how does he get this look?

dwdmguy said:

Mark, thank you a great deal. I'm going to try this. I've been over exp only 1 stop but sometimes not backlit. So you think I should place the incident dome at the face and have it face the camera?

Click to expand...

I don't think you have to back-light, but much of what Jose does, is. It's the same idea as using a hair light behind the subject in studio.

When taking an "incident" reading with any meter the dome should almost always face the camera position. The exceptions I know of are rare and involve side lighting in studio.

The sun, in a back-lit scene, is not the primary light source for the subject, typically it is the sky behind the camera. With an SLR, rather than use an incident meter I'll set up for the shot then spin 180, meter the blue sky and then set my exposure from there, normal or plus.

dwdmguy said:

I've used Richards and I felt they are by far the best I've ever used but now with my darkroom built and a jobo ATL2300 I keep it in house.

Thank you again.

Click to expand...

I am keeping my personal stuff at home. For weddings and "mainstream" portrait work though, I decided that I did not want to do any processing or printing. Farming this work out was one of the most profitable choices I have made in photography.

There is no way he's getting the focus/bokeh effects he's getting with strictly the lenses listed. No way, José...maybe a 50mm 1.2 or an 85mm 1.2/1.4 -- but not a 2.8 lens.

And they're too sharp overall for a Lensbaby, also.

It's post-production digital. That's not a bad thing in itself (the images are striking) but it's not analog.

When you eyeball his work very closely there does seem to be undeniable evidence of post-processing ?digital tweaking (observe the fall of the oddball shadows and conspicuous absence of skin flaws), and as Colin observes, it's quite impressive, individual work but it's probably not analog. Selective, shallow focus and asymmetric alignment is nothing new in analog: this is a common technique with wedding photographers shooting with the Hasselblad FlexBody (503CX locally) and emerging employment by the digital brigade using T/S optics. That said, he still has a lot of skill in timing, arrangement and post-processing/printing and it is quite engaging overall.

Thanks Gary - let me emphasize I'm not tearing down his work whatsoever, not one bit.

I don't think there is any question that a lens baby was utilized. The multi element lens baby of the newer generations can easily produce the areas of sharpness and clarity in his images. I also think some comments are correct that there may have been some degree of hybrid post production going on, although that is only a possibility. For sure over exposure combined with strong back lighting and some type of fill has been employed whether by reflector or flash. The bottom line is that he did not have much time to work in several of the images so I doubt he used any type of camera with swings, tilts or any quality perspective control quality lens. Looks just like lens baby to me and discriminately used.

Colin Corneau said:

Thanks Gary - let me emphasize I'm not tearing down his work whatsoever, not one bit.

Click to expand...

Goodness me, neither am I.

I do like his work irrespective of film or optics used. He's quite obviously very highly skilled and fluent in visual arrangement. Remember he's making a living with his creative craft and we can all learn something from the next professional.

Colin Corneau said:

There is no way he's getting the focus/bokeh effects he's getting with strictly the lenses listed. No way, José...maybe a 50mm 1.2 or an 85mm 1.2/1.4 -- but not a 2.8 lens.

Click to expand...

Colin:

He is doing that with a Contax 645 with a 80mm T* f2.0

All this is done straight up in camera.

Thanks

Scott

So far I've not seen anyone here make mention that he probably shoots "one hell of a lot of film", gets it professionally processed, scanned and proofed, and edits it down(just like in the all-film days) before showing his client HIS selects.

there are some people that I sold film too out here in LA who are VERY similar in style to Jose's approach. They prefer to shoot later in the day(long shadows) and preferably, when the chance arises, to have the subject backlit. Low contrast, spotty saturation and terrific skintones are what they make their money on.

He also makes mention that he doesn't just capture fleeting moments, but creates a lot of his shots. Somewhat of a collaboration. He has created a style that sells, and appears to sell well. Good for him!

I'm guessing though that his target market is in the $5-$10k range. Looking at the shots on his blog with the little orange BMW roadster, screamed to me "connesuir of fine things, cameras(in this case Contax 645) and older, vintage automobiles. in particular ones that aren't all that cheap to maintain in that condition. Not to mention that the Contax 645 glass and the Canon gear he shoots with is the highest-contrast designed glass in the world.

After seeing what a Noritsu or Frontier minilab can really do with a skilled and experienced operator at the helm, I've been really re-thinking getting a nice, wet-mount capable scanner. I might just look at applying to a pro lab here in LA just to learn scanning . Noritsu and Fuji didn't design these things just for the average Costco and Wal-Marts in mind . I believe Richard Photo Labs( the lab he supposedly uses) uses Frontier machines for the bulk of their scanning jobs IIRC.

its all in the operator. But I'm pretty sure there is some digital-post processing done.

He probably doesn't even show 50% of his clients on his site, so not all the couples look like models from a hi-end wedding magazine.

markbarendt said:

I am keeping my personal stuff at home. For weddings and "mainstream" portrait work though, I decided that I did not want to do any processing or printing. Farming this work out was one of the most profitable choices I have made in photography.

Click to expand...

Mark, this is what smart business-oriented photogs do from what I've found. I love processing film, gives me plenty of time to listen to some great music, but I prefer to be behind the camera, or with my friends. So there are more important things in life that standing in front of a sink agitating(or JOBO'ing ) your film. I'd prefer to bill the processing straight to the client. And you can sit back and enjoy the benefits. Or shoot another wedding in the meantime .

-Dan

ohh. I've found that I can get a nice, low contrast shot with "just a bit of bite" when I shoot 400h at 125 or 160, and pull a stop in processing. Takes some practice and experimentation to see what YOU like for YOUR work, but in my case, worked out just as I wanted. Subject was partially backlit BTW.

-Dan

If you are sure the man uses film, whatever it is, I'd say that this effect is due to the use of a flashgun with a diffuser of course (we can see the light in their eys even when they are strongly backlit) and an overexposure of the background ( it is all a amatter of control of the f-stop for the subject and the speed for the ambient light..).
Well how about that???

Hey Everybody...

If you REALLY want to know just listen to them (they tell all)...

Jose Villa - Dead Link Removed

Jonathan Canlas - Dead Link Removed

Also both these guys are my friends... any special questions send me and I will get the answers, BOTH of them are OPEN BOOKS !!

Thanks

Scott

Scott_Sheppard said:

Jose Villa - Dead Link Removed

Click to expand...

Just listened to this, thanks. It was good, I'm inspired to try something like this.

Hello. My name is Jonathan Canlas, and I am the one who's work you are talking about.

Let me explain how I got this look and what I did. It is rather demystifying so get ready.

FIRST. There is no LensBaby. I do not own one and no offense to anyone who uses one, I find it quite gimmicky. The reason you have such crazy depth of field is from shooting on a Contax 645 with an 80mm f2 Zeiss lens. Shooting f/2 on this camera is like shooting 1.2 or 1 on a 35mm lens. The focus is REALLY tricky but when you nail it, it is unreal and CAN NOT be reproduced any other way in my opinion. The look of a Contax 645 with the 80mm lens is so distinct.

The other thing I want to clear up is when you over expose on your film, it does NOT make it more pastel looking. Here is the rule, the more you over expose your film the more CONTRAST and SATURATION you are introducing into your images. And I don't know about you, but SATURATION and CONTRAST are NOT pastel looking to me. The over exposing is my post production done IN CAMERA.

These images were all overexposed about 1.5-2 stops depending on where I was shooting. All color images were shot on FujiPro 400H. The bw stuff was on Kodak BW400CN and the cross processed Holga stuff was shot on Kodak E100VS and obviously cross processed.

I develop and scan everything in house. I own my own Noritsu QSF-V30 with a FujiHunt (fuji chemisty) conversion and a Fuji Frontier SP2500. I don't do the scanning myself, I have an employee do that, but that is where the images are scanned, corrected for denisty and color corrected. That is it. There are various setting to bump contrast or retain highlight detail (if you notice I NEVER have blown highlights, EVER). This machine literally lets me have a dynamic range of up to 10 stops in 1 image. Unreal.

There is no post production of these images. What you see is what you get. No cropping was done. If you have not figured it out, I HATE post processing and sitting in front of a computer. This is one of the main reasons I love film. I show up, shoot, develop/scan/clean dust, and upload the images and I'm done. They are "straight out of camera" other than taken into photoshop and cleaned for dust and scratches. The frontier does not have digital ice so dust is a constant battle.

I shot 4 rolls of 220, 1 roll of 120 and 1 roll of 35mm. That is usually what I shoot at a family session and then edit it down to around 50 images. This event was edited to 75 as it was 2 families.

The way I get this look is by shooting Fuji film on a Contax w/80mm f2 shot wide open. That is it. There is no gimmick, there is no crazy post production, there are no actions run, there is nothing but straight out of camera honest images. I used no flash, no reflectors, nothing but my Contax 645 w/ 80mm f2 lens (for color shots), Nikon F5 w/ 50mm 1.4 ZEISS lens and 35mm f/2 Nikkor lens (for the bw shots), and a Holga 120S (for the square cross processed images).

Film is a magical thing people, you should try it .

Thanks for the info Jonathan, and welcome to APUG!

I don't do anything remotely akin to you, but I do enjoy what I can get from 400H and 800 Z straight out of the camera. Okay, straight out of the c41 stabilizer....

Thanks again for providing your info, that's very helpful.

Perhaps you could say a few more words about metering? Do you meter off the faces and overexpose per that reading?

P.S. I apologize for invoking lensbabies; it is a hackneyed look that we see so often in this genre; perhaps I am now seeing it where I shouldn't. Kudo on the fine results form a very fine lens. Too bad contax is no more.

oh and ps, I NEVER bracket. i have been shooting 400 iso for almost 10 years all on manual settings on my camera (even manual focus, I NEVER use autofocus). and in doing so, I can flat out tell you exposures within 1/2 of a stop. i recently went to bali for a wedding and had NO light meter. i stressed out at first as I ALWAYS have a sekonic l508 around my neck. but i was joking with my friend leo patrone (who shoots 100% film as well) that we should just show up one day to a wedding without light meters. we play games at weddings guessing exposures. and well, it happened.

i know for a fact that harsh backlit i am going to be shooting f/2 @ 1/4000th of a second. i know it. i know my exposures so there is NEVER a need to bracket or guess what I am doing technically. this frees me up to be as creative as i possibly can without worry about the technical side of things.

These guys are using diffused flash fill. There's no way you can get such good exposure of your subject matter without it when the subject is backlit by the sun.

If you have a TTL flash meter, try this. With a handheld meter, take an incident reading at the box film speed (160 for Portra VC). Set your exposure to that on the lens. Then set the TTL meter to double the box speed (320). Then stop down the lens 1/2 stop. Take the picture.

He's all digital now, but when Denis Reggie used Hasselblads, that's how he did it.

"...we play games at weddings guessing exposures..."

You're a braver man than I, sir.

Stellar work, and thanks for the detailed explanations...a good read.

Jonathan, I am the OP here on the thread....

Thank you very much for your joining and and sharing. Helps a lot! Also, a VERY welcome to you from APUG.
(By the way, you state: 'Film is a magical thing people, you should try it' ... That's all we do here.

I have watched your website, your blog and listened to your Analog Photo Radio interview for a reason, I really like your art.
Now with a 13year old growing up fast, your art is something I want to, not copy, but understand and put my own flavor on. You've helped a great deal, thank you.
I wrote you the other day and suggested you may think about about a workshop in NYC/NJ area. Lot's of wedding photographers.
I hope you stick around, this is a great group of people.
Thanks again.
Tom

Jonathan,
P.S. you have a wonderful looking family and it says a lot about the man they way he talks about his family and the way he teachers others.

c6h6o3 said:

These guys are using diffused flash fill. There's no way you can get such good exposure of your subject matter without it when the subject is backlit by the sun.

Click to expand...

NO. I. AM. NOT. USING. FILL. FLASH. OR. ANY. KIND. OF. FLASH.

clear?

I NEVER use a flash on a Contax (well, I take that back, I used it on this shoot http://jonathan.instaproofs.com/collection.php?event=164360). but for my wedding/portrait work, I am not using a flash. ever, no never.

I just think it is hilarious how difficult you think it is. It is SO SIMPLE. Put your subject heavily backlit, meter for the shadows, make sure you have no lens flare, SHOOT FILM on the Contax. done.

and I am telling you right now, YES there is a way to get such great exposures shooting back lit and without having to chimp or bracket. it happens almost daily around here .

dwdmguy said:

J
(By the way, you state: 'Film is a magical thing people, you should try it' ... That's all we do here.


Tom

Click to expand...

HA! i had no idea what this place was. i just got a HUGE amount of traffic from this site and joined so i could see what all the fuss what about from what to me was the WORST family session i've EVER shot . (kids melting down left and right, an additional family showing up unannounced)

but now that i know this is a film forum, let me say this. A LOT of my look has to do with the fact that it is scanned on a fuji frontier. not a NORITSU. there are 2 machines you'll find these days at all major labs. the frontier and the noritsu. labs LOVE the Noritsu for several reasons:

1. it bulk loads 220 instead of having to scan frame by frame
2. way larger files = charging more for larger files
3. digital ice = no post for them and fast workflow and more people in the door

HOWEVER

in my opinion even though those things sound great and all you are sacraficing:

1. detail in highlights and shadows
2. distinct fuji color palette

and those 2 things are what are responsible for my and jose's look. it is the FRONTIER. i love that scanner. i own freaking 2 of them . i even seen scans from their machine with the digital ice and it is not the same. the sp2500 is their mother ship. the color is phenomenal. so i guess, that is my "actions", or my "post production" to get my look. having everything scanned on a frontier.

though i will say, true bw film looks WAY better on a noritsu.

but if you scan a holga cross processed image on a noritsu? its HORRIBLE.

jonathan canlas said:

NO. I. AM. NOT. USING. FILL. FLASH. OR. ANY. KIND. OF. FLASH.
clear?

Click to expand...

Jonathan, I've leaned long ago not to take too much of what is said on forums to heart, you'll live longer. that said, there is an amazing group of people here, it's just that some peeps have to argue as they have too much time on their hands.
I hope you hang out. It would be good for us and there some amazing people here so it will be good for you. I've been taking a lot from these guys and hope to give back a lot soon.

You have two Frontier scanners? May I have one?
Best to you and yours.

also, during the summer when it gets uber busy, i use a lab in LA called Richard Photo Lab to scan my stuff. they are seriously, the best lab on the planet.

http://www.richardphotolab.com

their scans are better than mine, i'll say that .

i just shot the owner's wedding which i just put on my proofing site.

1300 images edited down to 750

http://jonathan.instaproofs.com/collection.php?event=126147

if anyone is looking for great frontier scans, they are seriously the best.

I've used them and they are indeed the best lab on the planet with one execption. My darkroom.

One more thing, I'm learning from J.C. not from his processing and "settings" but from his "eye" as well.