Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
hi all, just been checking out these photos: http://photo.net/photos/rarindra
i absolutley love the light he has. how has he managed to achieve the light? i pressume photoshop has something to do with it?
is it clever colour balancing? the backgrounds look almost misty.
Firstly, its the location.
Secondly, I don't think the light has been messed around with that much really.
Thirdly, I think the photographer has used the 'Orton Effect' in the post-production. (just google 'Orton Effect')
Nick
Probably more to do with the weather and lighting conditions in their location than Photoshop manipulation. Possible boosting saturation a bit.
I'm a great fan of their work and think it is some of the best photography I've seen.
I've not seen this work before. I'm totally blown away by it. I would say the original shots are composed beautifully, and the processing looks to me to involve the most minute detail work, together with globally applied effects to backgrounds with excellent masking and a superlative workflow. Wow. Holy crap!
Hate to be cynical here, but the manipulation and post processing is so, so heavy in 99% of Rarinda's work. I can't remember which photograph the comment is attached to, but someone drew attention to a specific PS plug-in or separate software program that creates the light you see in his shots. So many of them are so similar, I don't want to discredit them by saying that they are fake, they are just a whole new type of photography, photo-art as it seems to be becoming labelled. Here, a base photo is taken that may be well composed and well lit, and completely remastered in PS or other photo-editing software to represent something way beyond what the human eye saw or what the conditions truly were. This goes against the other comments above that seem to have been taken in by the easy belief that if the photos are true then they too might one day capture such scenes. I wish it were so, but taking the whole portfolio in view it is clear that similar effects have been over-applied to a majority of shots, the exceptions being what proves the rule. Rarinda is a good photographer, but he is a master P-Processer, as the above comments would indicate. Still, it's no less art, it just isn't photography in the truest sense of writing with *real* light...
There's a few people, me included, who'd be tempted to try that plug-in out.
It even seems to create backlighting of hair and shadows in the correct place, you sure it's a plug-in?
I'm more convinced the guy is fortunate with light and expert at exploiting it
I remember seeing a tutorial to achieve this kind of look. It was a picture of cowboys riding through a glade I think. Can't remember where I saw it, but I'll have a think and see if I can find it.
Autofx.com is worth checking out, you can do something similar with this, but as with most pug-ins it is about having a good shot in the first place suitable for the treatment.
As with all things best done in moderation rather than on every image as this person seems to have done.
The light-rays are a plug-in, of that I'm pretty sure. The misted shots are dodged/burnt in a way that I have no knowledge of, but he's used well-lit photos that already have the backlighting of the hair et al. I'm amazed you guys can look at all the photos as a mass body of work and not instantly see the same effects repeated time after time. Unless this guy took all those photos on the same day with a whole load of models trapsing round after him, I can't see nature being that consistent. He's just good at applying his style to photos that will benefit well from it, so it requires photographic skill to start, but the end result is more software based rather than real.
If you re-read my above post, you'll see that the plug-in is for the light rays. The mist effect is done by selective dodge/burn. The only way I can prove you wrong is to get hold of one of Rarinda's original RAW files, provided he shoots RAW. He has had a huge number of requests on the site to do so, and has never replied.
The shadows you talk about in that photo are suspect anyway - the shortest child has a shadow just as long as his taller companions, the arm is missing from the child with the ball, as is his curved posture - it would look straight to us but with the angle of the sun would produce a curved shadow and two arms shadows, as would the furthest left child have a wider profile due to being more angled to the sun. The contrast in the photo in so man background areas is clearly flattened, either too much shadow detail brought out or simply overcast conditions that have been light-faked later. Likewise, look at the tree leaves top left - minimal contrast there despite the fact that if this was real, the furthest and outer leaves would be sunlit and the inner ones in shade. Doesn't look that way to me...
This isn't a plug-in, it's some very inspired use of dodging and burning, and no loss of respect to the man for having mastered that...
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.


















