What's new
By:
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What is this effect called? Or how can i get this effect?


L

lisaskywood

Member
Messages
5
Likes
0
first of all i don't know what's this kind of photo effect called, i just describe it as bright, clean and w/o lack of contrasts

secondly, i wanna learn how to achieve this effect.....really don't know how

need help here....

btw i don't know where to post this post....so i just start from here =)

Mascarpone Whipped Cream.jpegPear Tarte Fine.jpegBourbon Pumpkin Pie.jpeg
 
Looks like the source photo's where taken correctly first off, secondly, they used some blur to make certain parts of the images stand out like in photo #1 where the little dishes are like POW and the background is blurred out..
 
I think most of what you like here is how this was photographed and not the result of PS work.

There are a lot of whites, off whites, and earth tones.
Well lit and very even studio lighting to minimize shadows.
A large (low number) aperture for a shallow depth of field.
And good composition
 
What everyone has pointed out is correct. The photographer used a fast lens (looks as though the focal aperature is f/1.4 or faster). The effect is called bokeh which translates to the aesthitic quality of a blurred out background. Hope that helps as well.

Google "Bokeh" for more information.
 
Hello, Welcome to PsG!
Yes, there is a small in focus area thanks to a "fast" lens being used (IE , one that opens at 2.4, 1.8...)
As for the toning of the photo, the exposure is higher than usual, almost making the photos "High Key" ones.
I would recommend you to search for that term to learn how to take pictures like that, but it requires controlled lighting.
You could try to fake that with a curve, but might get blown up areas...
 
This photo wasn't done in photoshop, but was rather taken with a DSLR camera with a "fast" lens. check out my photography for beginners in the tutorials section to learn more about all of this.
 
thx guys! i think i should work more on the shooting part.
i was just wondering how to reach this color tone, or is it from the nature light?:eek:
 
well, the color tone is used in a room with even lighting, and then artificial light was used to make the color tone like it is. Shoot with a low ISO and your colors will be really vivid like they are in the photos you showed. As I said, go ahead and look at my "Photography: An Introduction for Beginners" in the tutorials section, as I address this.
 
I'm not sure what you're asking but most of what you like about these images is the photographers choice of lighting, aperture, and composition along with the color of the props.
This is studio lighting not natural (outdoor) light.
I'm sure there's some post processing too but most of this IMHO is the skill of the photographer.
 
Steve said:
I'm not sure what you're asking but most of what you like about these images is the photographers choice of lighting, aperture, and composition along with the color of the props.
This is studio lighting not natural (outdoor) light.
I'm sure there's some post processing too but most of this IMHO is the skill of the photographer.
Click to expand...
I agree totally Steve. This photography properly photographed his subject using the proper ISO, shutter speed, and aperture. He had a low aperture number which is how he made the blurry background, he had either a low or high shutter speed, depending on what he did, and he had a very low ISO that gave him the vivid, clear color. The photographer then used light boxes to give him the proper lighting he needed. Then, the photographer had knowledge of colors to use together, mixing the whites and earthtones, as steve said, to give the photo the tone you want. To get this effect that you like, you gotta get knowledge in photography. I fell that if you can take a picture right the first time, you won't need to spend what could take hours in photoshop fixing something you could have avoided when you pressed that button down. remember, whites and light browns look nice and homely together, giving a kind of warm look.
 
true designs, it could be easily emulated in photoshop, but it won't look correct. just buy an SLR if you can't afford a 300 dollar DSLR, or just save up your money. My favorite camera (and possibly my favorite camera of all time) is the Cannon RT. It's an SLR but it has a little bit of a cool quirk that only a few other camera models have, and all of them are SLR cameras. This camera has what is called a pellicle mirror, which means that when you take the picture, the mirror doesn't move. This reduces camera shake, allows for faster photography (great for sports) and allows you to see what you capture when you capture it. (what i'm talking about is when you take a picture with a camera, the screen goes black or if you're looking through the viewfinder it goes black. with a pellicle mirror camera, the viewfinder doesn't black out). The camera takes pictures as well as modern cameras. And, you can use modern lenses as well with a conversion lense attachment. SLR's from the RT and up all have autofocus features that a DSLR features. The camera doesn't have to be charged, and it's battery lasts for years because it doesn't have a digital screen. All you really have to pay for is the film and to get it printed out. Off course I realize that with DSLR's you don't have to worry about the film, you can store the photos on your computer, you can print out the photos yourself, and you can take a lot more pictures than a SLR can while also being able to change your ISO settings on the fly. If you really want to get a DSLR, just set aside some money whenever you can until you get enough money to get the camera you want. so just because you don't HAVE the camera doesn't really matter if you're dead-set on wanting to take quality photos... besides, there are lots of things that a person can't accurately replicate in photoshop in 5 minutes that a camera can do with little effort in about 30 seconds worth of quickly thinking about what settings would be best. Photoshop should be your last resort, not your first solution.
 
These images are very similar to what Bon Appetite magazine leans towards (I've worked on their images...mucho work on every one!).

You can achieve this effect with a normal photo, but it is a lot of work. Starting with a properly shot/lit image makes it a ton easier.
Duplicate the image and make it a duo-tone with colors you find appealing, then you will need to mask out all areas that you don't want a lot of color in (non photo subjects, like table, etc). Do a quick convert to RGB from duo-tone. Activate your masks as selections and drag those items using select tool to the original image.

Fade that layer back a bit so original color shows through just a tad.

This is a very quick and dirty way to achieve this effect.
 
rhstanley3 said:
true designs, it could be easily emulated in photoshop, but it won't look correct.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, are you trying to say i or anyone else couldn't duplicate that with photoshop and make it looks the exact same to the naked eye?? i think you underestimate the power of photoshop...
 
Dezigns Unlimited said:
Wait a minute, are you trying to say i or anyone else couldn't duplicate that with photoshop and make it looks the exact same to the naked eye?? i think you underestimate the power of photoshop...
Click to expand...
that's not what I'm saying... kind of... what I'm trying to say is that the depth of field has different levels of focus that are dependent on how far away the object is. there's no way to accurately replicate the effect. At first glance it'll look right, but look at it long enough and you can see that it doesn't look just right... and besides, why try to emulate it when you can just shoot it like that the first time. THAT is my point. That trying to recreate the effect in photoshop is more work than it's worth. And actually, yes. I am saying that not just anyone can accurately replicate that image. Take a friend who knows little to nothing about photoshop and ask them to make an accurate image with a correct depth of field, correct lighting, make it look asthetically pleasing, and ask them to correct color and make the colors cohesive to provide an asthetically pleasing look to the image. If their jaw doesn't drop and they try it without flinching, they will soon do what many refer to as rage quitting because it will take them hours to do. We're human. We just can't make the perfect amount of blur that changes in between each centimeter of space that comes with a shallow depth of field. That, my friend, is what you are asking of these people. Now, give them the choice of taking a photo correctly and being done with it, or spending what could take hours in front of the computer. Let's see which it is that people pick.
 
Last edited:
rhstanley3 said:
that's not what I'm saying... kind of... what I'm trying to say is that the depth of field has different levels of focus that are dependent on how far away the object is. there's no way to accurately replicate the effect. At first glance it'll look right, but look at it long enough and you can see that it doesn't look just right... and besides, why try to emulate it when you can just shoot it like that the first time. THAT is my point.
Click to expand...

Good point, but maybe not everyone wants to go buy a SLR or DSLR camera to get that effect is all im saying...
 
well then let them live with pictures that will be of low quality, which editing won't help too much. He wants to recreate the kind of look in the photos, I'm not demanding he or anyone else buy a camera. That would kinda be an invasion of privacy. I'm just telling him what will give him the most accurate recreation of the image for his time.
 
Back
Top