HOW

File: Tina_Louise_Quby_Photography-34.jpg (3MB, 2500x1704px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2500x1704px

>>2799103

File: Brooke_B_Quby_Photography-16.jpg (2MB, 2500x1667px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2500x1667px

>>2799103

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5528
Image Height	3685
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:07 18:11:39
Exposure Time	1/1600 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	125
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5528
Image Height	3685
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Resize your photos you fucking cuck.

Can't you read the light? Shit...

>>2799115
read the light?

so they're shooting in direct sun with a fast shutter speed. that doesn't explain the color at all

>>2799103
A LOT of selective tone editing and color correction.
probably some form of octobox

>>2799103

oh, it's just sliders and shit bruh.

you don't need highly trained make up artists with a 55-gallon drum worth of bronzer or anything like that.

Partially diffused sunlight

Selective colour>blacks>pump cyan and blue
Colour balance>highlights> play with reds/yellows

>>2799132

Also adjusting blue/cyan in selective colour to change the water colour

>>2799121
toppleb

Get me a similar raw file and I'll get you this pp.
Also, ND filter is accurate, mine gaves the image this kinda of color.

>>2799147

What nd filter do you use?

File: 1442818202921.jpg (96KB, 792x558px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 792x558px

>>2799147
>Also, ND filter is accurate, mine gaves the image this kinda of color.

First step is to stop meme-ing with sony shit and pentax shit and buy a jew Canon
https://twitter.com/Quby/status/638675446184316928

>>2799103
yes, but you have to make sure you put like three ND filters on it for full effect

>>2799151
Watch fstoppers comparison of ND filters, you will see that every one of them has a different color cast in it. Something that your gearfaggot brain that only reads tech charts and barely takes 10k photos a year cannot understand.

>>2799103

holy fuck. digital is getting uglier and uglier.

>>2799206
LOL

>>2799132
gonna play around with what i think this means, thanks for your advice

>>2799217

its heavily dodge and burned and alot of frequency separation, this is the kind of photo you see in a fashion spread.

>>2799252

it wans to be gucci, but the skin instead of bronzed goodness, looks like a grilled sausage.

>>2799253

yeah, the face also seems the dodge burn was done really face, the checks look really inhuman.

http://www.qubyphotography.com/editorial/2unzuvuu3npuhuw0r57gb9kjcg2ydy

Looking at his page (theirs?) it seems bronze skin and pantone blues is what he goes for, alot of the models on the page of different ethnicities but have their skin tuned towards the bronze color.

>>2799103
>it's perfect
it's disgusting
airbrushed as fuck, she looks like a doll

>>2799106
>cut off foot
What a fucking amateur

>>2799103
It looks interesting to you because it looks different. However, once you get used to it, it'll start look disgusting. None of the colors are anything like in real life. People don't look like that. There are no textures on the skin, it's just bleh. Just like a rainbow-puke HDR.

>>2799445
>None of the colors are anything like in real life.

How is that of any interest? The world also isn't B&W yet no one seems to have cared for the last 150 years.

>Just like a rainbow-puke HDR.

Absolutely not. Shitty tone mapping has always been shit. It's just a stupid meme ingrained deeply into the amateur shitfest that is modern digital photography, pretty much like selective color. That's not the same thing as having a certain style and working with a certain color palette.

>>2799430
shitty b8

>>2799103
what's wrong with her left hand?

just kill your highlights and add a tint.

Thats literally all I'm seeing there.

>>2799484

your opinions are always very wrong.

>>2799541

Thanks for the comment. Very insightful.

>>2799445
>None of the colors are anything like in real life. People don't look like that. There are no textures on the skin, it's just bleh. Just like a rainbow-puke HDR.
You are judging the photo based on your goals for it, rather than the artists's. It is very obvious that the photographer wasn't trying to achieve life-like results, therefore saying "it doesn't look like real life" is not a negative judgement of the image. Spend some time around fashion and editorial and you'll come to see how often looks like this show up. Whether you like it or not doesn't enter into it.

>>2799103
/p/ does not know how to artistic results in its images. This is well documented, in a lot of places, but most notably, in this thread. There is no slider or color balance that will achieve these results on their own. Those will be steps on the way, but are certainly not anywhere near to the full process.

You start with the correct model, and the correct environment, and the correct light. A deeply tan model (most likely spray tan) in a mono-chromatic visually simple environment. Choose the wardrobe to contrast with the skin, and the environment.

The first photo is diffused bright light, possibly overcast day with an octobox above her to the left. Or maybe there's just a building/roof blocking direct sunlight and the ambient light coming from behind her is filling. Oil your model's skin to give a sheen.

Selective color (or hue/sat) masked away from the model can give the blue pool the aqua tint. Then a separate selective color masked to the model can give the burnt brown to the skin.

Frequency separation and D&B for skin cleanup and smoothing. Then, add skin contrast without adding much saturation (which should have been added in your coloring steps)

etc.

The second image shows signs of bleach bypass style approach for skin contrast and glow. Lots of masking, skin cleanup, D&B, etc.

Similar steps (with different levels) for the third photo.

There is no 5 minute process to duplicating images like these, and there is no way you could replicate these results in post without also replicating the steps in capture. Chances are good that each of these images took a knowledgeable professional retoucher 30 minutes or more, knowing exactly what he was doing, and what steps he wanted to take to get there. So playing around and experimenting trying to match it should take you hours. Not seconds. Post a raw with a similar light, similar environment, and similarly fit model, and there are a few people here who may be able to give you a PSD of getting close.

>>2799562

t. someone who cant read light.

>>2799564
Great contribution.

>>2799103
Step 1. Go through thousands of VSCO presets until you find the closest one.
Step.2 add tint, decrease orange luminance
Step.3 ???
Step 4. Post on instagram and pretend to have a soul

Can someone explain how ND filters make a pic look like this? I always thought they were just tools for getting your exposure right or something.

>>2799671
They literally don't.
>>2799562
is probably the closest in this thread to how to get this look.

>>2799671
ND filters are like sunglasses for your lenses, allowing you to shoot at wider apertures in bright light, or allowing for longer exposures, etc. They will have no effect that will cause an image to look like the ones OP linked. It literally just removes light from every area of the image. Poor quality ones may cause some tint or loss of contrast, or flare, but nothing like the results in OP.

>>2799647
exactly
didnt we have a thread where we tried to match gavins/photoshop work and some basically blended two vsco presets?

>>2799671
In terms of the effect you probably mean, basically the ND filter allows you to underexpose the background, and when paired with a flash, can make your subject properly exposed and bright, but the background nice and dark toned.
They also allow you to open up the aperture without exploding the highlights, and using a flash, this has a very pleasing effect. Google "ND filter portrait" to see what I mean.

That being said, OP's image probably didn't use one, you can get that editing style with some curves action.

>>2799716
>you can get that editing style with some curves action.
No, you really can't.

>ctrl+f
>no polarizer
serious?

inb4 pool
look at main light

>>2799726
You might want to try a complete sentence, which might help educate people, rather than just implying everyone around you is an idiot to make yourself feel better.

A slightly enhanced reflection on the water in one of the photos isn't going to dramatically change the image, and will have nothing to do with her skin, the toning of the image, or the colors.

>>2799103
I love how no one is mentioning her left hand.

>>2799728
polarizers reduces shine on skin which is apparent in the first photo. 1st photo does that well, also look for water in the gutter.

the 2nd photo has light extremely concentrated on the ass, something you can control with a polarizer

the 3rd shows a transparent visor

>slightly enhanced reflection on the water
you sound like a idiot when i said it had nothing to do with the water. do you know what main light it?

>>2799732
I assume you are referring to the camera-right hand, which is below the top edge of the chrome railing. Her thumb and arm are reflecting in the shine.

>>2799734
>the 2nd photo has light extremely concentrated on the ass, something you can control with a polarizer
actually i take that back, could be just a flash

im just surprised no one brought up a polarizer which is 10x more viable

>>2799735
polarizers have little/no effect on metal/chrome...

File: 1457990084224.jpg (77KB, 548x394px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 548x394px

>>2799564

He just did you fuckboi.

Its mostly all frequency sep and retarded heavy dodge burning.

>>2799740
What's your point? The comment you're replying to has nothing to do with a polarizer.

>>2799734
>you sound like a idiot when i said it had nothing to do with the water. do you know what main light it?
You say *I* sound like an idiot, and yet I have no fucking clue what you're trying to type.

No, I don't "know what main light it [sic]"

>>2799743
Yeah you do. Stop grasping typos nigger

>>2799734
>polarizers reduces shine on skin which is apparent in the first photo
Her skin is very shiny in the first photo. You know what else reduces shine? Not being in hard direct sunlight, which is the case in the OP (notice there's no hard shadows at all)

>>2799744
What the FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. What main light are you referring to, and how in the fuck is it related to anything you're trying to reference??? The main light in the image is either the diffused ambient light from the sky, or a large octobox over her head. What the fuck does that have to do with a polarizer and its affect on the reflection on the water??

All a polarizer would have done is to reduce the visual business of whatever is on the bottom of the pool, leaving the empty sky reflected on the surface. It's a minor affect when related to the overall toned and colored look of the final image.

>>2799744
Oh, and also, if the polarizer were cutting reflections on her skin, it would also be cutting reflections on the water, and you'd be able to see the bottom of the pool, you retarded shit sprinkler.

>>2799104
this photo is clearly in direct sunlight

>>2799750
You got triggered from nigger :^)

>>2799747
Well a pool usually doesn't have anything blocking it to make soft light- usually built wide open. And if they brought a giant diffuser I don't feel you can get those deep tones on the skin. But maybe diffuser to left?

>>2799755
Chances are very good that it's just a clear or overcast sky, and the sun is being blocked by a building or a cloud. Chances are good that they didn't diffuse the entire scene, though they could have, by putting up a giant white canvas behind the camera to keep all the light from hitting the whole pool area (doubtful).

>>2799754
what?

File: UuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhWut.gif (3MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x225px

>>2799753
Well you're not wrong.

>>2799109

You're the cuck if your still using DSL.

>>2799760
Blah blah data caps blah blah 4chan's servers aren't on my broadband, etc. Shut the fuck up and go with the board's requests. If the board didn't care, you wouldn't see comments about it constantly.

>>2799755
>And if they brought a giant diffuser I don't feel you can get those deep tones on the skin. But maybe diffuser to left?

>>2799756
is me

Those deep skin tones and contrasts aren't on the scene, most likely. Her skin would have contrast from the light, but not nearly that much, I don't believe. I could be wrong, but from my understanding, there's a lot of tonal processing here. There are a few "digital tanning" techniques that can be used to darken skin and add contrast where there would be far less otherwise. There could be a large black light killer board directly in front of her keeping fill light from getting to her, but it's likely that there is just a large structure there behind the camera that's blocking most of the light. (like a covered stair well or changing rooms, or something.) There's definitely not ambient light coming in at her from the direct front or right, and almost all the light on her is coming from behind and directly above. I'm trying to figure out the reflection in the pipe to the right of her to see what's back there, but it's tough. Either way, her skin is definitely heavily processed for color and tone. Photoshop(R) taught us a method using Photoshop plugins like Nik Color Efex to digitally darken and tan skin, though I don't know that that method specifically would give this exact look.

>>2799761

Who's "the board?"
You and two other people?

Like you said, it's a "request" not a rule, it's up to the poster to decide whether he wants to follow it.

>>2799776
Sure, and it's up to the viewing audience whether they want to call you on it or not. Welcome to the real world where choice cuts both ways. You choose to post larger than the board requests (The board being the official sticky on the top of the front page, by the way) and others choose to call you on it. Want to stop getting called on it? Resize your photos, and post larger files upon request (as has literally always been the etiquette on /p/)

>>2799768
>digital tanning

Lol if you see how neck and body skin tone blends I can assure you there was bronzing involved. I wouldn't say the tan is photoshopped but a tan was enhanced.

A black flag you would have to see a black shadow running around her contours of the body, which isn't present

>>2799791
If the black flag was blocking direct sunlight, this is true. But the black flag would be simply absorbing fill light that would have otherwise been bouncing around in front of her.

File: 001untitled.jpg (197KB, 493x731px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 493x731px

y'all all kinds of dumb

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:23 16:19:31

download lightroom
add about 20 clarity
add about 20~30 contrast
add about 130 fucking noise reduction because you're petrified of softening the image in a decent way
kill the highlights
pretty much the results

>>2799147
>Also, ND filter is accurate, mine gaves the image this kinda of color.
an ND filter would slow the shutter down by about 4x which is so fucking pointless and horrible for sharpening effects. unless you're using an even weaker ND filter which is pointless. they don't do what you think they do and no ND filter has been used here.

>>2799175
if you're wondering what the next step in your life is it's to not be retarded

>>2799798
What are you seeing in that reflection? I see the photographer, and two things on either side of him, but can't tell what they are, or how large they are (because of the distortion)

>>2799808

>>2799808
That's clearly two buildings and open sky anon.

>>2799845
So a large structure blocking the direct sunlight, as stated a few times in the thread already.

>>2799104
>2 stops underexposed
>Highlights on the life preserver still blown.

Means most of it was done in post.

>>2799147
>>2799175
Can 100% guarantee that photographers that shoot stuff like this will never use an ND filter.

File: 1458685425557.jpg (669KB, 2500x1667px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 2500x1667px

>>2799106
This whole thread is stupid and so am I for even attempting this.

File: hqdefault.jpg (13KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x360px

>>2800196

>>2799255
>pantone blues
lol pantone has all kinds of blues, what the fuck are you on about?

>>2800276
pantone 2016

>>2799104
>>2799106
These are fill lights with defused sunlight

>>2799103
This is sunlight behind the model with an overhead key light and fill to the left of the camera.

That's what they look like to me lighting wise. The PP is obviously very intense but I'd argue against much colour correction simply based on how few colours there are present in the shot. They're leaning on red/brown and green/blue simply to push the skin against sky contrast.

I think the main thing dazzling OP is the models skin tone which is 99% tan/make up artist work

> https://vimeo.com/65617394
Especially for /vid/, but every /p/tard should have some knowledge about cinematography.

>>2800299
The second image is direct sunlight, and you can tell because of the shape and size of her shadow.

The OP image has no direct light at all, and again, you can tell because of the (lack of) hard shadow.

>>2799103
bitch looks like an alien, digital retouching gone wrong up in here m8

>>2800197
I'm not him, but are you trying to imply the original has accurate colours in any way compared to his edit?

>>2800340
The original has tone colors that aren't bright and ridiculous. His edit, her skin looks neon.

>>2800342
>The original has tone colors that aren't bright and ridiculous. His edit, her skin looks neon.
All I did in my edit was try to reverse some color cast out of the blacks and whites and put the blacks and whites where they belong on the histogram.

If the skin is red and neon. its because the quby guy made it that way.

>>2800302

>doesn't even suggest ND filters

Into the trash it goes.

>>2800299
>This is sunlight behind the model with an overhead key light and fill to the left of the camera.
see
>>2799798