Lucas_Smith wrote:
Anyway, she's got different color-scheme in the examples you sent.  Greens, browns, etc.  You're working with whites, blues, etc.  Still, similar approach, I guess.

+1

Since this is for a wedding, your really don't want to do it in Photoshop - trust me. I used to be a wedding retoucher. Best approach Lightroom. Next best approach is (Adobe Camera RAW) ACR. Otherwise it's counterproductive in a cost/benefit sense of the word.

This is what I got in ACR alone. You can tweak it in PS, but for a wedding photo it's probably an overkill, unless you are Yervant or some other photographer with that kind of price range and reputation.

The quotation still stands, different image in different setting and different lighting conditions. So this is something similar with a little bit of creative freedom.



Instead of explaining what I did, here is a image and ACR preset. So all you need to do is extract it and open it in ACR. Then you will be able to see the sliders I used.

I was using ACR 6.1, but you should be able to open it in older versions, I think. From ACR 5.4 and newer.

Anyway, if you like the effect you can download it here:
http://www.krunoslav-stifter.com/gallery/colorCC.zip
(if you are using Firefox use Save Link As...)

EDIT: For some reason it dosen't work as I intended it, so here is a DNG that should work.
http://www.krunoslav-stifter.com/galler … f06_z1.dng

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:

+1

Since is for a wedding, your really don't want to do it in Photoshop - trust me. I used to be a wedding retoucher. Best approach Lightroom. Next best approach is (Adobe Camera RAW) ACR. Otherwise it's counterproductive in a cost/benefit sense of the word.

This is what I got in ACR alone. You can tweak it in PS, but for a wedding photo it's probably an overkill, unless you are Yervant or some other photographer with that kind of price range and reputation.

The quotation still stands, different image in different setting and different lighting conditions. So this is something similar with a little bit of creative freedom.



Instead of explaining what I did, here is a image and ACR preset. So all you need to do is extract it and open it in ACR. Then you will be able to see the sliders I used.

I was using ACR 6.1, but you should be able to open it in older versions, I think. From ACR 5.4 and newer.

Anyway, if you like the effect you can download it here:
http://www.krunoslav-stifter.com/gallery/colorCC.zip
(if you are using Firefox use Save Link As...)

lol I have a folder on my harddrive with your name on it now just for your links.

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:

+1

Since this is for a wedding, your really don't want to do it in Photoshop - trust me. I used to be a wedding retoucher. Best approach Lightroom. Next best approach is (Adobe Camera RAW) ACR. Otherwise it's counterproductive in a cost/benefit sense of the word.

This is what I got in ACR alone. You can tweak it in PS, but for a wedding photo it's probably an overkill, unless you are Yervant or some other photographer with that kind of price range and reputation.

The quotation still stands, different image in different setting and different lighting conditions. So this is something similar with a little bit of creative freedom.



Instead of explaining what I did, here is a image and ACR preset. So all you need to do is extract it and open it in ACR. Then you will be able to see the sliders I used.

I was using ACR 6.1, but you should be able to open it in older versions, I think. From ACR 5.4 and newer.

Anyway, if you like the effect you can download it here:
http://www.krunoslav-stifter.com/gallery/colorCC.zip
(if you are using Firefox use Save Link As...)

EDIT: For some reason it dosen't work as I intended it, so here is a DNG that should work.
http://www.krunoslav-stifter.com/galler … f06_z1.dng

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:

+1

Since this is for a wedding, your really don't want to do it in Photoshop - trust me. I used to be a wedding retoucher. Best approach Lightroom. Next best approach is (Adobe Camera RAW) ACR. Otherwise it's counterproductive in a cost/benefit sense of the word.

This is what I got in ACR alone. You can tweak it in PS, but for a wedding photo it's probably an overkill, unless you are Yervant or some other photographer with that kind of price range and reputation.

The quotation still stands, different image in different setting and different lighting conditions. So this is something similar with a little bit of creative freedom.



Instead of explaining what I did, here is a image and ACR preset. So all you need to do is extract it and open it in ACR. Then you will be able to see the sliders I used.

I was using ACR 6.1, but you should be able to open it in older versions, I think. From ACR 5.4 and newer.

Anyway, if you like the effect you can download it here:
http://www.krunoslav-stifter.com/gallery/colorCC.zip
(if you are using Firefox use Save Link As...)

EDIT: For some reason it dosen't work as I intended it, so here is a DNG that should work.
http://www.krunoslav-stifter.com/galler … f06_z1.dng

This was almost exactly what I was going to recommend. I was also going to suggest playing a bit with the split toning.

The good thing about ACR (not sure if Lightroom will do it since I don't have it) is once you get one image set the way you want, you can easily transfer those settings to other images.

Pixels 2 Pixels wrote:
The good thing about ACR (not sure if Lightroom will do it since I don't have it) is once you get one image set the way you want, you can easily transfer those settings to other images.

Lightroom uses the same engine as ACR so the results should be identical. But Lightroom is much faster, when it comes to working with more than one image. Plus it's a whole database. Later you can print from it and make awesome web gallerys. Supposedly, Lightroom 3 has a support for ActionScript 3 for Flash, so web developers will create new more complex galleries, I'm sure.

Here is one I did for a friend of mine. Wedding book gallery. Actually Book was put together in Adobe InDesign.
http://www.krunoslav-stifter.com/galler … index.html
(It has a preloader turned on and a background music, so give it a moment to load up)

It's a third-party web gallery for Lightroom and it's called autoviewer: http://simpleviewer.net/autoviewer/
(I have a highly customizable pro version)
Use arrow keys to navigate, and Home/End to move from first to last page.

You can also build slideshows with Lightroom. All though I would recommend ProShow Producer instead.

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:

Lightroom uses the same engine as ACR so the results should be identical. But Lightroom is much faster, when it comes to working with more than one image. Plus it's a whole database. Later you can print from it and make awesome web gallerys. Supposedly, Lightroom 3 has a support for ActionScript 3 for Flash, so web developers will create new more complex galleries, I'm sure.

Here is one I did for a friend of mine. Wedding book gallery. Actually Book was put together in Adobe InDesign.
http://www.krunoslav-stifter.com/galler … index.html
(It has a preloader turned on and a background music, so give it a moment to load up)

It's a third-party web gallery for Lightroom and it's called autoviewer: http://simpleviewer.net/autoviewer/
(I have a highly customizable pro version)
Use arrow keys to navigate, and Home/End to move from first to last page.

You can also build slideshows with Lightroom. All though I would recommend ProShow Producer instead.

Very nice! I love it.

To the OP, I just realized there's another way to get a similar look. In Photoshop, add a B&W adjustment layer in luminosity blend mode and play with the sliders. You might like the results.

Lucas_Smith wrote:
Is that Nirrimi?  If so, she's actually a girl.  Does that make you feel even worse?  Ha, just kidding; that was really sexist.

http://nirrimiphotography.carbonmade.com/

Anyway, she's got different color-scheme in the examples you sent.  Greens, browns, etc.  You're working with whites, blues, etc.  Still, similar approach, I guess.



-Make a new curves adjustment layer
-Lighten shadows in RGB
-Slightly lighten red shadows in Red
-Slightly lighten blue shadows in Blue
-Go back in with burn tool set at 3% and bring back shadows in certain features (like eyebrows, lips, low-lights in hair, etc)

haha it's not it's some other guy who is actually on this site. Grant Thomas I think his name is?

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:

EDIT: For some reason it dosen't work as I intended it, so here is a DNG that should work.
http://www.krunoslav-stifter.com/galler … f06_z1.dng

Sweet... Thank You! I'm gonna take a look at that.

Pixels 2 Pixels wrote:

Very nice! I love it.

To the OP, I just realized there's another way to get a similar look. In Photoshop, add a B&W adjustment layer in luminosity blend mode and play with the sliders. You might like the results.

i'll def try this too... Thanks everyone!

Rashad Lavelle wrote:
So is ACR an alternative to Lightroom.. but just a little slower?

Develop module in Lightroom = ACR.

Rendering engine and all of the sliders are the same.

Bridge + ACR = reoughly 50% Lightroom capabilities but in less convenient way unless you are just browseng images.

And that is the main difference between Bridge and Lightroom. Lightroom is a database and has a catalog (library). You have to import the images, while in bridge you can just browse. Each has it's pros and cons. For Photographers Lightroom is better solution, for designers and illustrators bridge is.

For more useful and indepth info, check FAQ
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/faq/

Rashad Lavelle wrote:
So is ACR an alternative to Lightroom.. but just a little slower?

Actually, ACR rendering is somewhat faster since the UI is simpler. But that is not what I was talking about. I meant to say that Lightroom has a more convenient way to sort, rate, sync and deliver files. Finding and organizing files is also more powerful. So for a photographer, especially a wedding photographer it's really fast and continent way of doing post processing after the wedding shoot.

IMG 0171 wrote:
The lighting conditions look close to the same

They're nowhere near close. Your image was shot at the golden hour, the first of the examples was pretty close to midday. The yellow had to be added in post. Look at the difference in the angle of the sun.

Lucas_Smith wrote:
Is that Nirrimi?  If so, she's actually a girl.  Does that make you feel even worse?  Ha, just kidding; that was really sexist.

http://nirrimiphotography.carbonmade.com/

Anyway, she's got different color-scheme in the examples you sent.  Greens, browns, etc.  You're working with whites, blues, etc.  Still, similar approach, I guess.



-Make a new curves adjustment layer
-Lighten shadows in RGB
-Slightly lighten red shadows in Red
-Slightly lighten blue shadows in Blue
-Go back in with burn tool set at 3% and bring back shadows in certain features (like eyebrows, lips, low-lights in hair, etc)

That happens to be Grant Thomas

IMG 0171 wrote:
The lighting conditions look close to the same

Peano wrote:
They're nowhere near close. Your image was shot at the golden hour, the first of the examples was pretty close to midday. The yellow had to be added in post. Look at the difference in the angle of the sun.

I was just going to post that, I'm glad I scrolled down.

Light effects contrast, look at the position and length of the shadows if you can't see the source (or if it isn't obvious to you in the picture) to determine when a photo was taken. 

Additionally, how you expose for the diffuse value of the model's skin is going to effect the way the contrast falls or wraps in the image.  With the midday sun, the model's skin is pretty evenly lit.  By metering for her diffuse skin value you are able to achieve greater contrast in the overall seen without making her seem to contrasty (perceived contrast) because she doesn't have much other than diffuse values (just a little shadowing and highlight areas) in two of the pictures and in the other two where she's positioned in such a way as to cause more contrast on her skin, she is positioned in such a way that the natural shadows and highlight act to carve the features in a pleasing way.  Because the light source is harder, the transition areas are less.

In your image, the transition areas are much greater; ie, there is a smaller area of diffused values and more areas of shadow and highlight, with longer transition areas.  Increasing the contrast in your image has the result of making her kind of split contrasted with no real overriding sense of the diffuse value of her skin.  She just winds up being shadow and highlight with very little midtone. 

Contrast is relative, by this I mean each set of tones is relative to the tones that that it sits next to. 

Edd did a nice job of trying to maintain a diffuse value to the skin.

Ultimately though, if you want to replicate the look of these images, you need to start with how you shoot them and understand how the choices we make during the photography stage effect what can be achieved in post production.

sanjayb wrote:


Despite the fact that I kind of hate this kid because he's 17 and he's already done so much more than me in this industry, I really like his look and the other people who do this kind of low contrasty look.

So say I wanted to do it on this picture (one of my own)



How would I go about doing that? The lighting conditions look close to the same and there's an obvious yellow tint. But I can't seem to get anything else right.

This looks like Grant Thomas.