Nothing groundbreaking here, but got an impromptu model for my macro. Using my gf's 60D.

Perhaps someone can enlighten:
What is the method/filter used to create this type of "look":

From HBOs "Boardwalk Empire" and "Carnivale"

Matterhorn again cropped at 100% still with no retouch. Some interesting detail. (upload to Photobucket does some sort of conversion right?)

First one looks like HDR to me.

Second one is lighting and filters.

Both need good software like Adobe PS

10-20mm Sigma Wide Angle with a Canon Dsi body

I had the opportunity to go on the set of the boardwalk for BE this past weekend. Everything to the left of the boardwalk in the foreground of that shot is basically blue screen, so the ocean, a good portion of the sand, and the buildings in the distance are added in postproduction. Not all that relevant to your question, but interesting nonetheless.

Honestly in both shots I think a lot of what you might perceive as "the look" of it has to do with production design. So IMO how the sets (& effects) are built are the main contributing elements in the BE shot, while for the Carnivale shot the costumes obviously have a big effect.

That being said I think you can achieve an effect that approximates this somewhat "vintage" look using RAW processing for your photography. A program like Aperture, Adobe Photoshop, or Lightroom are good ones. Split toning along with saturation and vibrance adjustments can get you pretty far in approximating these looks. It's mostly about creative color in these shots I think. In the BE shot, you'll notice that the shadows lean more toward blue tones while the highlights are warmer/yellowish. The Carnivale shot is much warmer overall (use a higher white balance value), almost like a sepia, but with a good amount of the other colors retained.

Oh and add a bit of vignetting.

Vintage is a good description of the effect, ive seen it in photographs taken at those "dress up like an old west character" and have your picture taken places, but those always seemed to be B/W, its the color that makes it more interesting.

I saw the same effect in the tv series Mob Wives, except it is in video.
But after you observation of BE shot , i can see in the video they use the same (green/blue) screen as well.
http://vimeo.com/29105026#

Thanks for that explanation, ill read/look in to more about what you suggest.

Here's a couple of shots I like from China





























Agh theres too many I like! And this is just a few of them...

I like them. Although, IMO, the 'flowing water at slow shutter speed' technique is quite overdone at this point.

Well obviously its a popular technique, but I like it better than using a faster shutter speed so I see no reason not to use it.

3, 5 and 11 for classic composition free from gimmicks.

6 for the subject.

7, well, it's a cliché, but I really like it anyway - it's so well done.

Don't you think it's sort of like learning the opening of Stairway to Heaven when you first get a guitar? And then never learning anything else?

Two reasons not to use it are because it is so overdone, and because water doesn't look like that. There has to be some other reason in the context to choose to make the water look like that. Pic 9 from your June 6 post and the two in your 2011/03/12 post are much better uses of the blurred-smooth water.

But you use it all the time. You are much too good a photographer to always use the same approach to flowing water in all different settings. Use it when you have a good reason. Use faster shutter speeds when capturing a different aspect of flowing water, like crisp, sparkling, freshness, ...

Its low light and I like shooting at ISO 100?


Well I think your STH analogy is a bit off, but yea you're probably right. I certainly do tend to overuse it. I'll try and switch it up next time I get the chance

Very nice pics cardsharkk!

This one is the absolute nuts IMO, and I think the use of a slow shutter speed seems completely necessary and appropriate, despite the technique's overuse.

Well, I am not arguing that one shouldn't use slow shutter speed with moving water merely because it is a generally overused technique. The context of the whole picture is what is most important.

I can see where you might develop an argument that slow shutter is appropriate here. Slowing down the water makes it look white, which mirrors the roof of the arch.

OTOH, the technique also makes the water look soft. That soft texture is incongruous with the rest of the picture, which has a hard, shiny arch and hard, shiny rocks. I'd prefer a faster shutter speed in this one, to get hard, shiny water.

However, there is another, practical consideration that comes into play in this shot. There isn't a lot of available light, and he's using a narrow aperture. It might not be possible to get a good exposure at acceptable ISO without slowing the shutter speed.

Often, when I am shooting flowing water and I am not sure which effect will look best, I will take multiple pairs of shots at different shutter speeds, with each pair being 5 stops apart, so maybe 1/8 and 1/250, 1/4 and 1/125, and 1/2 and 1/60, adjusting ISO within acceptable limits to minimize changes to DOF. If I knew I wanted slow or I knew I wanted fast, I'd still take about three shutter speed variations, because no two streams or falls are the same. Settings that look smooth for one might look blown out for another, while a third might not be sufficiently smooth. If I knew in advance that I was going to be shooting in conditions like this one, I might want to bring a flash with a diffuser.

That's a long exposure. 16 minutes.

I kinda wish a took a couple more and put them all together

been making a living off of my photography since highschool...but i dump all the money back into poker haha
Check out my portfolio http://www.drewamato.com

and some that aren't on my site but are my favorites i've taken

Wow. Those are incredible. If you don't mind, can you roughly describe where your income comes in from?

Btw the slow shutter speed on the water is to convey motion. It may be overdone, but that's because nothing else really works. In my experience fast shutter speed works fine on waves. But on streams, rivers or waterfalls it just looks awkward and boring.

I'm nowhere near the calibre of some ITT, but I'll share anyway.

Tre-fi,

Very impressive! I think I like the snowboarding ones the best.

I almost never do flash photography, so I'm curious as to what your set up is like for something like the last photo you posted (4-square). And how much time do you usually spend in post for most of your photos?