I'd love to take photos like these (are the photostopped?)

[ATV]

These are some of the best colours I've ever seen in photographs:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2860522/He...

Do you think they are natural or have they been prepped extensively in post-production?

[ATV]

[The_Jackal]

Yes they will all have been tweaked and coloured graded to get that effect. You will rarely see an image that hasn't been tweaked to bring out the best of a photo.

[Lynchie999]

i wouldn't say they have been heavily "photoshopped" .. just nice colour levels applied (probably in lightroom or similar)

[kman]

They don't look heavily processed to me, just good work with lighting and some quality glass

[jimmy156]

Without looking at the EXIF data, i would guess that they were taken with either the Canon 50mm 1.2 or 85mm 1.2.

That plus nice lighting, great composition and perhaps some gentle tweaking in post production gives a very pleasing image!

Found her on https://500px.com/ElenaShumilova

Looks like she uses a Canon 5D and a 135mm f/2.0 , also a lovely lens!

Edited by jimmy156 on Sunday 25th January 18:37

[Simpo Two]

I spy a touch of vignetting too I think. But the main trick is very shallow DOF - and animal trainers perhaps!

[budfox]

Lots of subtle post production, though I don't think that the depth of field in some of the shots is as shallow as would be delivered by an f/1.2 lens. I also think that many have had a blurred vignette applied so nt all of the soft focus is optical.

Great shots for sure, but a lot of time spent setting them up too.

[RobDickinson]

Some good lighting in these, I would say a lot of post production to get them where they are.

Lots of localised contrast/luminosity mask work, colour grading/WB cross processing, some lens blur for DOF over the 135/2+ some dodging and burning, smoothing etc.

IMO the cat has been added later the lighting and mask are showing it as dropped in.

It all starts with a great idea and captured well, then it gets worked on.

[andy-xr]

The colours and tweaks are all great, but the mood that's been captured is brilliant, and the editing's really brought it out. There's a lot of work gone into these to my eyes, before during and after the shots were taken

[ATV]

OP here, thanks for the replies everyone.

If I wanted to get started in photography would you recommend I take some evening or weekend classes first?

Or should I get on ebay, get some good gear and buy a few "How to" books and just get started?

I've got time for a hobby these days so would like to give photography a go.

[Geordie MGmike]

ATV said:

OP here, thanks for the replies everyone.

If I wanted to get started in photography would you recommend I take some evening or weekend classes first?

Or should I get on ebay, get some good gear and buy a few "How to" books and just get started?

I've got time for a hobby these days so would like to give photography a go.

Hmm difficult one this. I guess it depends on how you learn. Some people like the structure of formal training, others like to learn by experience, be that reading and practice or just plane getting out there and doing.

I would refrain from spending a lot on kit until you understand the basics and possibly what area of photography you prefer. That said, buying a SLR with a standard zoom lens would get you started and if cash is available use it for good quality lenses.

[andy-xr]

I'd buy a cheap second hand dSLR that comes with at least one lens, maybe 2. Something from Canon like a 30D, 40D, 400D, 500D, or if you can stretch to it, 550D type. In Nikon speak, D300, D80, D200, D7000 if you can stretch to it

Buy either a 35mm 1.8 or a 50mm 1.8 as an addition. Get Photoshop Elements (whoever says Gimp is as good has never tried to actually do something similar with it). Then just shoot some stuff.

When you get frustrated with trying to work out why things are blurry, a book called 'Understanding Exposure' put it all together with me, in terms of how to get shutter speed, aperture and ISO all moving in the direction you want them to.

Kit creep - the bit where you convince yourself your photos will be better with a more expensive camera/lens will come at some point too, it's easy to upgrade your kit, frustrating when you thought the photos would be 300% better and they're worse. But, all part of the learning curve

For the examples you quoted, you could actually get the basic image on a camera phone or point and shoot, it's the Photoshop/editing that's done with it that makes it how it is, and you'd run out of resolution and quality trying to get them in a similar kind of shape

I think photography lessons, as in, we'll teach you how to shoot landscapes and then tell you you're st go in the same bin as camera clubs. Also, camera clubs, typically run by old codgers who cant see past F11 @ 1/125 and banging everything on a third. Pinches and pinches of salt if you go there, they dont like contre jour at all

[CY88]

I would say that there is actually an extensive amount of photoshopping going on, albeit very well done. I've followed this photographer on flickr for some time as the mood is fantastic.

Shots like these give the game away though - lots of blending :-

https://www.flickr.com/photos/75571860@N06/1578454...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/75571860@N06/1422799...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/75571860@N06/9019087...