I'm not usually one to post links to images or bodies of work that I'm impressed by, but I'm about to do just that...
http://www.burnmagazine.org/essays/2010/04/dmitry-markov-awkward-age/
First and foremost I'm really impressed with this mans ability as a photographer and story teller. Secondly, I'm really impressed with the way the photos are processed. I know there are plenty of other good processing examples out there that really sing, but it's rare I see a body of work so well processed and expressive of content. It's really consistent and subtle. Very professional.
I shoot a D700 but have hesitated shooting it for "real" work because, it I'm honest, I don't know how to satisfy my vision using a 100% digital workflow. I'm plain crap at raw processing. I can do the basics, full stop. I'm still on film for my personal work as a consequence where I can scan trannie in Vuescan using a Nikon 8000, save in DNG and process in Lightroom / PS to get it right with absolute confidence.
What I'm interested in is how this guy might achieve such a broad dynamic range and luminous appearance without it seeming unnatural. I don't see too many of the usual tell tale signs of what I'd call "ugly digital highlights and banding, " i.e. the highlights are generally well handled and shadow detail looks natural. (There is some highlight clipping in several high contrast scenes, I know.) Would some be examples of blending two processed variants, one for the highlights and one for the shadows? I'm particularly thinking of the images with vast cloudy skies in them. The photos also have very good depth and modeling to them in general, which is something I often find lacking in end digital photographs. They don't look flat, which in some way goes against my impression they have a broad DR. Also, the skin tones are very good. I'm finding it hard to get good warm "kodak" skin, and my processing of skin often looks a bit plastic and / or "dead grey / thin," for want of better terms. It seems in Lightroom I have to change the hue and sat of red and orange to get things looking half decent without stuffing the overall W/B and making things too yellow. This guys skin tones just look filmic. I find digital skin often has an unnatural red hue bias.
Sorry if these are some really boring, basic questions to some. I'm genuinely in need of some tips and tricks to get my processing ability up to speed. I often feel I should not even try to reference what I like about the look of film when assessing digital files because they're clearly different technologies, each with its one strengths and weaknesses. What do others think?
http://www.burnmagazine.org/essays/2010/04/dmitry-markov-awkward-age/
First and foremost I'm really impressed with this mans ability as a photographer and story teller. Secondly, I'm really impressed with the way the photos are processed. I know there are plenty of other good processing examples out there that really sing, but it's rare I see a body of work so well processed and expressive of content. It's really consistent and subtle. Very professional.
I shoot a D700 but have hesitated shooting it for "real" work because, it I'm honest, I don't know how to satisfy my vision using a 100% digital workflow. I'm plain crap at raw processing. I can do the basics, full stop. I'm still on film for my personal work as a consequence where I can scan trannie in Vuescan using a Nikon 8000, save in DNG and process in Lightroom / PS to get it right with absolute confidence.
What I'm interested in is how this guy might achieve such a broad dynamic range and luminous appearance without it seeming unnatural. I don't see too many of the usual tell tale signs of what I'd call "ugly digital highlights and banding, " i.e. the highlights are generally well handled and shadow detail looks natural. (There is some highlight clipping in several high contrast scenes, I know.) Would some be examples of blending two processed variants, one for the highlights and one for the shadows? I'm particularly thinking of the images with vast cloudy skies in them. The photos also have very good depth and modeling to them in general, which is something I often find lacking in end digital photographs. They don't look flat, which in some way goes against my impression they have a broad DR. Also, the skin tones are very good. I'm finding it hard to get good warm "kodak" skin, and my processing of skin often looks a bit plastic and / or "dead grey / thin," for want of better terms. It seems in Lightroom I have to change the hue and sat of red and orange to get things looking half decent without stuffing the overall W/B and making things too yellow. This guys skin tones just look filmic. I find digital skin often has an unnatural red hue bias.
Sorry if these are some really boring, basic questions to some. I'm genuinely in need of some tips and tricks to get my processing ability up to speed. I often feel I should not even try to reference what I like about the look of film when assessing digital files because they're clearly different technologies, each with its one strengths and weaknesses. What do others think?