Curves is the way to go, but you'll spend a LOT of time creating your look. These above are crap. They were just to show you how in a minute or two you can get close - nothing more. I would not present these as finals. They were mainly something to give you a starting point. However, once you have that curve layer and offset to your liking, you simply pop in your photos under it, tweak and export.
I own some of the Rad presets from a few years back, but hardly ever use them. I'm also screwing around with the RadLab demo. Anyway, I went back to the Rad site and found two turnkey solutions if you're just looking presets to do the job and you like working in PS...
Those will get some of the looks on that website, but that hardcore film look is probably not Rad stuff. It's most likely curves and offset exposure that you'll have to spend time creating. A couple of guys here (Gabe and Sergio) do the same style. Chuck (canerino) has the B&W thing mastered IMO. Check out his thread: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1033182/0#9814864
You can get that look if you shoot film and your scans are purposely flat. But, I never get my stuff back from RPL in less than 10 days, so if that's your gauge, then it's digital processed to look like flat scans.
But the real question for me is -- who cares? Shoot for yourself, don't worry about what the other guy is doing, and focus on your own art. My eight-year-old daughter has a hamster who runs like Carl Lewis with wind at his back on his little wheel, but never really gets anywhere.
BTW -- for those who have wondered, the hamster's name is "SJ" or Speedy Junior. The original "Speedy" hamster got out of his cage last summer and got licked to death by our German Shepherd, who was in a sullen state for much of the week for the loss of his little furry friend. He just wanted Speedy to play. Our daughter was hysterical for all of 10 minutes before proclaiming, "we need to get a new Speedy".
So I made the mistake of taking a look at the link provided above and read this load of pretentious crap:
"we don’t believe in copyright either. Any unspoken rules of copyright are just vain attempts for people to hold onto whatever illusion of power they think they have."
For those of us who work legitimately as full-time professionals and are faced on a daily basis with the internet free-for-all image playground that treats Federal copyright law and intellectual property rights like a lipstick on a cocktail napkin, this just pisses me off. Saying that you "don't believe in copyright" is a just a completely ignorant thing to say . . . and what exactly is an "unspoken rule of copyright"?
Copyright law and the fair use doctrine in the internet age are serious issues. Whether you're a part-time wedding photographer, or a main-stream media professional, these are legitimate and serious issues. I don't mean to highjack the thread, but I had to point out the ridiculous blabber from these ridiculous people.
keithdunlop wrote:
So I made the mistake of taking a look at the link provided above and read this load of pretentious crap:
"we don’t believe in copyright either. Any unspoken rules of copyright are just vain attempts for people to hold onto whatever illusion of power they think they have."
For those of us who work legitimately as full-time professionals and are faced on a daily basis with the internet free-for-all image playground that treats Federal copyright law and intellectual property rights like a lipstick on a cocktail napkin, this just pisses me off. Saying that you "don't believe in copyright" is a just a completely ignorant thing to say . . . and what exactly is an "unspoken rule of copyright"?
Copyright law and the fair use doctrine in the internet age are serious issues. Whether you're a part-time wedding photographer, or a main-stream media professional, these are legitimate and serious issues. I don't mean to highjack the thread, but I had to point out the ridiculous blabber from these ridiculous people.
While their terminology in that sentence originally led me to think the same, if you read it in context, it seems more like they're trying convey that they don't really care if you rip off their processing style. It appears to me just to be a poor choice of words.
I actually really like their philosophy. It's very unapologetic and genuine (if somewhat show-boaty).
Like this: honestly.. what we do isn’t hard. we just work in the transference of mediums.
we take the art that is two souls in one and translate it into moving images. art to art.
in the end it’s all interpretation (pulled from their manifesto page).
{ your bankroll whether big or small doesn’t intimidate me
if we vibe then the only currency that’ll matter is the amount of love in your soul }
we realize that not everyone can afford high-end wedding photography
but that doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t deserve it.
after all, ‘high-end’ is awfully subjective
and it’s our opinion that the more expensive a photographer costs
doesn’t necessarily relate to the quality of the person’s work.
it’s all just perceived value
and we’d like to offer an alternative.
we remember what it was like not being able to afford rent
and making just enough to get by.
if this is you, conventional wisdom would inform you not to get married until you were financially stable.
well, if you happen to be among the group of lovebirds that can’t wait for conventional wisdom to get with it
then we’re here to help you.
getting married on a very tight budget or none at all?
let’s make something work shall we?
RENT WEDDING.
this is what would equate to a free wedding.
basically, we shoot for free, no premiums are charged, and you get all the images we take on a DVD.
all we ask is to cover whatever travel expenses we might incur along the way.
we also offer a majorly discounted pricelist for you guys too with all proceeds going to charity.
if you would like to book a RENT wedding just shoot us an email with “RENTwedding” in the subject line.
write us a quick story about why you feel it would be a great blessing to you if we shot your wedding for free,
provide a few references who we could contact
and attach a recent photo of yourself and your significant other.
remember this is only limited to ONCE a year and is very competitive.
(positions have been filled through 2011)
NAME YOUR PRICE.
yep, you read that right.
just because we only shoot one wedding a year entirely for free
doesn’t mean our prices need to be outrageously high for everyone else.
‘but can’t people take advantage of your work with this option?’
yes, so for now this is an experimental pricing method.
after a year we’ll see whether or not it’s been abused.
but for now this is how it works..
to be considered, one of the couple needs to be working at a social service.
so schools, hospitals, warming centers, non profits, etc.
couples are not allowed to contact me directly if they’d like this option.
you have to be referred to by someone who is active in the community along with you.
so a co-worker at a non-profit, a pastor, your student/patient, etc.
this person will write us a letter on your behalf
and we’ll consider whether or not to meet your proposed budget for photography.
the “NYP” package is limited to 6 hours of coverage and a disc of all hi-res digital files.
you are able to add on to the package however according to the current pricing.
acceptance of the couple’s named price will be based on wedding date (time of year), location, and referrals.
pricing under $2000 should come with at least two referrals.
happy wedding planning!...Show more →
#photocrush
Ok, that's it. Back to exposure layers and clipping whites.
mineymole wrote:
their processing looks a lot like Alan Abrams processing. ask him.
Hmmm....not exactly.
I see some similarity, but I'd say they're more different than similar. They seem to use a lot a clarity, whereas I use practically none. I also like warmer WB and warmer skin tones. Their stuff seems pretty "normal" in that regard.
Even the examples Alan Miller posted seem to be a lot different from what they're doing.
From what I can see, everything could be done in LR.
- Pull the left end-point of the tone curve up about a quarter of the way.
- For some shots, pull the right end-point of the curve down about 1/16 - 1/8 of the way.
- Adjust mid-tone contrast with either the tone curve or the Contrast slider.
- Use Split Toning to tint the highlights and shadows as desired.
There does seem to be some variation in the processing of the posted shots, including near-selective-color for a couple of the groom shots. I guess they could be doing it manually or matching as Mike said or perhaps they meant no "commercially purchased" actions or presets.
I agree about copying a look although analyzing an image and trying to duplicate it can be an interesting learning exercise and perhaps lead you to your own discovery.
This kind of processing looks better when it is consistent across the set and I do think the white background helps (as opposed to black or dark gray like here on FM, which makes them look washed out). For me though, the sacrificing of 25% or more of the tonal values always seems like a hefty price to pay for a "look".
Tony -- A client asked if I could get close to that "look". And yes I have tried a few things but exposure offset was not one of them.
In the end if I say "no" to the client because I don't know how and I give up then I'm not putting in any effort to learn. Whether I use that "look" or not its still a useful to know how as it will lead to new ideas and new looks in the future.
and I dunno... I mean it kind of looks to me like someone just discovered low contrast and lightroom's "you can add color with me" gradient filters.... lots of those directional gradients all over the book.
catalan0 wrote:
Tony -- A client asked if I could get close to that "look". And yes I have tried a few things but exposure offset was not one of them.
In the end if I say "no" to the client because I don't know how and I give up then I'm not putting in any effort to learn. Whether I use that "look" or not its still a useful to know how as it will lead to new ideas and new looks in the future.
None of my clients ask me to make my images look like someone else's.
