1 Correct answer
i think a lot of what you're seeing is in the original photography. a carefully composed, well-lit photograph will always be the best jumping off point. as the previous poster requested - let's see what you're working with...
there are quite a few excellent plug ins that will give great, flexible looks; red giant looks, tiffen, and dfx spring to mind.
Explore related tutorials & articles
5
Replies
Please post images on this Forum directly.
As for the shutterlove-image I think considerable sharpening may have been involved, but as for the overall image certain aspects of the lighting are probably not Photoshop edits but actual on-set lighting.
Could you post one of your unedited images along an image (similar in composition/content) the look of which you want to emulate?
As Dag has told you, these are done with lighting, and not Photoshop. The camera is set to underexpose the ambient light, and flash set to normal exposure is placed either out of shot, or behind the tree as in the second image. As well as that, the image was taken just after sunset at the very end of the so called 'Golden Hour', and camera angle chosen carefully to silhouette and contrast most of the tree against the sky. The strobe was obviously immediately behind the tree, and they might well have need to clone out part of the light stand.
I also think the strobe might have been zoomed in, because of the fall off from the lake edge, and harder shadows this side of the tree, and thrown by the young couple.
However, while we can't help you directly, we can direct you to someone who can.
I would agree that they are tastefully done with some good well placed lighting..
However I think there has been the subtlest of alterations to the images after the photography.
The wedding photo with the building behind looks like it has been made 5-10% darker than the couple with a clipping mask applied so the couple seem just that bit brighter and the remote flash makes her dress look more "alive".
The shadows in the second photo with the sunset look too realistic to me anyway to have been added/enhanced drastically. Definitely the Remote Flash was the key here.
But again I think perhaps the photographer imported into Lightroom or Camera Raw or some such and did the minutest of changes to make the colours pop that bit more. The trick would be making it so subtle that you wouldn't know if he/she was just a fantastic photographer or also a good editor. I'd say like +2 to +5 used on the settings either way maximum.
That's probably the real trick.. don't make it look edited too much...
If you edit a really good photograph and do subtle changes chances are no one can ever tell if it was or wasn't.
If you try to edit a really bad/not so good photograph... then you better be the best editor in the world as chances are people will still notice that its been edited and you probably still wont get the look you were going for.
It's a bit like trying to use a $1 camera for printing a high resolution campaign that is going to make you a 10% increase in sales and wondering why it doesn't work.
Best,
EW
AdChoices