I've been trying to figure out Alex strohls editing style

>>3113768
Light*

A medium format camera, with a fast, sharp lens

>>3113770

He shoots full frame digital though.

>>3113768
Please tell me that you realize that's a composite and not a single exposure that's been tweaked...

>>3113768
lots of masking layers most likely

File: alex-Strohl_lofoten.jpg (222KB, 1000x1250px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1000x1250px

>>3113768
shoot for shadows even though it totally ass fucks your sky
then in post looks like some high pass filter in photoshop (run the slider all the way or mostly to the right) and a bunch of fucking around in curves
maybe a little shadows & highlights

>>3113770
just a shit canon

...seriously, that's a composite of at least three different images, probably around six or seven. You cannot get that kind of depth of field and detail with only a tilt shift lens unless he somehow has hacked apart his 5d and made it the only 5d on the planet capable of full pretzel movements.

>>3113818
>>3113782

damn, he does some zealous post processing

>>3113769
Why does it seem no photographers consider the fucking medium of this hobby? Film isn't the medium, a sensor isn't the medium, post processing isn't a medium. Light is a god damn medium.

>>3113839

I would wager that seventy to eighty percent of Monsieur Strohl's aesthetic is post processing my man.

>>3113839
Why can’t they all be mediums? A medium is just something which lies between the conception and the finished product.

>>3113886
That is not what medium means.

>>3114215

you're not what medium means

>>3113850
I dunno, used to follow him on instagram. Seems like he puts in work to chase the light and whatnot. He definitely does a lot in post, but I'd say he works harder than most of the "travel/i live in the PNW/teenager crushing blacks" photographers. He seems like a humble dude.

>>3113822

Brackets his shots, then merge in post?

File: histogram.png (8KB, 200x300px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x300px

>>3113818
>shoot for shadows even though it totally ass fucks your sky
This is terrible advice. Even if you're planning to have the sky completely washed out you should never willingly clip the highlights in the exposure, it always looks terrible. Blow it out in post if you must, but neither of the pics posted do this.

>>3114717
this is clearly clipped, look at the bar at 255 value

>>3114717
wtf you running, win98?

>>3114717
what is the secret to the histogram? How do I tell if a photo is good from looking at it?

File: clipping.jpg (76KB, 799x1200px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 799x1200px

>>3114721
By not clipping I don't mean no pixels at 255, but a reasonable amount there. Each pixel value represents a range of brightness, and you can think of 255 as representing (254, inf). From the histogram it looks like there are maybe 3x as many at 255 than 254, so maybe 1/3 would be at 255, 1/3 at 256, 1/3 at 257 or something like that. The problem with clipping is we can't know the precise value, but so long as only small portions of the picture are at 255 we can be confident its true value wouldn't be too far from 255.

Here is the 253-255 range of each channel. You can see a lot of small specks where there is no mystery to the true value, they are just a little noise pushing it to the edge. There are larger regions in the clouds that I would prefer to avoid in my own pictures, but we don't expect a lot of detail there anyway and the regions are still relatively small so it's not a big deal.

If you blow it in the exposure you have no control over what parts are blown, and it just looks like shit.

File: Yes perfect.png (10KB, 327x173px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 327x173px

>these colours
>these soft brightness transitions

>>3113768
Orange shadows and blue highlights is your stating point my dude.

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-16 at 9.49.25.png (923KB, 570x855px) Image search: [Google]

923KB, 570x855px

>>3114739
Photoshop and many other photo editing software can show exactly which areas are clipped. About 30% of clouds are clipped, which is a lot.

>>3113768

That's Photoshop and not Lightroom. It's clearly composite.

>>3114713
But that's not all. You're looking at both stacked focus and exposures. Hell, I'll even wager that those mountains aren't there in real life.

And none of this is a dig on him, because I'm positive he doesn't hit that shutter release without knowing what he wants the final image to be and how he wants to use that exposure in it.

>>3114713
>>3114717
>>3114721
>>3114739
...why are you two retards talking about clipping in a web resolution copy of an art piece.

You might want to learn how jpg works before you start yammering about some too white pixels in clouds.

>>3115239
I'm a noob. Can you explain what that means?

>>3115154
>clipped
So what?

>>3115242
In what world is this an art piece? The background looks totally unnatural, and the rest looks like an instagram edit.

>>3115257
So the sky is blown out.

>>3115287
>So the sky is blown out.
So what?

>>3115287
Art must look natural?

File: 624153_f39cbfc5126e8c4d729128ad2376a528_large.jpg (97KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 900x600px

>>3115239

That's Spirit Island at Maligne Lake. The mountains are most certainly there.