Taking photos like Insomnia does...

[rainman333]

Hey all,

I noticed that the Insomnia website has a distinct photo style, that usually makes the girls more prettier than they are...

so any tips on how to take photos like the Insomnia website does? Do they use some type of post processing filters or photoshop ? if so, which ones?

thanks!

[Gone-east]

They use high end photographic equipment (camera and lighting) and the photos will be heavily edited afterwards using Photoshop or something similar.

In my limited experience its a skill that isn't learnt overnight and there can be a substantial differences between those done by an amature and those done by a professional.

Lots of photo enhancing/editing tutorials on the net if you are interested.

The used to be a Czech photographer called Jiří Bláha who was considered the 'go to' guy for Escort Agencies around 15 years ago. His photoshoots lasted around 5 or 6 hours but then we would spend the next 5 or 6 days just editing half a dozen photos. The transformations he created were spectacular for the agencies and girls but no so good for the customers of his clients.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Gone-east

[rainman333]

thanks for the info Gone-east  

I'm just a newbie photographer wanting to take better pictures of the girls in the room

I recently upgraded to canon t6i  and my previous camera(s) sony rx2 and canon sx50

 

[Crazy Gupta]

The Canon T6i is a great camera for beginners. A good quality lenses such as the Canon 50mm f1.4 or a fast 35mm lens would work well too. Cheap kit lenses probably won't get you that quality.

Looking at the Insomnia photos, I would guess the photographer is using a full frame camera with a flash at an f-stop between 1.8 and 3.2. The flash may have a very soft diffuser over it.

Raw files are then processed in an app like Adobe Lightroom to enhance highlights, shadows and colours. He/she probably uses a custom made filter in Lightroom as most photos look similar in style.

There is probably more to it than that which has been perfected with experience and over time.

[Ru4Real]

Sorry, but no professional photographer would use Lightroom, he (she?) will be post processing in Photoshop.

[Crazy Gupta]

I suppose every photographer has their own workflow.

I know a lot photographers who use Lightroom, mainly in the wedding and event photography industry. Have you ever tried to process/develop 500+ photos from an event using Photoshop.

Myself, I develop in Lightroom and edit in Photoshop.

[Ru4Real]

Last time I developed a photograph it was in a dark room not a Lightroom. The digital age has mostly put a stop to that 

[noknmai]

On 06/05/2018 at 13:45, Ru4Real said:

Sorry, but no professional photographer would use Lightroom, he (she?) will be post processing in Photoshop.

Wrong.

Lightroom is called Lightroom for a reason.

In the film days you'd go into a darkroom to process photos and to get the best out of a negative. In digital you sit in the light and use Lightroom to get the best out of a digital negative.

Lightroom is extremely powerful with batch processing of multiple images which is how the Insomnia Photo guy will be working. Shoot RAW, set WB to about 5500k, up the whites, down the blacks, bring up the shadows and add vibrance. Then simply sync it across all the pics.

Use a Photoshop filter (set up as a batch action) like Imagenomic Portraiture to soften the skin tones and in no time at all you have a 100 or so pics ready to post. No way he would muck around post processing each image in Photoshop.

As far as camera technique goes, I'd guess a full frame or high end crop sensor camera (Canon 7D mk 2 for example) shoot low shutter speed, low aperture and high ISO with an off camera speedlight with a Stofen or Gary Fong type diffuser. Easy stuff.

[bungee]

There is now dedicated software to improve portraits. It will detect the face and remove blemishes, whiten skin etc automatically.

A quick google search threw up http://www.portraitprofessional.com/ but I've no idea if this is any good it just shows you what can be done probably quicker than photoshop

 

 

[noknmai]

2 minutes ago, bungee said:

There is now dedicated software to improve portraits. It will detect the face and remove blemishes, whiten skin etc automatically.

A quick google search threw up http://www.portraitprofessional.com/ but I've no idea if this is any good it just shows you what can be done probably quicker than photoshop

 

 

Which is what Portraiture does, only softens what it detect's as skin tones but leaves the hair, lips and eyes sharp. Been using it for years.

[Stokielad]

On 06/05/2018 at 13:45, Ru4Real said:

Sorry, but no professional photographer would use Lightroom, he (she?) will be post processing in Photoshop.

You couldnt be more wrong.  The vast majority of professional wedding and portrait photographers use Lightroom for at least 90% of their work, only using photoshop and filter programs for a limited number of images. An average wedding will now feature 400-500 images, you will lose the will to live doing that in photoshop .... Time is of the essence if you want to make money.

The secret is to get the majority of it right in the camera in the first place, the basics haven't changed.

It is true no pro would use portrait professional. Its too limiting and blanket plastic like and the workflow for batches is unusable. A handy tool if you dont really want to learn the more advanced elements of layers and  blending in photoshop for the odd picture but defintely aimed at the amateur market. Portrait professional has been around  for at least ten years now, not a new tool at all.

 

[Little Evil]

My initial thought is a fast lens opened up wide with a diffused speedlight at a low setting due to the fast/open lens. Just enough to accentuate the foreground, as the fast lens should allow for background saturation. The reflection of the flash in the eyes does not indicate ring or dish. Look more like just a single diffused speedlight. Shadow also looks like it was dead on, not bounced. As a side note--I used to use an empty pack of Marlboro lights with the foil removed as a diffuser in a pinch if I didn't have my kit with me. 

However, in this digital day and age, there are all sorts of fancy tricks one can do with HDR processing that takes some of the challenge out of club shooting. Still, this is definitely one of the most difficult lighting scenarios given the overall darkness, but random areas of extreme bright club lighting and lasers. I personally go manual focus because I don't trust my camera to pull off sharp photos every time in auto.  Also, there is definitely a lot of post processing going on. Most likely shot raw, but all levels are raised to the point that many of the shots clip in the whites and reds. Histogram probably looks like a Momument Valley mesa. 

[Atlas]

On 06/05/2018 at 19:45, Ru4Real said:

Sorry, but no professional photographer would use Lightroom, he (she?) will be post processing in Photoshop.

I cal bullshit !!! 

[Billyboy294]

On 5/7/2018 at 23:38, bungee said:

There is now dedicated software to improve portraits. It will detect the face and remove blemishes, whiten skin etc automatically.

A quick google search threw up http://www.portraitprofessional.com/ but I've no idea if this is any good it just shows you what can be done probably quicker than photoshop

 

 

For $40US.

[lfc4dp]

Can we please stop assuming they are all Professionals? Basically any member of bar staff who can afford a second-hand canon. Everyone one of my ex's is now some hipster with skinny jeans and a canon. Well done you can point and shoot, it's about as creative as the drawings that your mum put on the fridge when you were 4, sorry just a coffee fuelled reality check/rant.

[Grumbler]

think I would have to disagree with a lot of that.

look like just a fast semi-wide lens wide open with flash on camera.

Hot spots on brow and cheeks are the give-away.

originals with no "processing".

there's nothing special about the ones i saw on the website.

(former advt pro photographer)

[Little Evil]

On 5/22/2018 at 22:58, Grumbler said:

think I would have to disagree with a lot of that.

look like just a fast semi-wide lens wide open with flash on camera.

Hot spots on brow and cheeks are the give-away.

originals with no "processing".

there's nothing special about the ones i saw on the website.

(former advt pro photographer)

There is obvious post-processing in all the color saturation. There is no way you'd get that level of clipping without trying to raise all the saturation and curves to unnatural levels. A camera's automatic color processing would not do this on its own. 

[Grumbler]

Well yeah ok whatever about all that, was talking about the means by which the photo was taken.

I'm from the days of choosing a lens and a film to increase saturation or get a normal result.

colour balance was done with gelatin filters.

Just a note to you young fellas:

this obsession with saturation and vibrance, really just making the photo unreal, began with the introduction of Fujifilm back in the day (I'm talking about transpareny film),

Before that Kodak film was universally used, and Kodak tried to reproduce colours faithfully, which often meant they looked a bit "flat", expecially when combined with a Hasselblad Zeiss lens (low contrast).

Kodachrome 64  (35mm only) was the most real and accurate recorder of real colour.

Then contrasty Japanese leneses, like Mamiya RB/RZ, with Fujifilm became very attractive to advertising photographers because of the apparent sharpness and extra saturation.

Just depends what you like  I guess.

 

[MrLek]

On 5/6/2018 at 22:15, Ru4Real said:

Sorry, but no professional photographer would use Lightroom, he (she?) will be post processing in Photoshop.

So not true. If anything the opposite is true. Photoshop offers the ability to edit a single image in more detail and with much more ability to manipulate an image than lightroom but that is not how the vast majority of pro's work. Most pros are editing a batch of photos at a time and don't have the time to spend ages on a single image. 

Camera RAW In Photoshop is like a basic lightroom function but without as much detail. Photoshop is amazing if you want to really edit one particular image. A high end fashion photographer might do this but a wedding photographer with 300 images to edit most certainly won't.

Edited May 29, 2018 by MrLek

[hioctane]

Any DSLR camera will do, ideally with a fast lens (but expensive). It is not imperative to start out though. The most important part is proper lighting. Depending on the lighting situation (outside vs in a club), you will need diffusers to alter the lighting your flash produces. Take photos as a RAW file and post process using something like Photoshop. A pro will now how to change the settings on the camera to account for the various situations so he will need minimal post processing. However, for the most of us, it is pretty easy to adjust the photos with basic filters in Photoshop. Once you get the hang of it, you can look into getting a faster lens. It can make your photos look sharper, but the value ratio is not really there. These lenses can cost 3-4x the price of the camera and the improvements are barely noticeable!

Good luck... I had fun in the beginning but it just became too expensive a hobby!

[real tintin]

On 29/05/2018 at 17:54, hioctane said:

Any DSLR camera will do, ideally with a fast lens (but expensive). It is not imperative to start out though. The most important part is proper lighting. Depending on the lighting situation (outside vs in a club), you will need diffusers to alter the lighting your flash produces. Take photos as a RAW file and post process using something like Photoshop. A pro will now how to change the settings on the camera to account for the various situations so he will need minimal post processing. However, for the most of us, it is pretty easy to adjust the photos with basic filters in Photoshop. Once you get the hang of it, you can look into getting a faster lens. It can make your photos look sharper, but the value ratio is not really there. These lenses can cost 3-4x the price of the camera and the improvements are barely noticeable!

Good luck... I had fun in the beginning but it just became too expensive a hobby!

Can I not agree totally on that?  For occasionally work, a cheaper range SLR will do. THen you need only one lens. As the camera will not be full frame, you can find secondhand lenses, 50 mm 1.4 or 1.8, for not so much. That be very sensitive to get bright pics, even in dark environment.  The Bokeh will be less impressive then a stronger lens, 80-100 m, but has the advantage you can get closer to the model. There used to be guys here in the advance section, doing impressive things, forgot their name.

I use a simple, but outstanding pocket camera, The Sony RX 100 M 3, for most of everything. Then I have an older camera, Canon 550 D, and just one lens except the kit lens, a 50 mm  1.4, bought on ebay.  That I use for portraits.  I am far, far a professional, just an enthusiastic player.

this is the result, I get in combination :

My Thailand pics

 

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by real tintin

[robbo1100]

On 06/05/2018 at 22:45, Ru4Real said:

Sorry, but no professional photographer would use Lightroom, he (she?) will be post processing in Photoshop.

I think you will find that the majority of professional photographers are using Lightroom or at least both Lightroom and Photoshop. With the advantages in catalouguing and workflow the serious photographer would be silly not to take advantage of both.

Edited July 7, 2018 by robbo1100

[Big G]

On 06/05/2018 at 22:45, Ru4Real said:

Sorry, but no professional photographer would use Lightroom, he (she?) will be post processing in Photoshop.

I am a professional and published photographer and have used Lightroom.

https://www.quora.com/Which-software-do-professional-photographers-use-to-edit-their-photos

Edited July 28, 2018 by Big G

[Ru4Real]

On 07/05/2018 at 02:47, Crazy Gupta said:

I know a lot photographers who use Lightroom, mainly in the wedding and event photography industry. Have you ever tried to process/develop 500+ photos from an event using Photoshop.

 

On 08/05/2018 at 02:31, noknmai said:

Wrong.

 

On 09/05/2018 at 20:21, Stokielad said:

You couldnt be more wrong.  The vast majority of professional wedding and portrait photographers use Lightroom for at least 90% of their work, only using photoshop and filter programs for a limited number of images.

 

On 16/05/2018 at 00:53, Atlas said:

I cal bullshit !!! 

 

On 30/05/2018 at 00:44, MrLek said:

So not true. If anything the opposite is true. Photoshop offers the ability to edit a single image in more detail and with much more ability to manipulate an image than lightroom but that is not how the vast majority of pro's work. Most pros are editing a batch of photos at a time and don't have the time to spend ages on a single image. 

 

On 08/07/2018 at 00:30, robbo1100 said:

I think you will find that the majority of professional photographers are using Lightroom or at least both Lightroom and Photoshop. With the advantages in catalouguing and workflow the serious photographer would be silly not to take advantage of both.

 

6 minutes ago, Big G said:

I am a professional and published photographer and have used Lightroom.

Sorry, lost track of this thread until Big G posted.

I sit semi corrected gents (too lazy to stand ). 

Obviously my take on it doesn't gel with most here and that is probably due to my exposure (no pun intended) to the industry being more magazine/fashion work back in the day than the wedding/club photographer gig. Those I still work with use Photoshop for what the term "real work" 

[jiz]

Off camera lighting gives professional photos the 'pop'.  

2 or 3 remote strobes. One for the hair or rim, one for a soft box main light and one (or reflector) to fill the shadows.

Go to the Strobist website to learn how to light your subjects.

Pretty soon, people will pay you the ultimate compliment, 'You must have a really good camera"

Edited August 7, 2018 by jiz