Fantastic photos - The Le Mans Classic ones are great!
Discussion
This guys work is absolutely stunning.
http://www.laurentnivalle.fr/
I saw the link on a design blog today and thought i'd share it with Pistonheaders.
http://www.laurentnivalle.fr/
I saw the link on a design blog today and thought i'd share it with Pistonheaders.
Agreed !
When I looked at them my immediate reaction was that they looked like they'd been taken with a Leica, but a bit of digging reveals it's a Canon 5D MkII and an 85mm f1.2 lens. Obviously been very nicely post-processed too to create the 'look' he has got going there.
I think they're great - it's one of the few sets of photos I've seen recently that have really caught my eye, so thanks for posting the link.
link to the Le Mans page: http://www.laurentnivalle.fr/LMC2010.html
Fab pics, but over processed to my eye... I notice PS more than the photos. (Probably just me mind).
Fab pics, but over processed to my eye... I notice PS more than the photos. (Probably just me mind).
Wadeski said:
Wow. I like how they look like vintage film shots, very Kodachrome-esque. Is that a camera effect (very cool) or a 'Shop effect (not so cool)?
Why would you say that its not so cool if it was a 'shop effect? People use plenty of tricks in the dark room to get there images to look a certain way, so why shouldnt the same be done in the "digital darkroom"I have to admit i don't like certain uses of post processing (HDR being an example), but using photoshop to give images a look like this (especially when the results are this good) is fine in my book!
Wadeski said:
Thing is, only the photographer can take the photo. A photoshop whizz could apply magic to any photo. Its not that i dont like postproduction (it can be very cool), to me its just more impressive to set it up in the wild.
May I suggest you go and check out some photographs by, for example, Ansel Adams, Edward Steichen and the likes of William Eggleston and Joel Meyerowitz. All of them worked with film, but were striving to find better techniques and processes to enhance their images. Ansel Adams in particular, not least because he wrote three books on the subject, was not in any way fussed by the fact that the images which he produced on negative and the prints he made from them would be carefully processed to achieve his desired results. Take a look at these images as an example, all taken from the same negative but processed and printed in different ways:
Edited by Nick M on Monday 26th July 20:21
Sigh. I'm not being a purist or a luddite, or dismissing the work of darkroom pioneers. 
I was at Le Mans Classic myself, and have had fun playing around with the snaps I took (in this case, just using Photobucket's built in java editor). Press a few buttons and you can do all kinds of wierd stuff in seconds.
I'd just like to know what he did to get that vintage effect. If its something he did with the camera, i would love to learn to replicate, it sounds like a fun challenge. If it involves learning new photoshop techniques, I'm less interested, because I dont get much pleasure from heavy use of image editors.
I was at Le Mans Classic myself, and have had fun playing around with the snaps I took (in this case, just using Photobucket's built in java editor). Press a few buttons and you can do all kinds of wierd stuff in seconds.
I'd just like to know what he did to get that vintage effect. If its something he did with the camera, i would love to learn to replicate, it sounds like a fun challenge. If it involves learning new photoshop techniques, I'm less interested, because I dont get much pleasure from heavy use of image editors.
I just loved that selection of photos, talent in composition and processing. Yes they have been 'done' but when the end result is that good I'd be proud of it!
The exactly controlled depth of field looks fake to me (although I may be wrong!) It just looks like the difference between the in and out of focus elements is too extreme for the difference in distance between the objects.
After an hour on photoshop trying to drag an below average paddock shot from CLM into something similar I appreciate the work he puts in, as my effort is weak, and you can spot the join!
Having said that I quite like the result...
Before:
After:
The exactly controlled depth of field looks fake to me (although I may be wrong!) It just looks like the difference between the in and out of focus elements is too extreme for the difference in distance between the objects.
After an hour on photoshop trying to drag an below average paddock shot from CLM into something similar I appreciate the work he puts in, as my effort is weak, and you can spot the join!
Having said that I quite like the result... Before:
After:
gary71 said:
I just loved that selection of photos, talent in composition and processing. Yes they have been 'done' but when the end result is that good I'd be proud of it!
The exactly controlled depth of field looks fake to me (although I may be wrong!) It just looks like the difference between the in and out of focus elements is too extreme for the difference in distance between the objects.
After an hour on photoshop trying to drag an below average paddock shot from CLM into something similar I appreciate the work he puts in, as my effort is weak, and you can spot the join! Having said that I quite like the result...
Before:
After:
I *really* like that. Is that from a tutorial or from 28 years experience you're not allowed to divulge?The exactly controlled depth of field looks fake to me (although I may be wrong!) It just looks like the difference between the in and out of focus elements is too extreme for the difference in distance between the objects.
After an hour on photoshop trying to drag an below average paddock shot from CLM into something similar I appreciate the work he puts in, as my effort is weak, and you can spot the join!
Having said that I quite like the result... Before:
After:
From an avid learner still at the tutorial & mess about to see what happens stage
Fetchez la vache said:
I *really* like that. Is that from a tutorial or from 28 years experience you're not allowed to divulge?
From an avid learner still at the tutorial & mess about to see what happens stage
Cheers, I'm still an avid learner, just dabbling at the edges of the software From an avid learner still at the tutorial & mess about to see what happens stage
Most it is done in Lightroom playing with exposure, contrast, saturation etc, then imported in CS5 and a 'blur' mask layer created, then paint out the bits from the mask you don't want blurred. Then a subtle warming filter put over the end result. I'd still rather do it in camera though, if I had the talent!
gary71 said:
I just loved that selection of photos, talent in composition and processing. Yes they have been 'done' but when the end result is that good I'd be proud of it!
The exactly controlled depth of field looks fake to me (although I may be wrong!) It just looks like the difference between the in and out of focus elements is too extreme for the difference in distance between the objects.
I had a check on the EXIF data on his photos on Flickr, and he was using a Canon 5D MkII and an 85mm f1.2 lens, so the DOF is probably real.The exactly controlled depth of field looks fake to me (although I may be wrong!) It just looks like the difference between the in and out of focus elements is too extreme for the difference in distance between the objects.
As mentioned elsewhere, my immediate reaction was that it looked like it had been taken with a Leica, so that particular Canon lens is clearly a bit special.
Wadeski said:
I'd just like to know what he did to get that vintage effect. If its something he did with the camera, i would love to learn to replicate, it sounds like a fun challenge. If it involves learning new photoshop techniques, I'm less interested, because I dont get much pleasure from heavy use of image editors.
I guess I fail to see the difference between adjusting things in-camera, and post-processing - they're both manipulating the light hitting the sensor to produce an artificial result - and why you're more in favour of one than the other.I use a Nikon D3 which allows me to use different picture controls, so I have one which mimics Fuji Velvia, one which looks like Agfa Optima, another called 'Top Gear' which is very contrasty a more saturated, etc., etc. I can switch between then in camera very quickly, but the results aren't really any different to if I were to make the same adjustments on my computer at home.
I'm pretty sure I could create a similar look to the 'vintage' feel of those photos if I played around with various camera settings and I've dropped the guy a note to ask, in general terms, what he did to achieve the effect. No reply yet, and maybe I won't get one, but would be interesting to find out.
Nick M said:
I had a check on the EXIF data on his photos on Flickr, and he was using a Canon 5D MkII and an 85mm f1.2 lens, so the DOF is probably real.
As mentioned elsewhere, my immediate reaction was that it looked like it had been taken with a Leica, so that particular Canon lens is clearly a bit special.
Just looked through them all. Now in shock and off to burn my camera! As mentioned elsewhere, my immediate reaction was that it looked like it had been taken with a Leica, so that particular Canon lens is clearly a bit special.
On one of the shots he was questioned about processing and he replied that only the colours are processed, not DOF. So I just need to reconsider my in camera technique!gary71 said:
Just looked through them all. Now in shock and off to burn my camera! On one of the shots he was questioned about processing and he replied that only the colours are processed, not DOF. So I just need to reconsider my in camera technique!
In camera technique won't do much about dof unless you have a fast enough lens! On one of the shots he was questioned about processing and he replied that only the colours are processed, not DOF. So I just need to reconsider my in camera technique!
Love the style and clarity of this guy's stuff. Generally I also prefer to get the character of the shot in camera rather than photoshop though, it's just more fun! The more 'vintage-y' shots I've taken are where I've used filters, the cheap cokin ones can give that desaturated look (especially when they're covered in scratches!) and shooting high iso will give some authentic grain (unless you're using a 5D mkII!). I'm also having fun with an old medium format camera, but that's a lot different world of fun!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff