# How to replicate a 'look'?



## rowan (Jan 18, 2014)

I'm currently trying to emulate a look from a fashion blog. Composition wise, I am fine. It's more about the vibrant colors that I just can't seem to match when editing in post. http://pinkpeonies.com/ is the website with images.

Is there anything I can do to help my own images pop? Do you think she is using external flashes/boxes?

I know she uses a 60d and a 50mm 1.2 - I'm using a 5dmk3 a 50mm 1.4 - but as I said, my images just seem duller.

If there are settings on camera I should change or in LR - I'd love to hear some advice. I've tried just bumping colors but it only does so much!!

Thank


----------



## m (Jan 18, 2014)

What are you actually doing in LR?
Post some edits of images.


----------



## rowan (Jan 18, 2014)

I guess I'll post up some examples - 

http://www.excusemyblog.com/zara-skort/
http://www.excusemyblog.com/fact-high-waisted-pants/

I


----------



## pdirestajr (Jan 19, 2014)

For some reason I couldn't see any of your photos on that blog. But the inspiration images are pretty simple:
Increase contrast / curves and a slight vibrancy push. Make sure your images posted to the web are sRGB and not Adobe RGB.

You can also play with the camera color profiles in Lightroom/ Camera Raw to see if there is a more vibrant look you like better.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jan 19, 2014)

Just my 2 cents.... After looking at your shots, I think you need to push your exposure and highlights higher a little bit. Also play with your white balance. Make them a little bit cooler. Play also with clarity applying it depending on the area. E.g., lower on skin, higher on eyes and fabric... You can also try reducing the reds in your image. And lastly, use some reflectors or fill light. It will make your pictures "pop" more.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 19, 2014)

It isn't difficult, the basis is over exposure, around 0.66-1.0 stops. I'd set my camera to auto with +1 stop EV compensation over anything else the image needed, your histogram needs a heavy right side bias especially for the lighter coloured garments.

So +1 stop exposure, then a shadow lift and a warm of WB and you are pretty much there.

Don't forget if she is using a 50 1.2 on a crop camera you'd need an 85 f1.8 ( a $300 lens to get the same look as a $1,500 lens, who said FF is expensive?) The Sartorialist uses a 5D MkII and an 85 f1.2 for just about everything.

Here is a rework of one of yours with the adjustments window.


----------



## rowan (Jan 19, 2014)

Thank you very much for all your advice - you've given me alot to think about (and play with). I'm surprised you can't see the web images - I'll take a look now and see if everything is ok on my end. I think i've been saving them as adobe rgb with a 3mb limit.


----------



## mkabi (Jan 19, 2014)

rowan said:


> I'm currently trying to emulate a look from a fashion blog. Composition wise, I am fine. It's more about the vibrant colors that I just can't seem to match when editing in post. http://pinkpeonies.com/ is the website with images.
> 
> Is there anything I can do to help my own images pop? Do you think she is using external flashes/boxes?
> 
> ...



I know you're trying to replicate in post and you've already got the composition down.
Just a reminder, her 50mm is like a 80mm on her crop.
Plus, her 50mm is a 1.2L.

Tried the 85mm 1.8 or even better 85mm 1.2L?


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 20, 2014)

"Faithful" picture style, -1 Contrast, +2 or +3 Saturation, WB set the "Cloudy".


----------



## alexturton (Jan 20, 2014)

get the focal length right i.e. if she is using 50mm crop you should use 85mm full frame.

Then after basic lightroom edits (like sharpness, noise, basic exposure) run your picture through "Topaz photofxlab". You can point the software at an image on the web (or in your library i.e. download the image you want to copy) and the software does its best to copy the colour, WB and tone of the image.

you might have to brush out the effect on the skin tones, but in my experience it has a medium to good amount of success


----------



## agierke (Jan 20, 2014)

Focal length has nothing to do with it. The type of light you are shooting in is the main reason your colors aren't as vibrant as her photos. You appear to be shooting in mostly shade on overcast type days where she is shooting on the shadow side of direct sunlight. Not to mention she is on a beach where the sand can act like one big giant reflector and you are not.

In fact, I would stick with the 50mm 1.2 if I were you to maintain the color rendition characteristics of that lens and then I would find the right light to shoot in. Focal length has absolutely zero to do with the vibrancy (or lack there of) of the colors.

Also, She exposes for the skin and let's the background go (ie slightly over exposed) while your exposures seem to be slightly dark.

Post can only get you so far before it begins to make a mess of things. Find the right light first, then make sure the equipment used is comparable, get exposure right and lastly, make tweaks in post to match.


----------



## leGreve (Jan 20, 2014)

agierke said:


> Focal length has nothing to do with it. The type of light you are shooting in is the main reason your colors aren't as vibrant as her photos. You appear to be shooting in mostly shade on overcast type days where she is shooting on the shadow side of direct sunlight. Not to mention she is on a beach where the sand can act like one big giant reflector and you are not.
> 
> In fact, I would stick with the 50mm 1.2 if I were you to maintain the color rendition characteristics of that lens and then I would find the right light to shoot in. Focal length has absolutely zero to do with the vibrancy (or lack there of) of the colors.
> 
> ...



That's the first thing I thought… why are you trying to replicate obvious sun lit shots during overcast days / surroundings?
Your light is very flat compared to Pink Peonies shots….

Also you have to work with bouncing a bit of light back at her, which is what makes it possible to get the sky blue in the Pink shot where you can actually see the horizon.

To replicate shots, you have to start by looking at the light… not what you do in post prod.


----------



## rowan (Jan 20, 2014)

Thank you all for your replies - great info and knowledge being passed around. I might go rent the 50mm 1.2 just to see if I like it and how it changes things.

When you say exposing for the skin, what's the easiest way to do this? I think using a reflector will make things a lot easier. Sounds like I'll just have to do a bit of 'trial and error'.


----------



## mkabi (Jan 20, 2014)

rowan said:


> Thank you all for your replies - great info and knowledge being passed around. I might go rent the 50mm 1.2 just to see if I like it and how it changes things.
> 
> When you say exposing for the skin, what's the easiest way to do this? I think using a reflector will make things a lot easier. Sounds like I'll just have to do a bit of 'trial and error'.



While you're at it, rent the 85mm 1.2, just so that you can compare.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 21, 2014)

rowan said:


> When you say *exposing for the skin*, what's the easiest way to do this?



Gee, that's basic Zone System stuff.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 21, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> rowan said:
> 
> 
> > When you say *exposing for the skin*, what's the easiest way to do this?
> ...



Not too sure that DSLR users these days learn the Zone system.


----------



## chauncey (Jan 25, 2014)

As we are all Canon folks here and can assume that we all shoot in RAW...right.
Set exposure in live view with your histogram displayed, inserting SS, ISO, f/stop, based on an "exposing to the right" technique.
Then PP in any one of the myriad of RAW image processors out there, adjusting colors with a gray card that you should have used during the shoot.
Taking a properly exposed image with proper colors is a stupidly simple, left brain process...creating the image before squeezing the shutter
is significantly more difficult for me as it involves the right brain, something I lack.

Alain Briot @ LL explains it better than I...http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/briots-view/vision_part_8_hard_skills_and_soft_skills.shtml


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 26, 2014)

chauncey said:


> As we are all Canon folks here and can assume that we all shoot in RAW...right.



JPEG ... so Zone System is essential for those difficult situations.



chauncey said:


> Set exposure in live view with your histogram displayed, inserting SS, ISO, f/stop, based on an "exposing to the right" technique. Then PP in any one of the myriad of RAW image processors out there, adjusting colors with a gray card that you should have used during the shoot.



This will probably work in most situations, but since one cannot effectively tell the camera to ignore certain parts of the scene, anything other than manually spotmetering and applying the Zone System is gonna fail in extreme situations.


----------



## mifho (Jan 31, 2014)

Looking at the shadows, the sun is relatively low in the sky (nearing golden hour) and the subject is side lit. The trees are popping because most of the light is being reflected back to the camera due to where the photographer positioned herself with regards to the sun. Also being that it is near or during golden hour, the light will be naturally warm. Since it is side lit, half of the subject would normally be in shadow requiring a reflector to bounce some fill light back in but I suspect the light color of the sand is acting as a fill reflector everywhere. 

That said... Out of the camera, all lighting being equal, I do find that my 50L produces better contrast and color than my 50 1.4. Folks say you can make the color and contrast similar in post; I'm not one of them. The 50L is great, but if you can deal with the longer length, the 135L is matched only by the 85L in terms of color and contrast and is a fraction of the cost. 

But mainly what you're seeing is the late day sun shot at the right angle with TE right amount of fill. Also, I think I see some sky darkening going on... She has a white halo around her onthe shots with the blue sky. The sky would probably be white by default and she went in and painted a bit of under exposure. The shot was probably "exposed to the right" (you can google that), and the sky was brought back in post.


----------

