment, a fair number of people made their chops with completely different styles and approaches. Brady was different from Steiglitz was different from Penn was different from Weston was different from LaChappelle, and so on. All those guys knew exactly what the other was doing, yet they seemed to survive quite nicely on their own merits.

Along comes Digital and all of a sudden everyone is afraid to tell their secrets because they think letting the info out is going to bite them in the ass. I've given away the house when it comes to digital secrets and what I've found is that the people I've tutored have gone on to do things completely different from me in terms of style. Like a hammer, the digital tool box is still just a tool. My friend Jack is a carpenter. Do you suppose he handles his hammer the same way Robert Hague handles his? Never!

I'm not suggesting you go ahead and divulge your trade secrets, I'm suggesting you don't really have any. I could replicate you avatar in about 10 minutes given the tool set I possess. Many of the folks on this site could do the same thing. The folks that can't do it, like the OP, probably aren't willing to jump into the same market you want to get into, so where is that competition. Guys like me have been doing imaging for so long we can do jobs in our sleep, so we will never be your competition. By the time you learn what we know, we'll be dead and you'll be doing stuff in your sleep. What I'm suggesting is that people will be less likely to come to your aid if you aren't willing to come to theirs.

Because it bears repeating. Well said.


Bob has taken time away from his own Saturday to walk me through post work.. He has forgotten more than most will know and has no self esteem/ insecurity issues when approached about his techniques.

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

Think about what you're saying for just a second. Up until a few years ago most photographers made their living from the use of the same tools as everyone else. Camera, film, darkroom and not too much else. During the few hundred years that photographers used that equipment, a fair number of people made their chops with completely different styles and approaches. Brady was different from Steiglitz was different from Penn was different from Weston was different from LaChappelle, and so on. All those guys knew exactly what the other was doing, yet they seemed to survive quite nicely on their own merits.

Along comes Digital and all of a sudden everyone is afraid to tell their secrets because they think letting the info out is going to bite them in the ass. I've given away the house when it comes to digital secrets and what I've found is that the people I've tutored have gone on to do things completely different from me in terms of style. Like a hammer, the digital tool box is still just a tool. My friend Jack is a carpenter. Do you suppose he handles his hammer the same way Robert Hague handles his? Never!

I'm not suggesting you go ahead and divulge your trade secrets, I'm suggesting you don't really have any. I could replicate you avatar in about 10 minutes given the tool set I possess. Many of the folks on this site could do the same thing. The folks that can't do it, like the OP, probably aren't willing to jump into the same market you want to get into, so where is that competition. Guys like me have been doing imaging for so long we can do jobs in our sleep, so we will never be your competition. By the time you learn what we know, we'll be dead and you'll be doing stuff in your sleep. What I'm suggesting is that people will be less likely to come to your aid if you aren't willing to come to theirs.

I couldn"t have said it better myself !!!     Thank you !!

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

Think about what you're saying for just a second. Up until a few years ago most photographers made their living from the use of the same tools as everyone else. Camera, film, darkroom and not too much else. During the few hundred years that photographers used that equipment, a fair number of people made their chops with completely different styles and approaches. Brady was different from Steiglitz was different from Penn was different from Weston was different from LaChappelle, and so on. All those guys knew exactly what the other was doing, yet they seemed to survive quite nicely on their own merits.

Along comes Digital and all of a sudden everyone is afraid to tell their secrets because they think letting the info out is going to bite them in the ass. I've given away the house when it comes to digital secrets and what I've found is that the people I've tutored have gone on to do things completely different from me in terms of style. Like a hammer, the digital tool box is still just a tool. My friend Jack is a carpenter. Do you suppose he handles his hammer the same way Robert Hague handles his? Never!

I'm not suggesting you go ahead and divulge your trade secrets, I'm suggesting you don't really have any. I could replicate you avatar in about 10 minutes given the tool set I possess. Many of the folks on this site could do the same thing. The folks that can't do it, like the OP, probably aren't willing to jump into the same market you want to get into, so where is that competition. Guys like me have been doing imaging for so long we can do jobs in our sleep, so we will never be your competition. By the time you learn what we know, we'll be dead and you'll be doing stuff in your sleep. What I'm suggesting is that people will be less likely to come to your aid if you aren't willing to come to theirs.

Well said, my friend. Well said.

ClassicHorror wrote:
I've seen several threads on here and postings on the 'net....

The truth is ,.......no one knows. LOL!

That's why he's Dave Hill and we're not!

No one knows? That's a bit presumptuous, don't you think. I know at least three people in my studio condo complex that can do those techniques. There really isn't much to them, except they seem to be popular, especially with the music video crowd.

Skyy McKendry wrote:
It's nice but why would you want to do it?  There are hundreds of photographers shooting in this style & it's getting really, really old.  Be original & be yourself!

If you still want to copy someone here's a link that might help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duWEjm6clRE

Doesn't show the photoshop work though...

Dammit. Beat me to it.

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:
Think about what you're saying for just a second. Up until a few years ago most photographers made their living from the use of the same tools as everyone else. Camera, film, darkroom and not too much else...

Well, there was the period of time when you had to sign a NDA if you stepped foot into Aaron Jones' studio. :-)

Great post Bob. I responded to the same thing on page one, but no one ever listens to me. :-)

Brooks Ayola wrote:

Well, there was the period of time when you had to sign a NDA if you stepped foot into Aaron Jones' studio. :-)

Great post Bob. I responded to the same thing on page one, but no one ever listens to me. :-)

Ahhh, Aaron Jones had such a strangle hold on technique, just like Dave Hill and digital. Lets see, Jones style explosion with light painting came into vogue somewhere around 1988? In 1972 I was working for a catalog house in Chicago shooting appliances for Sears and Aldens. I learned that you could spend countless hours trying to scrounge up enough lights to cover a 30 foot cyc filled with stoves, or you could get one Smith Victor 500 watt pan head and paint the scene in a 1/10th of the time. So I learned how to light paint in 1972 while Jones was attending day care in a UCLA hippie commune. What he learned in that commune was how to make some of the exposures through a diffusion filter, which is the core of his style.

Nothing under the sun is as new as your next thought!

Brooks Ayola wrote:

Well, there was the period of time when you had to sign a NDA if you stepped foot into Aaron Jones' studio. :-)

Great post Bob. I responded to the same thing on page one, but no one ever listens to me. :-)