How to capture "that light", making a photo look like a painting

[mugget]

Hi All,

Well this is something that I've been wondering about for a little while. I remember reading an article/interview with Thomas Brichta (who works for Leica USA if I remember correctly) and was really blown away by the photos that he makes. He clearly has an excellent understanding of light, and no doubt a very good technical understanding as well because he uses all types of cameras ranging from DLux to M9, S2, etc. and is able to achieve a similarly consistent look using all of them.

So the question is: what kind of technique/method is there to making these types of photos?

I suppose I should give an example. They all seem to have a certain look, for example these two:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom911r7/6887142735/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom911r7/5395938253/

My first thought is that the exposure is not being set using the camera's metering. I've noticed myself that when I want to capture a dark scene (ie. night, indoors, late afternoon, early morning) that if I set the exposure exactly as the camera tells me to do for a 'correct' exposure that it doesn't look realistic at all, the photo will be much brighter than the actual scene. So I started to guess for myself, based on the knowledge that the camera wants to expose for 18% grey as seen in daylight conditions, I will reduce the exposure by a certain amount depending on the actual brightness of the scene. But I just do that by feel (or maybe blind guess is more accurate!)

The other possibility is that the photos are edited in post to get this look? But something tells me that is not the case. But I would prefer to do it all in-camera anyway, after all anything is possible with Photoshop...

I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on this. I saw a RFF member post a photo that had very similar qualities to those mentioned above, but I didn't really take note of where that was, I should have asked that person about this...

Anyway, hoping that some people will be able to shed some light on this.
(Yes, bad pun. 😛)

Cheers,

Conrad

 

[sevo]

Looks like postprocessed to a (fake) HDR look, if you ask me. Maybe even composites. But you need the right light for that as well - both links you posted are obviously shot right at sunrise/sunset and exposed for the highlights.

 

[Kiev Ilegalac]

I think that's what people call golden hour light + some PP for sure - and as you mentioned exposure compensation is often needed to override camera's "false" metering
Alex

 

[jordanstarr]

Conrad...both images you give examples to are a combination of watching the light and editting. There's nothing exceptional about the metering qualities of these images. The exposures in both images could have been +/- 1 stop easily and be editted to a "proper" exposure. Where his photographs "pop" is his local control of certain variables and you have to look hard to find them because he does them in a subtle way.

For example....image #1: It's a cloudy day, but rays are coming through and hitting his scene. However, there's no way the boat is that yellow and bright in comparison to the water that is splashing off the water from the whales. I think he dodged the highlights in both and gave a bit of a yellow cast to the boat. I also think he burned shadows in the water to create more defined waves.
In image#2, he definately changed the characteristics of the sky as it is very teal with a yellow cast. The hill in the background was burned heavier to stand out from the fogged landscape. Looks like he even bumped up the highlights a bit in the clouds.

I could probably sit there for a while and pick out more editting stuff and maybe I'm wrong on some of it, but I think my original statement holds true that the silver bullet is not exposure, but based more in his understanding of photoshop and editting techniques.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

It is late evening before sunset light. There's no special trick or processing, its just the character of the light at that time of day. Note that you need it to be a fairly sunny day, the light at that time of day is different on overcast days.

The guy on Flickr used a Leica S2, a medium format digital camera, and that larger sensor gives a lot more depth in the images because it can record subtle color and tone differences better than a small sensor, just like medium format film does compared to 35mm. That is part of what you are seeing too.

 

[Sparrow]

... or get up early on a clear day and shoot at right-angles to the light works too, a lens-hood also helps.

on cheap 135 colour print film

 

[Richard G]

As above, especially the light being right. You can't make that happen. Have a look at Stevh's Vermeer-like shots with the X100 a little over half way down this page of the Post your X100 photos thread:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106406&page=5

 

[OurManInTangier]

As Chris says, the light can play its part without necessarily needing any help from photoshop. I've always been struck by the amazing light quality that you can get just prior, during or after a storm as the very dark clouds break for a few moments and the most golden light pours through. It can look "fake" to the eye and often even more so on film/sensor and becomes something, I personally believe, needs to be watched to ensure you don't end with something unnatural looking....even when it is completely natural.

Whether this guy has added a little dodging and burning to selective areas wouldn't surprise me but I think the overall look comes from his exposure of that particular scene and the equipment he used to do it.

 

[Sparrow]

 

[taylan]

First of all try to find a sunset at cloudy day. If you are using a digital camera, take the photo as raw. Open it in ps and lower the Kelvin value. Probably your Kelvin value is between 7500 and 10000. Reduce it around 5000-5500.
If you are using film, just use Fuji Velvia or Kodak 100VS

 

[VinceC]

I'll echo what's being said above. Whatever gear and processing tools we're using, the most powerful photo tool we've got is the light itself.

 

[Sparrow]

Yep, you just need to catch the light at the right time ...

 

[Chris101]

I think it has to do with the quality of the light coming horizontally across the ocean. The dark of un-illuminated sea in the background, with the rich saturated foreground colors. Perhaps California School Impressionism are the paintings that you think of when you see this light.

Here is an example of mine:

 

[daveleo]

hi there

I went through the Flikr photostream and I loved the images (some, of course, more than others 🙄 ).
Many of them benefited from postprocessing on a computer. Its very obvious in the stuff that looks like HDR imagery.
If this is achieved in-camera, then he certainly spends a lot of effort to tweak the dials, etc before he hits the button, but I very much doubt that.
If he is shooting with an S2, (I did not look) he has lots of pixels to play with in processing.
Again, I liked his stuff very much, and thanks for posting the links (but I still hate Flikr 😀 )

 

[raid]

Exluding any digital manipulations, I would say that the type of light is almost everything in such an image. I recall once waiting 7 hours until the sunlight was perfect for an image taken in the Everglades of an Egret (all white) on a blue pond with blue sky. Patience is the key.

 

[gilpen123]

I totally agree Raid. Even Ansel himself waited for many hours to get the right light.

 

[raid]

I used to use slow slide film for accurate color rendition and finer grain, and I did not have access to PS or similar programs. It was a matter of understanding how light would form an image on a specific type of film with a specific type of light. It was a one time chance each time for me since I never bracketed shots. It was very exciting to get back a box of slides and then inspect each slide on a light table with neutral color light and a loupe.

Galen Rowell was one of the good nature photographers whose books and work inspired me to work hard to capture the right light in an image.

 

[raid]

I used to use slow slide film for accurate color rendition and finer grain, and I did not have access to PS or similar programs. It was a matter of understanding how light would form an image on a specific type of film with a specific type of light. It was a one time chance each time for me since I never bracketed shots. It was very exciting to get back a box of slides and then inspect each slide on a light table with neutral color light and a loupe.

Galen Rowell was one of the good nature photographers whose books and work inspired me to work hard to capture the right light in an image.

In this image there is an immature egret just before sunset in the Evergaldes NP in Florida. I used a Canon 500mm/4.5 lens on a heavy Gitzo tripod and a Canon F1N with cable release on Fujichrome 50.

 

[peterm1]

It can be a bit hit and miss.

In the photos of Brichta that you have posted here (especially the second one) you will notice that its a bit impressionistic - there is not all that much in the way of pin sharp detail of the sort that pixel peepers crave. Also the contrast is quite high and there is a lot of gradual variation in the light and shadow range. There is also variation from left to right in the color balance of the light (yellow on the left ranging to more blue on the right) as if the sun is low on the horizon on the left just out of frame. All of these things help.

You really need to try some post processing tricks. In fact while you may get this effect now and then out of the camera more often you do have to post process for the effect if you want it reliably in the image. I think that is what he has done.

One effect you can try is one that painters call "chiaroscuro" or variants of that technique. If applied correctly it gives a kind of three dimensionality to an image and a very painterly feel. Painters play with light and my attitude is that I have to do the same. When I do it I am trying to create a feeling rather than just reproducing an image of a scene absolutely faithfully. I do not want the image to all be equally sharp or equally lit. I play with those things to create the final image.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiaroscuro

In this photo by Brichta I find it to be very like a painting and you cna see its all about the light.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom911r7/6801509406/in/photostream

What I do is that after preparing the image (denoising if needed, sharpening, color and tonal adjustment etc) I will often add some interest to an image. For example lowering saturation slightly, increasing contrast and applying some glow to the image. The glow reduces some of the fine detail making it less like a photo and more like a painting. Also I often apply a very slight vignette so the viewer's attention is drawn to the part of the image that is of most interest. All of these help.

By focussing less on getting sharp detail in the image (I am not saying they are not sharp though) and more on getting an appealing image that uses the light I think you can end up with images that do have a painterly effect. Be prepared to experiment a bit till you find out what works for you.

Here are a couple of examples of mine that I think may qualify.


L1041725a by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

DSC_2079a by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

The following one is inherently a boring shot but I like the way the play of light and shadow brings it alive and makes it more three dimensional.


_DSC4013a1 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

 

[FrankS]

I love that bird pic, Raid, but it doesn't demonstrate the lighting conditions the OP has in mind. The examples shown by the OP were taken with the subject directly lit by the sun unobscurred by clouds and very low on the horizon. (just before sunset and just after sunrise) Passing through more hazy atmosphere at that angle, sunlight is warmer in colour temperature and a bit softer.
To get that effect, you just need to be there during those conditions and notice the skim lighting.