How to Get Dave Hill's Gritty Look
I love the serendipity of this blog thing.
As we said in the previous post about photographer Dave Hill, he is clearly using some post production to get from his wraparound light to his overall signature look.
A reader stuck a link in the comments section to a quick little Photoshop tutorial that shows how Hill might have gotten that high-pass, gritty feel after the fact.
The technique is surprisingly simple.
Always one for exhaustive research, I repeatedly studied the tutorial's before-and-after photos of Angelina Jolie very closely before posting the link.
Actually, on second thought it may just be a Jolie lookalike. I think am gonna go back and check those shots one more time. One cannot be too careful about these things.
On a housekeeping note, I am up in Rhode Island this week to do lighting seminars at the Northern Short Course on Thurday morning and Friday afternoon. The two seminars will cover the same material, except the one on Thursday morning is a little longer.
If anyone within earshot is coming, we'll be repairing to the hotel's watering hole on Thursday and Friday evenings to talk about lights. We'll also be talking about darks and ambers.
Hope to see you then.
As we said in the previous post about photographer Dave Hill, he is clearly using some post production to get from his wraparound light to his overall signature look.
A reader stuck a link in the comments section to a quick little Photoshop tutorial that shows how Hill might have gotten that high-pass, gritty feel after the fact.
The technique is surprisingly simple.
Always one for exhaustive research, I repeatedly studied the tutorial's before-and-after photos of Angelina Jolie very closely before posting the link.
Actually, on second thought it may just be a Jolie lookalike. I think am gonna go back and check those shots one more time. One cannot be too careful about these things.
On a housekeeping note, I am up in Rhode Island this week to do lighting seminars at the Northern Short Course on Thurday morning and Friday afternoon. The two seminars will cover the same material, except the one on Thursday morning is a little longer.
If anyone within earshot is coming, we'll be repairing to the hotel's watering hole on Thursday and Friday evenings to talk about lights. We'll also be talking about darks and ambers.
Hope to see you then.
Get the Full Monte: Follow Strobist on Twitter.
Now Shipping from USA and UK: Strobist Lighting Seminar DVDs
Feed your brain: My Favorite Lighting/Photo Books
by David, at 6:29 PM.
31 Comments:
I found an even quicker way to do it.
Just use Smart Sharpen.
1. Up the Radius to 20-30.
2. Use 'Advanced' and play with the Shadow and Highlight settings.
It is that simple.
Thanks for the link to the technique. Looks simple. His effect reminds me a lot of HDR.
The end result of that Jolie pic is just horrible. You really need to be shooting with your intended processing in mind. That picture wasn't lit or posed to be processed like that. Even putting that aside, the technique degrades the image beyond anything useable.
I don't really think that link with the High Pass and noise filter really can compare to Dave Hill's work.
As mentioned in a comment by someone in the last post, there was a link to LucisArt - A Photoshop plug-in.
This sample image from their site using a mix of their filter for example:
http://www.lucisart.com/pMix1.htm
With you mentioning the cost of his lights (being a "small" amount) with this LucisArt plug-in, you almost think of what you could be charging people for a similar image.
But again, he seems to have a real talent for photography and lighting.
Interesting that you posted the his work and this style.
Thanks!
A dozen strobists walk into a bar ....
I guess I don't see that this is the technique that Dave Hill uses. Ya it's a cool tutorial for an interesting effect and I do appreciate the link but I just don't think that this is it (I could be wrong, have been before).
This technique is covered in 'Skin' incidentally, and I think the High Pass + Overlay gets the look. You just need a detail rich source. I haven't watched the vids yet -- what does Hill shoot with? Medium format?
i don't understand this technik from Dave Hill. Is this an HDR or how?
I agree. The after image of Angelina is atrocious. The haloing from the sharpening layers is a dead giveaway. Show me a halo on Dave Hill's images.
The high pass filter is fantastic for architectural and mechanical images, and occasionally for portraits. But not if you're going to use it this sloppily.
No, Dave's work doesn't come from a 2 minute operation in Photoshop. Dave likely spends hours on his images to get that effect, and as another reader already commented, his lighting setup isn't generic, it's specifically geared for the final image.
- Jon
Since I spent quite a few hours yesterday trying to understand what kind of processing Hill uses, I was very happy to see this post today.
I think that all methods proposed up to now are approximations (sharpening, hard light, etc). I was very surprised to see a reference to LucisArt, because few people seem to know this plugin. I agree it gets much closer to the Hill effect than anything else (it looks though as if the plugin has not been updated lately, which is a shame).
Still, even LucisArt's output must be only part of the answer. My question is: how does Hill manage to increase light level so drastically, without affecting image quality? For example compare this http://www.davehillphoto.com/behind_the_scenes/ten_bts/thumbnails/ten6.jpg with his final photo.
I agree - I think the end Jolie pic looks like a newbie has hit a few preset effects buttons in Photoshop. I just tried the same thing on one of my portraits, and it ruined it.
Whereas I think a lot of Dave Hill's stuff looks jaw-droppingly gorgeous. Almost up there with Tim Tadder (still the most awe-inspiring user of light that I have stumbled across here on Strobist). Almost, but not quite :)
I'm off to check out that LucisArt plugin right away...
I took a look at those jolie pictures myself, but i think they fall way short of the mark!
"thechrisproject" mentioned HDR... Having worked with HDR on some live projects for clients, I'd agree with him! there is just too much detail in every area of Dave's photographs to explain away in any other fashion. Possibly a tad of high pass too (you never know), or maybe something else entirely, but personally I'd vote for HDR.
Cheers all!
Alexis... By looking at the behind the scenes, you can tell that the shot is a composit. At least the part of the truck and Trent were lit and shot as seperate shots. Also... something about the angles of the truck and the castle aren't clicking for me perspective wise. There is another shot of a guy standing in front of a car in an alley, again looking at the behind the scenes you see this is a composit as well, car and guy shot in a parking lot and digitally dropped into the alley.
I agree with what's been said here though. This is can not be done by simply using an action, but by learning what these actions are doing and the effects they create, you can start heading in the right direction. While some of Dave's work is a little over-worked for my taste, others are done extremely well and are truely insperational
ummmmm.....no
that photo looks absoluteyl horrible. i've known dave for a few years now and have done some personal shooting with him for fun before. sure he does post work but it's all about lighting a subject.
the lighting on that photo wasn't even close to what he does.
When I first looked at his photos, I simply assumed they were HDR combined with lots of off-camera strobe, maybe a few ringlights and various light modifiers thrown in.
I'm starting to feel that it may not be HDR in the traditional sense, more like a LOT of retrouching, i.e. masking in photoshop and playing with different levels and exposure compensation from the RAW files.
I feel kind of like we're being messed with, or that there's a bit of sarcasm going with the phrase "dave hill's look". It reminds me of the people who use GPS coordinates and equipment and exposure notes to get Ansel Adam's "look"
Duplicate layer, set duplicate layer to soft/hard light blending, then convert layer to grayscale via channel mixer (or your preferred method). Adjust opacity or paint in layer mask as desired.
I've come to this conclusion:
- He knows how to use his lighting gear really well and probably has figured out a "system" of things to do/watch for when shooting
- mix in HDR with slight highpass
- LucisArt Filter
- and just plain 'ol good fashioned photography and art direction.
link to example of the technique I posted...
a slight revision to the above (added a little high-pass to the top layer)
Dave has said on another forum that he doesn't use HDR.
There's a parallel thread in the Flickr Discussion Group with great results -- the key seems to be wraparound lighting?
1. Lighting. The ringlights did it...no other way.
2. Digital Painting Techniques. This is no doubt just plain dodgeing and burning and then some painting...well, at least a day per image at least.(w/ his rates, he should have all the time!)
With the artistry of the final photos he CAN'T be possibly using some "one-click-wonder" filters or effects...give him more credit than that!
cheers.
That result is not even CLOSE to Dave's look.
I cannot believe how some people can't see the difference. It is just so obvious that I would think people with the "photographers eye" would be able to spot it from a mile away.
How do you get something similar to Dave?
Two steps:
1. Dodge.
2. Burn.
I heard of Dave Hill from a the Studio Lighting podcast and was curious what they were talking about. I've seen a few images on photo.net that had that surreal 3D comic book, Sin City sort of look about them. It seems to me that lots of carefully placed lights is a major part of it. My off camera Hess/Strobist rig in bright sunlight has can look pretty cool and give you more depth in the right settings. As for post processing, it takes lots of work. Many layers like hue/sat, high pass, skin retouching, dodging, burning, curves and adjustment masks. For the next couple of weeks I'll have a picture on my websites splash page with what I came up with. Feel free to comment. This is just a two light set up with a bound fill off a wall in a sky bridge. www.scottmartinezphotography.com
-Scott
I dont think my picture is near as good as Dave Hill's photographs, but the way they look reminded me one of my pictures and I though it will be interesting for you to see her. Here is the link
http://photo-forum.net/bg/index.php?APP_ACTION=GALLERY_IMAGE&IMAGE_ID=697598&USER_ID=14246
Dimo Neykov
The 'Dave Hill Look' is amazing at that. As mentioned before in previous comments... I'm sure he sets up his lighting with the post process in mind.
What exactly is photography? It is the manipulation and pure understanding of light. He seems to have an amazing comprehension of that.
I'm sure that Dave Hill does a lot of post processing and I think that we need to think outside of the 'photoshop box' and understand that he is probably shooting RAW - doing initial developing in RAW and then possibly going to photoshop and maybe even finishing in Corel Painter?
I don't believe he is a 'one click wonder' and I'm sure he is truly the only one who really knows what he does in post processing - unless he has assistants bound by a confidentiality agreement!
Instead of trying to figure out 'what he does' - is anyone contacting him for an interview and trying to get this information out of him? Obviously he has made a name for himself and his style, but do you really think he will disclose his 'trade secrets'? I know I wouldn't!
If you watch any of his 'behind the scenes' videos, you'll see that the shoot is by no means set up for HDR. Try to have a model sit [or stand] in the EXACT same position while you shoot off 6+ images.
I enjoy seeing so much discussion about his work and technique and I'm sure he is smiling right now if he were reading all of this knowing we are trying to figure out 'what does he exactly do?'
I'm sure he has set up actions in photoshop - as we've all created our own to speed up our workflow, but there is obviously much much more to it than clicking a button and running an action to achieve those 'WOW' photos that he produces.
This is all very inspiring, and I must quote myself:
"art is a form of life; it gives breath to the imagination"
Good luck to all in achieving and discovering his 'look'.
[kc]
There is a free action for the Dave Hill look and a description of the lighting needed to get the right look here:
http://www.photographythailand.com/Forum/index.php/topic,1150.msg5528.html#msg5528
ok well as for this technique... i think i may be close to getting it right... you guys be the judge... here as that same Angelina Jolie picture after i edited though
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonyrodriguez/2736053127/
If you want to learn a ton about Dave's shooting style, go to his website at http://www.davehillphoto.com/ . Bottom right says "Behind The Scenes". This will take you to a TON of videos showing him at work, describing his gear.
That high pass - noise filter doesn't look like Dave Hill to me. Looks like junior adding too much computer generated noise to a photo and totally mucking it up.
I messed with the same photo and came up with this: Click to see.
Bleach bypass process is closer to what Dave Hill uses.
I have done one myself and found you have to be using RAW in photoshop or lightroom. Its very easy to do a rough picture
here is a link....
www.geneticsound.co.uk/stuff/sarah.jpg
Post a Comment
<< Home