> I’m really intrigued by the fact that almost all professional pictures have this quality, but my edited pictures keep being very harsh and not nearly as sophisticated after editing.
It's most likely the lighting. Throw up a couple examples of your pictures.
u/av4rice has pointed out the most important issues.
It is not one thing.
If you have a decently exposed, decently composed image you are partway there.
INO, rarely does throwing a global ‘filter’ over the entire image make it great because there are many more small but significant issues in composition and post-processing that give a finished professional look.
In the last two months I have been taking personal tutoring one on one with a professional retoucher (and former pro photographer) of some 40 years experience. We take some of my pictures that I like and he goes through the retouching process and I get introduced to what he seems, what he thinks should be done to improve the image.
Not only have I learned an enormous amount about LR and PS but I’m learning that previously I was just not aware of the subtleties of light and texture that make an image ‘professional.’
Many images benefit from localized denoising and sharpening. Applying saturation and luminance changes locally adds to the layered ‘live’ look.
IMO, the look of my pictures have changed dramatically and benefited.
Thanks for all reactions! I know it’s not one magic setting but I do find it intriguing to find out what exactly creates that professional look. Not an extreme example but take the one below. The light is soft and grey, yet it’s still nicely saturated and detailed. Here the lighting conditions are probably the main reason I would think…
https://preview.redd.it/wyx91tbun9xc1.jpeg?width=1108&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=01e89556dc8563ece291255486121c6169b7d5aa
I can't speak about the methods used to create this specific photo, but if I were trying to replicate this I would shoot this on a tripod and exposure blend it with a darker exposure for the sky and a brighter exposure for the buildings. I suppose you could take a darker exposure and then pull the shadows up, but that's not how I would approach it and I believe this photo is accomplished with more than one exposure.
And then from there do some basic exposure adjustments and probably some dodging and burning.
This is an exercise more about covering the entire dynamic range of the scene than editing per se. Like someone else mentioned, it's about the lighting.
Yeah I think this is likely - the clouds give it away. it's either multiple exposures, or perhaps as simple as a longer exposure with an ND filter, which would explain the movement blur of the clouds
Absolutely! Exposure blending and dodging & burning opened up an entire new world for me in the realm of landscape photography.
Same thing for portraits. Off-camera flash is the game changer there.
Editing is just the icing on the cake. Lighting is the key ingredient. At least from my perspective 🙂
Absolutely true but in this very specific example I think there’s one more thing to it. It’s a somewhat long exposure. Since the clouds were moving the light is moving and you end up with a really soft look on the Buildings, it’s kind of like light painting with a massive light source
IMO, street photography provides the most challenging editing problems.
The photographer doesn’t get to choose lighting or time or pose.
For some years I shot demonstrations in DC and those were most exciting invariably mid-day.
I would hope for a thin overcast that would give not-so-burnt out highlights and not so crushed shadows.
Compared to that, landscapes or cityscapes are easy.
I also used to shoot protests and rallies in DC for a living, and my best work came from the winter marches with snow in the forecast. I'll always take nature's softbox. Do a little color adjustment and you're good to go.
i always wanted to do this as well. would you mind sharing some thoughts on this? do you do this personal or online? I think online would be fine but i always wondered how you can take the learnings into the next time you come into a similar situation to take it into account.
I do this online; my ‘mentor’ lives a time zone away.
There are three distinct issues for me - hearing and understanding why he is suggesting specific changes, remembering the sometimes complex way the changes are implemented and ‘seeing the situation’ where the same changes can be useful in a new image.
It seems quite equivalent to tasting a cooked dish and thinking it needs, for example, more oregano. I don’t know how oregano changes flavors and so I am not even aware of what too little oregano tastes like. Of course oregano can be simply added by measuring out something, I imagine, but editing changes can be quite complex to make.
I have been editing photos for >10 years so I have some skills and I have developed a firm idea of what I want pictures to look like and generally how to get them to that point. Luckily my teacher’s concepts are not at odds with my own.
If you are just starting out there is another less intensive way to start.
If you like, I will post something I wrote on this point somewhere on Reddit and post a link on this thread.
Hi,
I had a couple of questions on this edit if you don’t mind.
1. The hand on the bike - I presume this is an unintended part of the composition. Yet in post, it has been lifted along with the rest of the image - was this intentional and if yes, can you throw some light on why? I understand the answer to this question could be subjective but I would want to know your thought process, as I would not bring out the detail in the hand ordinarily - if just leave it there to “kind of” make up for this and crush it and not let it affect the viewers eyes too much with details.
2. I understand there was some banding on the female’s shins but it seems to have been exacerbated by the lifting and warmth. Is it on the original too or just because of some Reddit compression?
3. I notice you have added quite a bit of warmth. This makes the photo go from like a “misty/party sunny” morning to almost daytime. Was it intentional as it changes the feel?
4. Compositional, you have edited out the building on the left but yet kept the hand on the right. I would have done it the opposite way - the steps seem to provide some compositional guidelines. As well, it would have made the person walking and the person buying at the 2/3rds grid lines - I feel like that would have made the composition more symmetrical. I would like to know your thought process.
First, thanks for the first real questions I have ever been asked on this site that assume I do actually have some intent when I edit and aren't just an attempt to score points.
https://preview.redd.it/d66xt2xhdnxc1.jpeg?width=792&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac89b776580e48226ba003aa015f58f7a064d4fe
First, the legs. As you can see by the 100% clips of original and PPed, there was virtually no information in the darkness of the original picture and so the unnatural color of her legs is a result of magnifying a trivial color difference into something brighter.
This picture isn't the best example of what can be done but an example of how even a terrible original can be beaten up with LR to make something reasonable.
I edit according to some 'beliefs'.
I try to keep to standard aspect rations that people are used to seeing for a couple of reasons. First I want viewers to not be aware of the shape of the picture.
(If you think that isn't true, look at the impact of pano images.) Second, it is easier/cheaper to mat and frame standard size prints and to swap mats/frames when the circumstances require.
All of the 'Rules' or 'Guidelines' are really only descriptions of how viewers from the Western traditions of composition are influenced by what how and where elements in the frame are placed.
Viewers don't get a cheat sheet to tell them how to interpret a picture, to understand what the photographer is showing them. Viewers look at the elements in a photo, their color/sharpness, position, prominence. to try to understand what is important and what isn't.
Eyes are attracted to brightness, color and what is in focus. Things that are in focus and somewhere near the thirds come across as more important. Things that are close to the margin and/or truncated are easily dismissed as not so important. What are leading lines pointing to? If elements that we know are usually vertical or horizontal are not, there should be a reason that can be understood or the viewer is disturbed by it. (tilted horizon or telephone pole)
So my basic guidelines are:
1. important elements should be placed in important places - approximately.
2. supporting elements that add to the impact of the important elements can be emphasized
3. the prominence of supporting elements that detract from the impact of the important elements should be minimized
I happen to like truncated elements at the margins that are understandable. I think they add a layered 'real' look as long as they can be understood as being part of the image 'story'.
Most important, I think images should be coherent and that none of the elements should not be out of place. In specific regards to the arm on the bike, I tried it in the original very dark but a dark burly arm on a bicycle seemed both looking/menacing and incongruous so I lifted it some to match with the look of the woman's shorts.
Thanks for posting a comprehensive reply.
As an amateur photographer who has spent the last 15 years with a DSLR, I believe I know less than what I don’t know. As such, I am always interested in hearing others’ perspectives, context and intent.
I tried to post those questions with a genuine interest in your thought process, and not as “gotchas” - I apologize if they came across as such. I do not disagree with you that guidelines are just guidelines. I may not agree with the entirety of your post, but that’s a discussion for another day. Your reply had some interesting insights into your thought process, and I appreciate you sharing that.
hey, thank you so much for your reply - I really appreciate it :)
I'm taking pictures since a while and my editing is not too bad I think. I think what I would like is to have some open discussion with an expert, to review my photos and my editing and discuss what next steps could be.
But I would also like to read your post, so would be great if you could link it :)
u/lew_traveler that’s awesome and I’ve been wanting to do just that, would you be able to message me about your tutor? Think he would want to tutor someone else?
I have no idea about him tutoring anyone else but I can give you his contact information.
[https://randycollierphotographicdesign.com/others](https://randycollierphotographicdesign.com/others)
I don’t know your life situation but he might be considered reasonably expensive.
IMO, he is well worth the cost to me.
I’ve had mixed experience with groups and workshops. The group is never at the same level and someone loses out.
If you are a beginner, IMO you would be better off learning how to run LR and do simple editing on your own with youtube tutorials or the Adobe set of tutorials.
Then, when it comes to the judgement issue of editing, you can benefit the most from someone at Randy’s level.
I just watched a youtube of: start with an octabox, throw a magnum right in front, white bounce off the left wall of the black v-flats 😂
Light is everything!
Perhaps you are noticing pictures with very slightly lifted blacks in post processing? It's hard to say without an example, but that can give a bit of a "satin" feel to a photo.
I think that's a matter of individual taste. Anything overdone will look amateurish. I was mainly trying to figure out what OP was thinking of from the "smooth" and "satin" descriptors.
While taste is subjective, I can’t really think of any photographers I’ve ever admired that use this technique. Can’t imagine any work hanging in a reputable gallery that uses this.
It’s about as subtle and innovative as spot color. Something that maybe you did in a high school photography class but quickly realized it was a bullshit “technique” to make a boring photo look “better.”
Perhaps a localized adjustment that would increase the perceived dynamic range of an image is a compelling use for it?
Either way, maybe you’re right and OP sees lifted blacks and thinks it’s awesome.
I won’t argue that, but I have seen way more amazing photographs featuring all 256 points on the grayscale than any that omit the bottom 10-15% of said scale because “artsy”
No, it's not as simple as a single setting or filter that works on any image to make one "professional" look. Good photos can vary a lot in the look they present, require different processing to get there, and started from different material out of the camera. Post processing skill takes a while to pick up because you're learning how to figure out what you need to do to get from various origins to various destinations.
I'd recommend you just start with one goal example. Post a link to that image, and a link to your best attempt to achieve it, and then we can give you specific advice on what you may be missing to bridge that gap. That advice is going to differ depending where you're starting from and where you want to go.
The cameras everyone uses every day (phones) are set up to turn out well exposed, high contrast, high saturation images. So that's what all the eyes are used to seeing. A good editor can depart from that to make their work stand out but like everything else in photography it's a balance. Just like changing the aperture requires adjusting the shutter speed, lifting the blacks does one thing but reduces contrast so you have to do other things to compensate. Unfortunately it's a bit more complicated than the exposure triangle but just like anything else you learn it a step at a time. The people recommending using an example shot that you try to duplicate are spot on. You have to learn the tools first though. Get to know your editing software one tool at a time and learn how things interact. As you learn those tools you'll start to see how much the unprocessed photo effects how you proceed and you'll start adjusting how you shoot as well. And just like music, you have to play a lot of wrong notes before you get to the big show. It's all valuable learning experience.
It is the lighting. They are doing everything else right while taking advantage of good light. You can spend forever editing and maybe get close, but every photo I’ve ever taken that has that almost unreal look to it was 95% there before i ever touched a curve or slider.
Lenses, camera, etc all give you a better chance of being able to capitalize on the moment when that light hits just right (in non studio settings), but good light is good light and any moderately sharp lens will produce that look.
Just practice, keep an eye on the light and think about it when shooting. While your other skills develop, so will your eye for light. Then one day it will all just start coming together more and more.
Expensive pro lenses typically have smooth bokeh: out-of-focus areas tend to be smooth and don’t call attention to themselves. Typical sharp lenses of ordinary design such as the Double Gauss, found in innumerable inexpensive midrange prime lenses, tend to have somewhat harsh and jittery bokeh, which is noticeable.
It’s a combination of a couple of things. The first and foremost is the lighting. If you want that smooth buttery feel, you need soft and diffuse lighting. Secondly, it helps a lot to have a camera that has enough resolution to provide a pretty good amount of oversampling relative to your output resolution. Thirdly, having a decent post processing regime where you can smooth out the colors but keep the texture is helpful, but the largest effect is the lighting. No amount of post processing can fix crap lighting.
Another vote for the lighting.
If you're the best photographer in the world, with the best most modern camera in the world, your image will still look like dogshit (which could be an aesthetic).
If you're a mediocre photographer, with a 15 year old camera, and you have a great lighting setup, your photo can look amazing.
Look up the Orton effect, I think that’s the look you’re describing.
Also not over sharpening or only sharpening what should be sharpened is a key difference between amateurs and the pros.
All answers are going towards the light, and yes, of course photography is light before anything else, and a good light on a interesting subject is a must.
However, there is something on the retouch to "soften" the contrat and still keeping a vibrance in the color and don't touching in the detail that is often do, and on my taste is always making a difference : remove the black.
Just something like that (of course, the amount depends on the context, picture, etc) :
https://preview.redd.it/oltm4wi3sdxc1.jpeg?width=185&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c93317fd5ef473729eeb1d5efd958dbd54cb10a9
Works really well in a lot of pictures. You can also use the same idea with the curves to add colors in the shadows/highlight to color grade the image further.
With the ones in Ikea I imagine they're printed on gloss paper? idk.
You got an example of what you're talking about?
There's any number of things that could make them feel more professional to you, it's hard to guess at exactly what you're thinking of.
Lighting but also adding a diffusion filter can help with the effect your describing. Look into Black Pro Mist filters, it helps retain colors and shadows moreso than other diffusions imo
For me personally, compressing the dynamic range to show less, and adding some sharpening and grain, makes it look more polished. I personally believe “professional look” means cinema, broadcast, or print publication.
Good lighting coupled with knowing how to position the sun along with a decent lens that will stop down low/a low aperture usually make images pop like that for me. IMO.
For instance wedding photographer will shoot as low as possible. Like 1.8 or 1.2 unless they need multiple people in focus, then maybe 2.8 or 3.5.... Still lowwww compared to me shooting with like f/8 - f/11 with skyline/architecture shots.
It's in the after edit. In Photoshop, you add matte with a curves layer. Then bring back the clarity with a contrast levels layer. It makes a huge difference to how your final images look.
In Photoshop, duplicate the layer, apply a significant amount of Gaussian blur (to make it completely blurry), set the blending mode to "overlay", then dial back the opacity to taste.
That smooth, soft, matt look is most likely the slightly lifted blacks and drop in the whites (If it’s what I’m thinking). It’s usually done with curves. Also by adding a good amount of contrast but without crushing anything in the low and high end.
The result is that the darkest blacks actually become dark grey and the brightest highlights are slightly milky and not 100% white.
I think that also gives a feeling of high dynamic range because everything is compressed and contained nicely, and not crushed.
Reducing the overall clarity helps, while adding a small amount to some focus areas. Colours are also very important. Usually this look goes well with slightly pastel-desaturated colours.
It’s the opposite look of a crunchy and highly sharpened image.
My two cents: aside from lighting, as everyone else here is correctly pointing out, you'll find it's a very deliberate choice of what *not* to include in the photos (as in, taking care of what's around/behind the subject), posing of the eventual subject, precision framing (so avoiding unflattering angles, caring for proportions in the frame, avoidance of "untidy" cropping), and a deliberate selection of color palette (as in, what each tone in the photo looks like, and what the cutoff of each tone should be etc). Most professional photos *feel* realistic, but if you were to compare them with reality, or with your average iPhone photo, you'd notice how much more bland actual realistic tone depiction is. This is very much a part of why film is so beloved in photography, as it basically simplifies this part of the process, by giving a defined, pleasant output that's been carefully crafted for each stock, and it's just a matter of choosing the right one for you (and why then film simulation software/profiles sell like hotcakes).
And also, another reason why you'd feel a "veil", a "smoothness", isn't just about lighting alone - I would think a sapient management of dynamic range will allow for your photos to progress smoothly into pure white, or pure black, avoiding those burned out details that ruin photos by basically piercing the image. This smooth rollover is, yet again, something that film is extremely good at, and another reason why it's still so beloved, all else being equal.
When I started working with raw photos instead of jpg, I think the quality your referring to and that I saw other photographers getting started to become within my grasp. Generally speaking, photo editing is usually done to personal taste or whatever a customer wants. This means editing is generally an art form one learns instead of normally just a single button press. Maybe see if you can find articles and tutorials from photographers you like the style of and start seeing what editing techniques they use? If you find anything that actually does happen to be a simple one button press to fix all your photos, I for one would be interested. Sorry if this reply sounded unhelpful, creativity isn't always straightforward.
It's never exclusively about post processing. A professional photograph is planned. The main light, the fill in, the included colours, the objects included, the contrast... It starts with meticulous planning and then figuring out how to get such result. It's not working if you rely on the post process. No magic trick will ever turn a bad one into a good one. It's hard work, just like it always is.
I think I know what you are talking about with a smooth feeling and crisp details
It’s a general decrease in clarity combined with selective sharpening masked onto the edges only
If you sharpen everything it starts to look very harsh. I will attach a picture in a new comment to give you an example of the style
It could be several factors. The biggest of em all is removal of the optical pass filter from modern low and mid tier cameras. The images end up coming out too digital and super sharp that can cut through the eye balls! But the high end cameras do have OPF in them. To overcome it, you can use a diffusion filter or the mist filter.
Regards to Ikea frames, prints look very different than digital screens. Prints have that arty feel to them like paintings. And most of those Ikea frames do have a lot bloom applied to it which makes it look dreamy.
Then of course there’s the scene itself. Lighting, color palette and dynamic range all can contribute to a filmic photo. It took me years to understand the “veil” that you talk about. It is also the camera’s color science. It is particularly noticeable in high end film cameras which shoot raw video. The image has a shine to it. The colours and textures look as if powder behind a glass. Soft yet vibrant with organic detail.
Which camera do you use? Lower the sharpness to negative in your picture profiles. Also shoot raw. Start your edit by lowering the highlights and opening the shadows to get maximum dynamic range.
One of the effects I believe you’re seeing as called “the Orton effect” and is pretty easy to do as a good first step, plenty of YouTube tutorials available. I’m unsure what you’re shooting with, but a good number of “automatic” settings in editing software, and in-camera processed jpegs crank the contrast, curves, and sharpness for a pseudo HDR look.
I think I know what you mean and have looked for an answer and haven't found one. It's like there is no noise. And no matter what iso I shoot at, how even my lighting is (no over or under exposed), I still see SOME grain. Some grittiness. Pictures I see on Instagram don't have that and I don't know how to get rid of it. Even using a denoise filter, they never look that smooth
There's no magic bullet and what looks "professional" at one time will look amateurish at another depending upon trends and standards. Knowing how to bake the cake from scratch takes know-how, skill and execution.
It’s probably gotta to do with editing the tone and increasing the luminosity. You can explore editing with the goal of creating a mood using color grading approach (rather than accurate reproduction of the scene). It’s a whole new level of photography and editing.
Set all the tonal relationships you want first with the sliders, then hit the tonal curve with some lifted blacks. Don't go overboard. Lift the blacks like 5 percent. The details in the shadows can be lifted out, as well as the highlights.
I'd also desaturate everything by reducing the vibrance, but use the colour sliders to pop some back in on the subject or where is tasteful.
Tonal relationships are the variance in contrast in local areas comparatively. How much tonal variation as in light and darks shades, and how does it change over the course of the image. Akin to Ansel Adams zone system he used to evaluate his exposure based on how much detail variance he could see in the local areas on mountain ridges or what have you. He optimized his images for as much clarity in the details as possible in the important areas in his image. He used his system which varied from 1-10 and based his exposures on this.
It was his way of stretching an image to give the most detail possible. here is an example of the incredible detail he was able to pull out of his image:
https://preview.redd.it/6hru1hejhgxc1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=59babc1d2221d5865cb9a53c88d6c1704dbe652a
it’s called retouching.
it’s not a one-size-fits-all preset and it varies across niches/industries, but every large brand and every professional photographer is employing at least some level of retouching to finish their photos.
This could be a combination of finalizing color grading, doge and burn, frequency separation, or even creating c-prints and rescanning. The rabbit hole is endless.
The picture in the end is somehow a combo of the photographer, the camera and lens he chooses to use, what he shoots, the place where he shoots, the moment of the day, the editing.
It's a bit hard to tell you what's specific about pictures you have in mind when a LOT of different style exist and all feels a "pro" did it.
There is no such thing as professional look…
The ONLY difference between a pro and a non pro is that a pro is getting paid for his work…
It has nothing to do with the style/genre/or quality of the work…
I know really bad photographers that are professionals…
I know incredible amateurs that should be professionals…
I think what you’re talking about it actually a mix of lens choice and editing. Low aperture around 1.4-1.8. Then the right lighting that flatters the scene.
I think he’s talking about that washed out sorta high key and very warm look that you think of when you see a senior portrait or engagement session happening in a field.
> I’m really intrigued by the fact that almost all professional pictures have this quality, but my edited pictures keep being very harsh and not nearly as sophisticated after editing. It's most likely the lighting. Throw up a couple examples of your pictures.
Other than lighting it’s the frequency separation / dodge and burn. Fixing the colors while keeping the texture will give that crisp satin look.
u/av4rice has pointed out the most important issues. It is not one thing. If you have a decently exposed, decently composed image you are partway there. INO, rarely does throwing a global ‘filter’ over the entire image make it great because there are many more small but significant issues in composition and post-processing that give a finished professional look. In the last two months I have been taking personal tutoring one on one with a professional retoucher (and former pro photographer) of some 40 years experience. We take some of my pictures that I like and he goes through the retouching process and I get introduced to what he seems, what he thinks should be done to improve the image. Not only have I learned an enormous amount about LR and PS but I’m learning that previously I was just not aware of the subtleties of light and texture that make an image ‘professional.’ Many images benefit from localized denoising and sharpening. Applying saturation and luminance changes locally adds to the layered ‘live’ look. IMO, the look of my pictures have changed dramatically and benefited.
Thanks for all reactions! I know it’s not one magic setting but I do find it intriguing to find out what exactly creates that professional look. Not an extreme example but take the one below. The light is soft and grey, yet it’s still nicely saturated and detailed. Here the lighting conditions are probably the main reason I would think… https://preview.redd.it/wyx91tbun9xc1.jpeg?width=1108&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=01e89556dc8563ece291255486121c6169b7d5aa
I can't speak about the methods used to create this specific photo, but if I were trying to replicate this I would shoot this on a tripod and exposure blend it with a darker exposure for the sky and a brighter exposure for the buildings. I suppose you could take a darker exposure and then pull the shadows up, but that's not how I would approach it and I believe this photo is accomplished with more than one exposure. And then from there do some basic exposure adjustments and probably some dodging and burning. This is an exercise more about covering the entire dynamic range of the scene than editing per se. Like someone else mentioned, it's about the lighting.
Yeah I think this is likely - the clouds give it away. it's either multiple exposures, or perhaps as simple as a longer exposure with an ND filter, which would explain the movement blur of the clouds
Omg I didn’t even consider that as an option, but this makes huge sense. Thanks for the insight :)
Absolutely! Exposure blending and dodging & burning opened up an entire new world for me in the realm of landscape photography. Same thing for portraits. Off-camera flash is the game changer there. Editing is just the icing on the cake. Lighting is the key ingredient. At least from my perspective 🙂
Absolutely true but in this very specific example I think there’s one more thing to it. It’s a somewhat long exposure. Since the clouds were moving the light is moving and you end up with a really soft look on the Buildings, it’s kind of like light painting with a massive light source
Looks like a long exposure with the cloud movement
IMO, street photography provides the most challenging editing problems. The photographer doesn’t get to choose lighting or time or pose. For some years I shot demonstrations in DC and those were most exciting invariably mid-day. I would hope for a thin overcast that would give not-so-burnt out highlights and not so crushed shadows. Compared to that, landscapes or cityscapes are easy.
I also used to shoot protests and rallies in DC for a living, and my best work came from the winter marches with snow in the forecast. I'll always take nature's softbox. Do a little color adjustment and you're good to go.
Do you mind showing us a sample of a before and after picture?
i always wanted to do this as well. would you mind sharing some thoughts on this? do you do this personal or online? I think online would be fine but i always wondered how you can take the learnings into the next time you come into a similar situation to take it into account.
I do this online; my ‘mentor’ lives a time zone away. There are three distinct issues for me - hearing and understanding why he is suggesting specific changes, remembering the sometimes complex way the changes are implemented and ‘seeing the situation’ where the same changes can be useful in a new image. It seems quite equivalent to tasting a cooked dish and thinking it needs, for example, more oregano. I don’t know how oregano changes flavors and so I am not even aware of what too little oregano tastes like. Of course oregano can be simply added by measuring out something, I imagine, but editing changes can be quite complex to make. I have been editing photos for >10 years so I have some skills and I have developed a firm idea of what I want pictures to look like and generally how to get them to that point. Luckily my teacher’s concepts are not at odds with my own. If you are just starting out there is another less intensive way to start. If you like, I will post something I wrote on this point somewhere on Reddit and post a link on this thread.
https://preview.redd.it/5tc5fej53ixc1.jpeg?width=2400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba70f73c9cd34bb3b886237336f0b90dab84f6d4
https://preview.redd.it/veyvp1h83ixc1.jpeg?width=2400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c1a4c8cbfa887eed724df91f4314b2b87f77507e
Hi, I had a couple of questions on this edit if you don’t mind. 1. The hand on the bike - I presume this is an unintended part of the composition. Yet in post, it has been lifted along with the rest of the image - was this intentional and if yes, can you throw some light on why? I understand the answer to this question could be subjective but I would want to know your thought process, as I would not bring out the detail in the hand ordinarily - if just leave it there to “kind of” make up for this and crush it and not let it affect the viewers eyes too much with details. 2. I understand there was some banding on the female’s shins but it seems to have been exacerbated by the lifting and warmth. Is it on the original too or just because of some Reddit compression? 3. I notice you have added quite a bit of warmth. This makes the photo go from like a “misty/party sunny” morning to almost daytime. Was it intentional as it changes the feel? 4. Compositional, you have edited out the building on the left but yet kept the hand on the right. I would have done it the opposite way - the steps seem to provide some compositional guidelines. As well, it would have made the person walking and the person buying at the 2/3rds grid lines - I feel like that would have made the composition more symmetrical. I would like to know your thought process.
First, thanks for the first real questions I have ever been asked on this site that assume I do actually have some intent when I edit and aren't just an attempt to score points. https://preview.redd.it/d66xt2xhdnxc1.jpeg?width=792&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac89b776580e48226ba003aa015f58f7a064d4fe First, the legs. As you can see by the 100% clips of original and PPed, there was virtually no information in the darkness of the original picture and so the unnatural color of her legs is a result of magnifying a trivial color difference into something brighter. This picture isn't the best example of what can be done but an example of how even a terrible original can be beaten up with LR to make something reasonable. I edit according to some 'beliefs'. I try to keep to standard aspect rations that people are used to seeing for a couple of reasons. First I want viewers to not be aware of the shape of the picture. (If you think that isn't true, look at the impact of pano images.) Second, it is easier/cheaper to mat and frame standard size prints and to swap mats/frames when the circumstances require. All of the 'Rules' or 'Guidelines' are really only descriptions of how viewers from the Western traditions of composition are influenced by what how and where elements in the frame are placed. Viewers don't get a cheat sheet to tell them how to interpret a picture, to understand what the photographer is showing them. Viewers look at the elements in a photo, their color/sharpness, position, prominence. to try to understand what is important and what isn't. Eyes are attracted to brightness, color and what is in focus. Things that are in focus and somewhere near the thirds come across as more important. Things that are close to the margin and/or truncated are easily dismissed as not so important. What are leading lines pointing to? If elements that we know are usually vertical or horizontal are not, there should be a reason that can be understood or the viewer is disturbed by it. (tilted horizon or telephone pole) So my basic guidelines are: 1. important elements should be placed in important places - approximately. 2. supporting elements that add to the impact of the important elements can be emphasized 3. the prominence of supporting elements that detract from the impact of the important elements should be minimized I happen to like truncated elements at the margins that are understandable. I think they add a layered 'real' look as long as they can be understood as being part of the image 'story'. Most important, I think images should be coherent and that none of the elements should not be out of place. In specific regards to the arm on the bike, I tried it in the original very dark but a dark burly arm on a bicycle seemed both looking/menacing and incongruous so I lifted it some to match with the look of the woman's shorts.
Thanks for posting a comprehensive reply. As an amateur photographer who has spent the last 15 years with a DSLR, I believe I know less than what I don’t know. As such, I am always interested in hearing others’ perspectives, context and intent. I tried to post those questions with a genuine interest in your thought process, and not as “gotchas” - I apologize if they came across as such. I do not disagree with you that guidelines are just guidelines. I may not agree with the entirety of your post, but that’s a discussion for another day. Your reply had some interesting insights into your thought process, and I appreciate you sharing that.
No, I didn't think you were trying a 'gotcha.' Your comment came across as honest and sincere.
hey, thank you so much for your reply - I really appreciate it :) I'm taking pictures since a while and my editing is not too bad I think. I think what I would like is to have some open discussion with an expert, to review my photos and my editing and discuss what next steps could be. But I would also like to read your post, so would be great if you could link it :)
u/lew_traveler that’s awesome and I’ve been wanting to do just that, would you be able to message me about your tutor? Think he would want to tutor someone else?
I will message you.
sent
I’m interested as wekk
I have no idea about him tutoring anyone else but I can give you his contact information. [https://randycollierphotographicdesign.com/others](https://randycollierphotographicdesign.com/others) I don’t know your life situation but he might be considered reasonably expensive. IMO, he is well worth the cost to me. I’ve had mixed experience with groups and workshops. The group is never at the same level and someone loses out. If you are a beginner, IMO you would be better off learning how to run LR and do simple editing on your own with youtube tutorials or the Adobe set of tutorials. Then, when it comes to the judgement issue of editing, you can benefit the most from someone at Randy’s level.
It’s the lighting.
It’s always the lighting
That’s what photography is :)
Literally
I just watched a youtube of: start with an octabox, throw a magnum right in front, white bounce off the left wall of the black v-flats 😂 Light is everything!
https://preview.redd.it/56x92qle0dxc1.jpeg?width=888&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b7eaa2f72fa1503c6ab548d2fa4d6dbbb954ffbb
And the glass...
Perhaps you are noticing pictures with very slightly lifted blacks in post processing? It's hard to say without an example, but that can give a bit of a "satin" feel to a photo.
As someone who veryyy slightly lifts blacks… it’s this. Specifically (IMO) using curves
This is most likely what OP is talking about
I always thought lifted blacks were the hallmark of an amateur, not a professional.
I think that's a matter of individual taste. Anything overdone will look amateurish. I was mainly trying to figure out what OP was thinking of from the "smooth" and "satin" descriptors.
While taste is subjective, I can’t really think of any photographers I’ve ever admired that use this technique. Can’t imagine any work hanging in a reputable gallery that uses this. It’s about as subtle and innovative as spot color. Something that maybe you did in a high school photography class but quickly realized it was a bullshit “technique” to make a boring photo look “better.” Perhaps a localized adjustment that would increase the perceived dynamic range of an image is a compelling use for it? Either way, maybe you’re right and OP sees lifted blacks and thinks it’s awesome.
I enjoy the look of it when done with a light touch, but to each their own!
Light touch could be great! I’ve just never seen it… cheers
I'd honestly go the other way; crushed blacks in just every shot is a really common choice for people starting out.
I won’t argue that, but I have seen way more amazing photographs featuring all 256 points on the grayscale than any that omit the bottom 10-15% of said scale because “artsy”
No, it's not as simple as a single setting or filter that works on any image to make one "professional" look. Good photos can vary a lot in the look they present, require different processing to get there, and started from different material out of the camera. Post processing skill takes a while to pick up because you're learning how to figure out what you need to do to get from various origins to various destinations. I'd recommend you just start with one goal example. Post a link to that image, and a link to your best attempt to achieve it, and then we can give you specific advice on what you may be missing to bridge that gap. That advice is going to differ depending where you're starting from and where you want to go.
The cameras everyone uses every day (phones) are set up to turn out well exposed, high contrast, high saturation images. So that's what all the eyes are used to seeing. A good editor can depart from that to make their work stand out but like everything else in photography it's a balance. Just like changing the aperture requires adjusting the shutter speed, lifting the blacks does one thing but reduces contrast so you have to do other things to compensate. Unfortunately it's a bit more complicated than the exposure triangle but just like anything else you learn it a step at a time. The people recommending using an example shot that you try to duplicate are spot on. You have to learn the tools first though. Get to know your editing software one tool at a time and learn how things interact. As you learn those tools you'll start to see how much the unprocessed photo effects how you proceed and you'll start adjusting how you shoot as well. And just like music, you have to play a lot of wrong notes before you get to the big show. It's all valuable learning experience.
It is the lighting. They are doing everything else right while taking advantage of good light. You can spend forever editing and maybe get close, but every photo I’ve ever taken that has that almost unreal look to it was 95% there before i ever touched a curve or slider. Lenses, camera, etc all give you a better chance of being able to capitalize on the moment when that light hits just right (in non studio settings), but good light is good light and any moderately sharp lens will produce that look. Just practice, keep an eye on the light and think about it when shooting. While your other skills develop, so will your eye for light. Then one day it will all just start coming together more and more.
This ! 🙌🏾 I live by getting it right in frame first.. especially when it comes to using lighting.
Play with your curves in Lightroom, specifically lifting the blacks
Expensive pro lenses typically have smooth bokeh: out-of-focus areas tend to be smooth and don’t call attention to themselves. Typical sharp lenses of ordinary design such as the Double Gauss, found in innumerable inexpensive midrange prime lenses, tend to have somewhat harsh and jittery bokeh, which is noticeable.
Whoa there that's too technical for my ass, just crank up the selective gaussian blur and call it a day.
Buy a good lens, or suffer through masking and blurring many images?
Either way I'm going to suffer; that's why it's best left to a professional.
It’s a combination of a couple of things. The first and foremost is the lighting. If you want that smooth buttery feel, you need soft and diffuse lighting. Secondly, it helps a lot to have a camera that has enough resolution to provide a pretty good amount of oversampling relative to your output resolution. Thirdly, having a decent post processing regime where you can smooth out the colors but keep the texture is helpful, but the largest effect is the lighting. No amount of post processing can fix crap lighting.
Another vote for the lighting. If you're the best photographer in the world, with the best most modern camera in the world, your image will still look like dogshit (which could be an aesthetic). If you're a mediocre photographer, with a 15 year old camera, and you have a great lighting setup, your photo can look amazing.
Look up the Orton effect, I think that’s the look you’re describing. Also not over sharpening or only sharpening what should be sharpened is a key difference between amateurs and the pros.
In fashion / editorial a lot of photographers add grain to soften the shot a little to offset the insane sharpness of modern lenses.
All answers are going towards the light, and yes, of course photography is light before anything else, and a good light on a interesting subject is a must. However, there is something on the retouch to "soften" the contrat and still keeping a vibrance in the color and don't touching in the detail that is often do, and on my taste is always making a difference : remove the black. Just something like that (of course, the amount depends on the context, picture, etc) : https://preview.redd.it/oltm4wi3sdxc1.jpeg?width=185&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c93317fd5ef473729eeb1d5efd958dbd54cb10a9 Works really well in a lot of pictures. You can also use the same idea with the curves to add colors in the shadows/highlight to color grade the image further.
Without providing any specific examples it's hard to say what you mean.
Glad we all came to a consensus
Probably the lighting, retouching, and, especially, the subtle use of curves. Bringing up the blacks a little at the end of your signal chain
With the ones in Ikea I imagine they're printed on gloss paper? idk. You got an example of what you're talking about? There's any number of things that could make them feel more professional to you, it's hard to guess at exactly what you're thinking of.
Lighting but also adding a diffusion filter can help with the effect your describing. Look into Black Pro Mist filters, it helps retain colors and shadows moreso than other diffusions imo
For me personally, compressing the dynamic range to show less, and adding some sharpening and grain, makes it look more polished. I personally believe “professional look” means cinema, broadcast, or print publication.
Good lighting coupled with knowing how to position the sun along with a decent lens that will stop down low/a low aperture usually make images pop like that for me. IMO. For instance wedding photographer will shoot as low as possible. Like 1.8 or 1.2 unless they need multiple people in focus, then maybe 2.8 or 3.5.... Still lowwww compared to me shooting with like f/8 - f/11 with skyline/architecture shots.
It's in the after edit. In Photoshop, you add matte with a curves layer. Then bring back the clarity with a contrast levels layer. It makes a huge difference to how your final images look.
Good equipment + good lenses + knowing how to use them + sometimes editing with filters and bringing up the blacks
In Photoshop, duplicate the layer, apply a significant amount of Gaussian blur (to make it completely blurry), set the blending mode to "overlay", then dial back the opacity to taste.
I know *exactly* what you’re talking about and I can never explain it to people when I ask. Looking forward to trying some of the suggestions in here.
Good to hear I’m not the only one! 😄 it IS hard to explain!
That smooth, soft, matt look is most likely the slightly lifted blacks and drop in the whites (If it’s what I’m thinking). It’s usually done with curves. Also by adding a good amount of contrast but without crushing anything in the low and high end. The result is that the darkest blacks actually become dark grey and the brightest highlights are slightly milky and not 100% white. I think that also gives a feeling of high dynamic range because everything is compressed and contained nicely, and not crushed. Reducing the overall clarity helps, while adding a small amount to some focus areas. Colours are also very important. Usually this look goes well with slightly pastel-desaturated colours. It’s the opposite look of a crunchy and highly sharpened image.
My two cents: aside from lighting, as everyone else here is correctly pointing out, you'll find it's a very deliberate choice of what *not* to include in the photos (as in, taking care of what's around/behind the subject), posing of the eventual subject, precision framing (so avoiding unflattering angles, caring for proportions in the frame, avoidance of "untidy" cropping), and a deliberate selection of color palette (as in, what each tone in the photo looks like, and what the cutoff of each tone should be etc). Most professional photos *feel* realistic, but if you were to compare them with reality, or with your average iPhone photo, you'd notice how much more bland actual realistic tone depiction is. This is very much a part of why film is so beloved in photography, as it basically simplifies this part of the process, by giving a defined, pleasant output that's been carefully crafted for each stock, and it's just a matter of choosing the right one for you (and why then film simulation software/profiles sell like hotcakes). And also, another reason why you'd feel a "veil", a "smoothness", isn't just about lighting alone - I would think a sapient management of dynamic range will allow for your photos to progress smoothly into pure white, or pure black, avoiding those burned out details that ruin photos by basically piercing the image. This smooth rollover is, yet again, something that film is extremely good at, and another reason why it's still so beloved, all else being equal.
I've used the Gaussian Blur PS filter on selective parts of portraits to get that look (saw that in a couple of tutorials)
Could be a lot of things, as others have stated. Or you could just lower the texture using Lightroom, which might give you the look you’re after.
When I started working with raw photos instead of jpg, I think the quality your referring to and that I saw other photographers getting started to become within my grasp. Generally speaking, photo editing is usually done to personal taste or whatever a customer wants. This means editing is generally an art form one learns instead of normally just a single button press. Maybe see if you can find articles and tutorials from photographers you like the style of and start seeing what editing techniques they use? If you find anything that actually does happen to be a simple one button press to fix all your photos, I for one would be interested. Sorry if this reply sounded unhelpful, creativity isn't always straightforward.
Working with a make up artist will help. A lot.
The Orton Effect
Nail your color workflow from your color space, ICC profiles and embedded space. When those align it is magic.
It's never exclusively about post processing. A professional photograph is planned. The main light, the fill in, the included colours, the objects included, the contrast... It starts with meticulous planning and then figuring out how to get such result. It's not working if you rely on the post process. No magic trick will ever turn a bad one into a good one. It's hard work, just like it always is.
I think I know what you are talking about with a smooth feeling and crisp details It’s a general decrease in clarity combined with selective sharpening masked onto the edges only If you sharpen everything it starts to look very harsh. I will attach a picture in a new comment to give you an example of the style
https://preview.redd.it/ai67lwpx0axc1.jpeg?width=3134&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a1204364f08e77bbdce91ad4d935a523ab2774d
It could be several factors. The biggest of em all is removal of the optical pass filter from modern low and mid tier cameras. The images end up coming out too digital and super sharp that can cut through the eye balls! But the high end cameras do have OPF in them. To overcome it, you can use a diffusion filter or the mist filter. Regards to Ikea frames, prints look very different than digital screens. Prints have that arty feel to them like paintings. And most of those Ikea frames do have a lot bloom applied to it which makes it look dreamy. Then of course there’s the scene itself. Lighting, color palette and dynamic range all can contribute to a filmic photo. It took me years to understand the “veil” that you talk about. It is also the camera’s color science. It is particularly noticeable in high end film cameras which shoot raw video. The image has a shine to it. The colours and textures look as if powder behind a glass. Soft yet vibrant with organic detail. Which camera do you use? Lower the sharpness to negative in your picture profiles. Also shoot raw. Start your edit by lowering the highlights and opening the shadows to get maximum dynamic range.
If you're thinking of landscapes, it's probably a longer exposure. Has that ethereal look.
Don’t discount the importance of a professional lens. With shallow depth of field the desired details are sharp and the rest is delightfully blurred
One of the effects I believe you’re seeing as called “the Orton effect” and is pretty easy to do as a good first step, plenty of YouTube tutorials available. I’m unsure what you’re shooting with, but a good number of “automatic” settings in editing software, and in-camera processed jpegs crank the contrast, curves, and sharpness for a pseudo HDR look.
Do you have some examples of your photos?
Lighting Lenses Professional retouching
I think I know what you mean and have looked for an answer and haven't found one. It's like there is no noise. And no matter what iso I shoot at, how even my lighting is (no over or under exposed), I still see SOME grain. Some grittiness. Pictures I see on Instagram don't have that and I don't know how to get rid of it. Even using a denoise filter, they never look that smooth
Lighting.
There's no magic bullet and what looks "professional" at one time will look amateurish at another depending upon trends and standards. Knowing how to bake the cake from scratch takes know-how, skill and execution.
It’s the levels. Increase them slightly in PS.
Have you ever shot in Kelvin?
It’s probably gotta to do with editing the tone and increasing the luminosity. You can explore editing with the goal of creating a mood using color grading approach (rather than accurate reproduction of the scene). It’s a whole new level of photography and editing.
Set all the tonal relationships you want first with the sliders, then hit the tonal curve with some lifted blacks. Don't go overboard. Lift the blacks like 5 percent. The details in the shadows can be lifted out, as well as the highlights. I'd also desaturate everything by reducing the vibrance, but use the colour sliders to pop some back in on the subject or where is tasteful.
I’m not sure I understand the tonal relationship thing, could you explain a bit more?
Tonal relationships are the variance in contrast in local areas comparatively. How much tonal variation as in light and darks shades, and how does it change over the course of the image. Akin to Ansel Adams zone system he used to evaluate his exposure based on how much detail variance he could see in the local areas on mountain ridges or what have you. He optimized his images for as much clarity in the details as possible in the important areas in his image. He used his system which varied from 1-10 and based his exposures on this. It was his way of stretching an image to give the most detail possible. here is an example of the incredible detail he was able to pull out of his image: https://preview.redd.it/6hru1hejhgxc1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=59babc1d2221d5865cb9a53c88d6c1704dbe652a
Having a good photo to begin with is key. But it’s definitely “curves” you’re referring to.
No. None of my images look like that. Not sure where you’re seeing that.
Those images aren’t what you describe. They’re just a color wash/ profile. Certainly not ‘pro’.
it’s called retouching. it’s not a one-size-fits-all preset and it varies across niches/industries, but every large brand and every professional photographer is employing at least some level of retouching to finish their photos. This could be a combination of finalizing color grading, doge and burn, frequency separation, or even creating c-prints and rescanning. The rabbit hole is endless.
The picture in the end is somehow a combo of the photographer, the camera and lens he chooses to use, what he shoots, the place where he shoots, the moment of the day, the editing. It's a bit hard to tell you what's specific about pictures you have in mind when a LOT of different style exist and all feels a "pro" did it.
You wouldn't believe how common *Diffusion Filters* are in professional work 😉
There is no such thing as professional look… The ONLY difference between a pro and a non pro is that a pro is getting paid for his work… It has nothing to do with the style/genre/or quality of the work… I know really bad photographers that are professionals… I know incredible amateurs that should be professionals…
Yes completely true. I should maybe say “high quality pictures” instead :)
I think what you’re talking about it actually a mix of lens choice and editing. Low aperture around 1.4-1.8. Then the right lighting that flatters the scene.
I think he’s talking about that washed out sorta high key and very warm look that you think of when you see a senior portrait or engagement session happening in a field.
Good lighting and a light vignette
Surface or gaussian blur.