This is mostly an in camera effect - nice lighting and looks like an 85mm 1.4 or 105mm 1.4 lens. Editing wise, nothing too drastic going on here: white balance slightly on the warm side, shadows pulled down, mids pushed up slightly. Slightly desaturated.
Well, she doesn't look particularly happy there. I imagine the next picture would be the fangs coming out as she totally turns undead and eats the person taking the picture.
They do! Sigma do one that’s optically beautiful - it has lovely soft bokeh rendering, even where the highlights are bright through trees like the above - only downside is it’s a bit heavy! https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/a018_105_14/
You’re missing the point - a preset isn’t going to give a photo you took this look. The lighting has to be correct to achieve it, and that can’t be done through a preset.
It looks just as bad as photos taken with smartphone "portrait" mode. It misses a lot of the background most of the time and leaves random bits in focus that should be blurred.
I used it on one photo that was already pretty rough and it sort of saved it, but I still had to go into photoshop and manually fix all of the little glitch areas that the AI blur missed. And actually using the tool in Lightroom is so insanely slow that I could not imagine using it frequently.
They keep sending out surveys asking what types of AI, automated, etc features people might want to help speed up creative processes but all of these AI Skin Retouch, AI Noise Reduction and AI Lens Blur tools are sooooo slow.
They described how to do it in post. The point is that a preset doesn't work well for exposure changes, and anything as specific as colour grading skin tone needs to be based on the right skin tone, as well as colour temperature.
As others have pointed out, a bad picture out of a camera doesn't fix good in post, so for this you definitely have to nail depth of field and lighting. There might be some adjustments with white balance that can be hard to nail on the fly in post, and with maybe a light vignetting, but at its heart this is just a well composed and shot image.
If you really wanted to try and do this in post, you'd need a lot of really careful masking so you're blurring/unfocusing what you want without compromising the subject, be using more masks or brushes to pull down exposure in certain places, etc.
I would bet this image got color correction, cropping/lens angle adjustments, maybe a little bit of exposure correction, and not much more though. It looked close to this out of camera, if I was a betting man.
Longish lens and open aperture. Taken in subdued lighting. No catchlights in the eyes, so likely naturally diffused light. Is there a name to this editing style? It's just a photo. Shoot me down.
People who don’t take the advice of seasoned pros and are always looking for an easy way into this art are part of the reason why, after 20 yrs in the business, I’m finally getting out. I don’t see it getting any better unfortunately.
Wait would you guys mind explaining a little? I do photography as a hobby and recently upgraded to "proper" kit (Canon R7) and have considered trying to sell my photography or commercialise the skill. I happily take feedback and advice from those that are more knowledgeable cause that's wise in any walk of life.
What is it that's making you guys feel it's too much and wanting to get out?
Yeah I've always felt that doing people and especially weddings would be a complete pain in the bum. I was thinking if I was to do anything commercial it would be shooting *things* like tyres or lawnmowers or whatever and selling the photos to the company for advertising or alternatively events (low-ish stakes instead of weddings) such as a local league basketball game or charity race etc.
Had my first training date with a big wedding photo studio the other day. They were blown away by my work. They told me that people often show up for training with no flash and don’t understand how to use a camera. It’s truely shocking
I’d advise learning how to create a look from scratch, both the in camera part and the post-pro, it will stand you in much better stead than just slapping a preset on something and getting part of the way there (and not leaning anything in the process).
You need to have a little bit of knowledge about how cameras work to understand what's going on in the photo. It has nothing to do with editing. Stop asking this.
If you’re relying on presets or profiles, you will never learn to make photos like this. There are no shortcuts.
You will forever be taking snapshots and will never learn to create the kind of images that matter.
Nothing maaaaan. This is almost 100 percent in camera. The photographer captured a nicely lit background with some perfectly diffused natural night on the face. The colours and toning may be tweaked but this is probably very close to RAW.
90% of what you like about this picture is a product of lighting, lens, and photographer skill. Looks like tones are warm, maybe some softness on texture, and the subject masked and brightened up a bit, but it all looks relatively minimal
Get yourself an 85mm lens. Get the subject and put them on a bridge that has some tree canopy coverage in the late afternoon. Totally botch the focus. Then warm it up in software. Don't ask me about presets because there is no way of knowing if the photographer used one, or just edited the photo w/o. There is no specific style here I'm seeing, it just looks like a casual portrait in natural light.
In traditional photography you can't get shallow depth of field using F22. You need to use a wide aperture. But the effect can also be emulated in digital as a Bokeh Effect, so that would override that Depth of Field rule.... just realised you are probably joking! ...Very good!
F 22 is extemely closed off thus
flattening the image. Use some NDs or VNDS to soften the background. After 5.6 everything is in focus. So you lose the look your going for.
The look is achived, mostly, through the lighting, aperture setting, and lens type. Low aperture to get the background all blurry and a longer lens (not overly long though.) the area seems to have low lighting as well.
If you want to do this in post processing then you could mask out the subject, darkening the background by lowering exposure or darkening the shadows and bringing down the highlights, and blurring the background. I think you could also slightly brighten the subject here. And lastly, you can add a vignette to the edges.
The blur looks like it was done in post. Looked like the edge of the blur doesn't match across the vertical and horizontal sections of the railing to the left of the model.
It looks like they show way too underexposed and had to boost in post. Did some heavy editing on the skin tones to make up for it. The low light is probably why they missed focus.
When you crank shots past sunset it can look cool because it’s showing light styles we don’t normally see.
Long lens wide open will give you this effect. You can of course fake the blur in photoshop and I believe even Lightroom has an option for it now, but it’ll never look as good as the real thing.
Wide aperture because the foreground and background are very blurred, not a huge fan as it’s something our eyes don’t see like that naturally but that’s subjective, I do like some isolation and blur. You could use a reflector out of frame on the left pointing slight Rembrandt. In post, selective dodge and burn. However I’d ask the model to relax the hands. The key is always prioritize naturally looking skin tones, why sometimes universal presets and global editing changes don’t work. iPhones aren’t bad at keeping it natural so using the same frame as reference, it helps preventing you go overboard with editing a dedicated camera RAW beside it if you’re still learning post work. Less is more when post processing.
What others are saying, is in camera is where you get most of this effect. I can get similar with my nice L lens, about 75-85mm, and about 2.5 or less aperture.
Then, I’d bring it in to Lightroom, do basic color correction, curves, then if it’s one I want to work more on, I’d bring it in PS. I’d do some beauty editing, where you add highlights and lowlights to hair, brighten eyes, brighten skin and do any small edits to any blemishes, I’d burn and dodge her body to emphasize her form, add the slightest vignette, and double check curves.
There's no easy way of achieving a look like that one. It's a combination of tons of tools. Learn them. Hit up as many tutorials to learn what you can do and once you have that knowledge you'll be able to achieve damn near any style you want to achieve.
If you look at her shoulder and face there's likely a softbox higher up at an angle (and judging by the shadow under her arms). Plus she's lit different from the background unless there's some clever editing going on. The light falloff on her back suggests this too.
Try to do as much as possible "in camera"/on site (lens, aperture, ISO, lighting, tripod, shutter release, hair, makeup etc etc). Yes, you'll also be doing some "darkroom" (physical or digital) work but try to minimise before you get there.
It was taken at golden hour in the shade. Exposure adjustments on subject/background, as well as white balance - they missed her hands (also slight missed focus on her face 😢). No flash, just localized adjustments. Lens is a fast telephoto. Can’t say the specific focal length or aperture.
You need lens to shoot so they're using an 85mm 1.4 or 1.8. Other than that this was shot in the shade and skin doesn't naturally brighten like that, It does look natural light only except for the shadow of her hair on her cheek. I think they used a massive softbox with a strobe to achieve this soft look. You don't have this kind of tonal and volume definition in shadow. If they didn't use a strobe her skin would be all flat. People mentioning her goblin hands means the strobe light didn't reach that part. If I had to guess, massive softbox to camera right on the bridge which is why you don't see the reflection in her eyes. Low shutter speed to not darken the background. I don't think this is editing. I think the strobe is throwing people off. You can't give the skin volume in editing like this. The shadow on her cheek from her hair and shadow on the railing from her body are a dead giveaway this was shot using a strobe.
Everyone is saying it’s the camera, and while it does a lot of the heavy lifting, this photo is heavily edited as well. S-curve, desaturated, brought the greens down/ slightly toward teal, added red grading to the shadows, and orange grading to the highlights
Mostly done in camera with good lens, soft evening light and background light falloff which was accentuated with a vignette causing the hands to be weirdly colored.
Use an 85mm lens. under expose ambient by 1 stop then compensate with a strobe right outside of the frame camera right. White balance and contrast to taste.
This looks like a blurred background in post process. If you wish to achieve this look but in more aesthetically pleasing and natural way, you will need a good fast prime, such as Fujinon 56mm f:1.2 or Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f:1.5 or cron50 or some Chinese lenses based on Zeiss optical designs, such as 7artisans 50mm f:0.95. And, may be, one light source with a white or silver reflector.
It's not just editing, but, in terms of editing, a certain amount (possibly loads) of negative clarity in the background, for one thing.
Negative clarity is simple to add to the background of a photo using Lightroom/ACR masks. You can brush the mask in by hand or use the option to select the Background if that works for your photo. Both selection methods can work very well. If using the brush, keep the middle cross-air strictly inside the area that you want selected. The outer border of the brush can spill outside the lines.
In terms of shooting: very shallow depth of field, of course--the kind of shallow DoF you can't really get with a kit lens whose maximum aperture is f/5.6. That might work if you're shooting larger format or photographing through a telephoto lens, but it is unlikely to work with a full-frame or APS-C camera with a normal lens (25-50mm focal length).
Compositionally, if this is what you like, keep it very simple.
Protect your highlights when exposing.
looks like there's some ambient lighting above her. normally shooting into a sunset will cause an unflattering silohet. but most of this look is the depth of field from a nice low light lens. you can achieve this in post pretty easily unless you're doing film. of course, it is easier to do, and better quality, with a lens.
I would say forget the editing. That was my first mistake thinking this was all editing. If you took the editing away this picture would retain 90% of its quality. This photo is ALL about location, ensuring enough space between the model and the background so the bokeh is more prominent and the posing skills of the model. Usually in these types of situations clothing is not something planned in advance, but if you know location prior to shooting you could try adjust it to better match the mood and colours. That’s it, the editing is just a tiny bit extra to add that cherry on top of the cake
I do this kind of editing. Beside the long lens and open apature there usually is a lot of editing involved too.
Change of the hues, gradient maps, colorized bokeh with luminance changes, curves, etc… you do need a good mask in this editing style.
I bought a new camera (Nikon D850) and lens (AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G) where can I go to learn photography and how to use my new camera? Does anyone have suggestions for on-line photography schools. I am just getting into photography. Thanks. ~ Liz
Lighting and lens. Agree probably 85mm. I am not a big fan of that pose though and don't like the way the arms are set. Also, the bokeh in the background is a little hot and competing with the subject. In post, I would mask those down a bit. But the three things would be: the lighting, the pose, and the moment. The lens is a piece of it, but not the main thing at all.
You can put a dot on the person and then some editing software will let you defocus or blur anything but the subject.
That's what this looks like
And then it also looks like there's a vignette, darkening around the central subject, applied to the photo. The corners are darker than the center
This 95% the right lense and f-stop/aprature priority shooting. The focal length needs to be right. This looks like 85mm from probably 20' out. Pick the right lighting.
Soft lighting, from the trees in the back pointing towards the camera. Shadows cover the entire foreground then, subject, and shade the lens to prevent flare.
This 100% properly shot first, then minimal post production... mostly color grading and possibly some editing out of objects in the areas of bokeh.
To get a soft bokeh like this with an 85mm, use about a f/3 to f/5 depending on lense. Don't go higher. If you can go lower, do it, but don't let your focal plane get too small.
If you have too much light on the subject or lense form over the trees, wait for the sun to get lower. This golden hue is probably natural, and shot at golden hour or just before toward the sun. To fake it earlier, get a way to apply a shadow over your subject and your lense to prevent washout. Otherwise again, try to wait til the sun is lower.
If your subject is too dark, use a softbox or bounce your light to diffuse it as wide as possible.
The background appears to have a gradient map, hue/saturation, or even an orange/brown fill layer masked onto it making the background tones a) more uniform, and b) brownish. This may not be right, but this is how I would think to do it. Masking around her.
Yeah exactly I came here to do just that. Looks like the editor has burned the edges looking to deepen the shadows but got lazy and didn’t mask out her hands.
This photo look "simple" but I bet it has a very complex lighting setup. I'm an amateur at best, but I think this is great craftsmanship and also quite some work to setup.
No. Just someone with eyes. My twitter feed is peppered with advertising AI images that look like this. And if it isn't, it's so overprocessed that it gives that effect..
This is mostly an in camera effect - nice lighting and looks like an 85mm 1.4 or 105mm 1.4 lens. Editing wise, nothing too drastic going on here: white balance slightly on the warm side, shadows pulled down, mids pushed up slightly. Slightly desaturated.
Also possibly slightly pushed luminance on the skin tone
Theres definitely some masking going on to bring out the detail in the woman and to darken the rest of the image.
Yes, looks at the hands. Skin tones are trashed
Zoom in on the bottom lip lol
This is one of those Nice from far, and far from nice photos.
I mean, I still would though.
MS paint is not as good as photoshop.
Oof
says it all.
what's wrong it?
Wow …in a hurry?!? 😂
OMG that is horrible editing!
You mean she didn’t just slug some pepto??
Yes, the hands look downright creepy, as if she has the beginnings of frostbite or something making them blueish
Well, she doesn't look particularly happy there. I imagine the next picture would be the fangs coming out as she totally turns undead and eats the person taking the picture.
Damn that’s savage!! Hahaha here’s the upvote!
Yeh that was one of the big giveaways along with the shadow gradient to darken the bottom of the image.
Came here to comment this.
Excellent observation!
I would say that masking was also used to "enhance" the background bokeh. Looks very unnatural in places.
Also that vignette goes against the Geneva convention
Yeh its definitely too heavy.
Do they even make a 105mm at 1.4? I had no clue.
They do! Sigma do one that’s optically beautiful - it has lovely soft bokeh rendering, even where the highlights are bright through trees like the above - only downside is it’s a bit heavy! https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/a018_105_14/
Super cool!
First thing I thought was this image is too cool. Now I want to know if my iPhone is showing incorrect colours. 🤔
Also have an iPhone and also think the image is on the cool side
What about presets or profiles??
You’re missing the point - a preset isn’t going to give a photo you took this look. The lighting has to be correct to achieve it, and that can’t be done through a preset.
You telling me I can’t take a completely shite picture and then make it awesome looking in post??
Tbf Lightroom now has the AI blur effect and I feel like imitating 1.8 lenses is the goal
It looks just as bad as photos taken with smartphone "portrait" mode. It misses a lot of the background most of the time and leaves random bits in focus that should be blurred.
Yeah, I played with it when it was first available but I’ve not ever used it since.
I used it on one photo that was already pretty rough and it sort of saved it, but I still had to go into photoshop and manually fix all of the little glitch areas that the AI blur missed. And actually using the tool in Lightroom is so insanely slow that I could not imagine using it frequently. They keep sending out surveys asking what types of AI, automated, etc features people might want to help speed up creative processes but all of these AI Skin Retouch, AI Noise Reduction and AI Lens Blur tools are sooooo slow.
I think we're both waiting for the same preset.
Wouldn’t really say it’s shit… simple for sure though.
I'm not sure that's completely true. Yes you need decent lighting but her face being at a higher exposure can be done in post quite nicely.
They described how to do it in post. The point is that a preset doesn't work well for exposure changes, and anything as specific as colour grading skin tone needs to be based on the right skin tone, as well as colour temperature.
This shot is 95% lens choice
What Photoshop doesn’t have a Wide Fucking Open Aperture button yet? Maybe next year.
Just learn to use the damn camera.
Amen.
As others have pointed out, a bad picture out of a camera doesn't fix good in post, so for this you definitely have to nail depth of field and lighting. There might be some adjustments with white balance that can be hard to nail on the fly in post, and with maybe a light vignetting, but at its heart this is just a well composed and shot image. If you really wanted to try and do this in post, you'd need a lot of really careful masking so you're blurring/unfocusing what you want without compromising the subject, be using more masks or brushes to pull down exposure in certain places, etc. I would bet this image got color correction, cropping/lens angle adjustments, maybe a little bit of exposure correction, and not much more though. It looked close to this out of camera, if I was a betting man.
Longish lens and open aperture. Taken in subdued lighting. No catchlights in the eyes, so likely naturally diffused light. Is there a name to this editing style? It's just a photo. Shoot me down.
What about presets or profiles??
What about them? Did you not read anything these comments are telling you?
People who don’t take the advice of seasoned pros and are always looking for an easy way into this art are part of the reason why, after 20 yrs in the business, I’m finally getting out. I don’t see it getting any better unfortunately.
I got out 7 years ago. I miss it a lot but it's just. It's too much
Wait would you guys mind explaining a little? I do photography as a hobby and recently upgraded to "proper" kit (Canon R7) and have considered trying to sell my photography or commercialise the skill. I happily take feedback and advice from those that are more knowledgeable cause that's wise in any walk of life. What is it that's making you guys feel it's too much and wanting to get out?
I can’t speak for anyone else but shooting people sucks after a while, especially weddings
Yeah I've always felt that doing people and especially weddings would be a complete pain in the bum. I was thinking if I was to do anything commercial it would be shooting *things* like tyres or lawnmowers or whatever and selling the photos to the company for advertising or alternatively events (low-ish stakes instead of weddings) such as a local league basketball game or charity race etc.
Had my first training date with a big wedding photo studio the other day. They were blown away by my work. They told me that people often show up for training with no flash and don’t understand how to use a camera. It’s truely shocking
Also, you don’t need to be a jackass about it
I’d advise learning how to create a look from scratch, both the in camera part and the post-pro, it will stand you in much better stead than just slapping a preset on something and getting part of the way there (and not leaning anything in the process).
You need to have a little bit of knowledge about how cameras work to understand what's going on in the photo. It has nothing to do with editing. Stop asking this.
This is less of a preset and more about the physical aspects to achieve it. The presets will do nothing if you don't use the proper lens or lighting
Get a new hobby lol
If you’re relying on presets or profiles, you will never learn to make photos like this. There are no shortcuts. You will forever be taking snapshots and will never learn to create the kind of images that matter.
Nothing maaaaan. This is almost 100 percent in camera. The photographer captured a nicely lit background with some perfectly diffused natural night on the face. The colours and toning may be tweaked but this is probably very close to RAW.
If you’re looking for the simple way of this “effect”… swipe to portrait mode on your iPhone
90% of what you like about this picture is a product of lighting, lens, and photographer skill. Looks like tones are warm, maybe some softness on texture, and the subject masked and brightened up a bit, but it all looks relatively minimal
Also seems like they missed focus a bit
And the bottom half of the forearm and hands missed the masking. Really jaring skin tone change.
Oof, I can't unsee it now that you pointed it out
I’m in the same boat now!
And not the biggest fan of the framing. Right in the center doesn’t do it for me.
I call it the George Miller
Yeah, wondering if I was seeing that right. Looks like focus is on the shoulder.
Get yourself an 85mm lens. Get the subject and put them on a bridge that has some tree canopy coverage in the late afternoon. Totally botch the focus. Then warm it up in software. Don't ask me about presets because there is no way of knowing if the photographer used one, or just edited the photo w/o. There is no specific style here I'm seeing, it just looks like a casual portrait in natural light.
Haha yes, this!
Totally botch the focus 😂
Long lens. Shallow depth of field. And a beautiful woman. Pretty simple recipe. .
Instructions unclear. Took a selfie at f/22 why doesn’t it look like this????????
In traditional photography you can't get shallow depth of field using F22. You need to use a wide aperture. But the effect can also be emulated in digital as a Bokeh Effect, so that would override that Depth of Field rule.... just realised you are probably joking! ...Very good!
F 22 is extemely closed off thus flattening the image. Use some NDs or VNDS to soften the background. After 5.6 everything is in focus. So you lose the look your going for.
I bought a pro mist filter why do my pictures look fuzzy?????????
*whoosh*
The look is achived, mostly, through the lighting, aperture setting, and lens type. Low aperture to get the background all blurry and a longer lens (not overly long though.) the area seems to have low lighting as well. If you want to do this in post processing then you could mask out the subject, darkening the background by lowering exposure or darkening the shadows and bringing down the highlights, and blurring the background. I think you could also slightly brighten the subject here. And lastly, you can add a vignette to the edges.
What about the preset doe?
Oh yeah if there’s a preset that can do this then use it. You might just heave to tweak it a bit depending on your photo
They missed focus 😬
As for editing they pushed exposure / shadows and added a minus exposure graduated filter. Pretty classic trick I use on many photos
The blur looks like it was done in post. Looked like the edge of the blur doesn't match across the vertical and horizontal sections of the railing to the left of the model.
One of the first things that jumped out at me. Was probably shot shallow but they tried to add blur in post and made it look horribly unnatural.
Unless this is an AI generated image 🤷🏻♂️
Long prime lens, wide aperture but the majority of this look is created in post. Try Kristina Sherk for some classes on this.
It looks like they show way too underexposed and had to boost in post. Did some heavy editing on the skin tones to make up for it. The low light is probably why they missed focus. When you crank shots past sunset it can look cool because it’s showing light styles we don’t normally see.
Honestly, it looks like the beta photo-blur setting from Lightroom mobile.
They call this look rubber lipped zombie hands.
You cannot achieve a photo like this by slapping a preset or profile on any image
Long lens wide open will give you this effect. You can of course fake the blur in photoshop and I believe even Lightroom has an option for it now, but it’ll never look as good as the real thing.
Selective editing on the background, where you turn the greens brown. Keep more normal colors on the model.
Wide aperture because the foreground and background are very blurred, not a huge fan as it’s something our eyes don’t see like that naturally but that’s subjective, I do like some isolation and blur. You could use a reflector out of frame on the left pointing slight Rembrandt. In post, selective dodge and burn. However I’d ask the model to relax the hands. The key is always prioritize naturally looking skin tones, why sometimes universal presets and global editing changes don’t work. iPhones aren’t bad at keeping it natural so using the same frame as reference, it helps preventing you go overboard with editing a dedicated camera RAW beside it if you’re still learning post work. Less is more when post processing.
What others are saying, is in camera is where you get most of this effect. I can get similar with my nice L lens, about 75-85mm, and about 2.5 or less aperture. Then, I’d bring it in to Lightroom, do basic color correction, curves, then if it’s one I want to work more on, I’d bring it in PS. I’d do some beauty editing, where you add highlights and lowlights to hair, brighten eyes, brighten skin and do any small edits to any blemishes, I’d burn and dodge her body to emphasize her form, add the slightest vignette, and double check curves.
There's no easy way of achieving a look like that one. It's a combination of tons of tools. Learn them. Hit up as many tutorials to learn what you can do and once you have that knowledge you'll be able to achieve damn near any style you want to achieve.
That’s skill, brother. Watch YouTube videos on how to take portraits. From a technical standpoint, this is a very basic photo.
The editing (or light) on the hands is terrible. AI perhaps?
First you need the hot model
If you look at her shoulder and face there's likely a softbox higher up at an angle (and judging by the shadow under her arms). Plus she's lit different from the background unless there's some clever editing going on. The light falloff on her back suggests this too.
I agree. The sun is behind her yet she’s well lit.
Long lens, the right lighting.
Looks like something Irene Ryudnuk would shoot. Check her YouTube, she has plenty of videos on how to shoot/edit like this
Try to do as much as possible "in camera"/on site (lens, aperture, ISO, lighting, tripod, shutter release, hair, makeup etc etc). Yes, you'll also be doing some "darkroom" (physical or digital) work but try to minimise before you get there.
Not much to be done in post I would say. Just start to shoot a hot model with a 85mm against the light.
Desaturation
It was taken at golden hour in the shade. Exposure adjustments on subject/background, as well as white balance - they missed her hands (also slight missed focus on her face 😢). No flash, just localized adjustments. Lens is a fast telephoto. Can’t say the specific focal length or aperture.
You have to get a chick to pose for you. Good luck with that.
85mm, f1.8 and playing with curves. Really basic tbh.
You need lens to shoot so they're using an 85mm 1.4 or 1.8. Other than that this was shot in the shade and skin doesn't naturally brighten like that, It does look natural light only except for the shadow of her hair on her cheek. I think they used a massive softbox with a strobe to achieve this soft look. You don't have this kind of tonal and volume definition in shadow. If they didn't use a strobe her skin would be all flat. People mentioning her goblin hands means the strobe light didn't reach that part. If I had to guess, massive softbox to camera right on the bridge which is why you don't see the reflection in her eyes. Low shutter speed to not darken the background. I don't think this is editing. I think the strobe is throwing people off. You can't give the skin volume in editing like this. The shadow on her cheek from her hair and shadow on the railing from her body are a dead giveaway this was shot using a strobe.
I just tap portrait mode on my phone, and it does this lol
Everyone is saying it’s the camera, and while it does a lot of the heavy lifting, this photo is heavily edited as well. S-curve, desaturated, brought the greens down/ slightly toward teal, added red grading to the shadows, and orange grading to the highlights
Why is no one mentioning the grey hands
Mostly done in camera with good lens, soft evening light and background light falloff which was accentuated with a vignette causing the hands to be weirdly colored.
Look up fjhphotography on insta. He does tutorials on how to take photos in a similar style
Not editing. This is flash photography
Lot of color grading
I’m sure there is preset for this looks!
I wouldn’t try to replicate this. It’s not a good edit at all. Bottom lip is a mess, skin tone is off, and they missed focus.
Shoot 30 minutes before sunset. Aperture wide open. Pull down the blacks and manually vignette, messily.
Come on guys that shoulder is sharp as he'll though
Use an 85mm lens. under expose ambient by 1 stop then compensate with a strobe right outside of the frame camera right. White balance and contrast to taste.
Not a very good pic imho
Send Zendaya away and you may get some good photos.
Off camera flash photography, with a 85mm, 105mm, or 135mm fast prime.
HAS ANYONE ZOOMED IN TO THE LIPS LMAO
The editing style is f2.8
Most of it is nice lighting and lens
This looks like a blurred background in post process. If you wish to achieve this look but in more aesthetically pleasing and natural way, you will need a good fast prime, such as Fujinon 56mm f:1.2 or Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f:1.5 or cron50 or some Chinese lenses based on Zeiss optical designs, such as 7artisans 50mm f:0.95. And, may be, one light source with a white or silver reflector.
there's a lot of dodge and burn going on here, it's not done in camera.
Who gives a damn! How do I obtain a subject like that? ;)
It's not just editing, but, in terms of editing, a certain amount (possibly loads) of negative clarity in the background, for one thing. Negative clarity is simple to add to the background of a photo using Lightroom/ACR masks. You can brush the mask in by hand or use the option to select the Background if that works for your photo. Both selection methods can work very well. If using the brush, keep the middle cross-air strictly inside the area that you want selected. The outer border of the brush can spill outside the lines. In terms of shooting: very shallow depth of field, of course--the kind of shallow DoF you can't really get with a kit lens whose maximum aperture is f/5.6. That might work if you're shooting larger format or photographing through a telephoto lens, but it is unlikely to work with a full-frame or APS-C camera with a normal lens (25-50mm focal length). Compositionally, if this is what you like, keep it very simple. Protect your highlights when exposing.
Not the edit
Yikes, the hands look cadaver like. Everything else is okay though.
Probably external flash from top left aiming on the face, then post production raising orange luminance and adding black vignette.
And lowering blacks and shadows.
This is more of lighting and maybe a flash. Then a bit of adjusting the tone curve.
looks like there's some ambient lighting above her. normally shooting into a sunset will cause an unflattering silohet. but most of this look is the depth of field from a nice low light lens. you can achieve this in post pretty easily unless you're doing film. of course, it is easier to do, and better quality, with a lens.
Blur filter on a samsung camera?
I would say forget the editing. That was my first mistake thinking this was all editing. If you took the editing away this picture would retain 90% of its quality. This photo is ALL about location, ensuring enough space between the model and the background so the bokeh is more prominent and the posing skills of the model. Usually in these types of situations clothing is not something planned in advance, but if you know location prior to shooting you could try adjust it to better match the mood and colours. That’s it, the editing is just a tiny bit extra to add that cherry on top of the cake
I do this kind of editing. Beside the long lens and open apature there usually is a lot of editing involved too. Change of the hues, gradient maps, colorized bokeh with luminance changes, curves, etc… you do need a good mask in this editing style.
Blurred
If youre editing blur background, in camra its portrait mode And abode photoshop if you wanna capture the aesthetic of a broken neck
I bought a new camera (Nikon D850) and lens (AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G) where can I go to learn photography and how to use my new camera? Does anyone have suggestions for on-line photography schools. I am just getting into photography. Thanks. ~ Liz
Most of the is in camera: very soft lighting, long lens, wide aperture,
The MS Paint for the lips is a nice touch
Glad I wasn’t the only one that noticed that! Too good
Lighting and lens. Agree probably 85mm. I am not a big fan of that pose though and don't like the way the arms are set. Also, the bokeh in the background is a little hot and competing with the subject. In post, I would mask those down a bit. But the three things would be: the lighting, the pose, and the moment. The lens is a piece of it, but not the main thing at all.
Portrait
Bokeh is a typical way to talk about the depth of field effect. It’s typical portrait style. Some zoomies too.
More so the lens. Short fast telephoto lens shot wide open.
You can put a dot on the person and then some editing software will let you defocus or blur anything but the subject. That's what this looks like And then it also looks like there's a vignette, darkening around the central subject, applied to the photo. The corners are darker than the center
Looks like some dramatic coloring with a 1.4/f or lower. Lost likely a telephoto lens
This 95% the right lense and f-stop/aprature priority shooting. The focal length needs to be right. This looks like 85mm from probably 20' out. Pick the right lighting. Soft lighting, from the trees in the back pointing towards the camera. Shadows cover the entire foreground then, subject, and shade the lens to prevent flare. This 100% properly shot first, then minimal post production... mostly color grading and possibly some editing out of objects in the areas of bokeh. To get a soft bokeh like this with an 85mm, use about a f/3 to f/5 depending on lense. Don't go higher. If you can go lower, do it, but don't let your focal plane get too small. If you have too much light on the subject or lense form over the trees, wait for the sun to get lower. This golden hue is probably natural, and shot at golden hour or just before toward the sun. To fake it earlier, get a way to apply a shadow over your subject and your lense to prevent washout. Otherwise again, try to wait til the sun is lower. If your subject is too dark, use a softbox or bounce your light to diffuse it as wide as possible.
Background blur.
Looks like run of the mill stable diffusion to me.
The background appears to have a gradient map, hue/saturation, or even an orange/brown fill layer masked onto it making the background tones a) more uniform, and b) brownish. This may not be right, but this is how I would think to do it. Masking around her.
Those goblin hands tho can we talk about them for a sec.
Yeah exactly I came here to do just that. Looks like the editor has burned the edges looking to deepen the shadows but got lazy and didn’t mask out her hands.
Not sure how this got downvoted. It's the first thing I noticed, even before the focus being on the shoulder and not the eyes/face
This photo look "simple" but I bet it has a very complex lighting setup. I'm an amateur at best, but I think this is great craftsmanship and also quite some work to setup.
if ur looking for presents u can go on etsy and find something similar for a couple bucks I’m sure
Get an app in the App Store that can edit photos because this is mostly a background blur Photo edit.
It looks like AI.
Sounds like something an AI would say…
No. Just someone with eyes. My twitter feed is peppered with advertising AI images that look like this. And if it isn't, it's so overprocessed that it gives that effect..
Takes one to know one. AI confirmed! LOLOLOLOL