some of the best post processing you'll ever see

[janetg]

just ran across this site - it's very impressive

http://www.atticfirearchitecture.com/

[GUER03]

No doubt the second image is incredible. However, most of them, if not all of them 'Seem' to be a different image altogether taken at a different time of the day. Possibly with different camera settings.

My question is: Should we be comparing 2 different images or the same image before, and after processing. I mean the images state Before and After below them, shouldn't it be before THAT image is PP'd and after THAT SAME image is PP'd?

Again, the second one is beautiful, it's just that it's an entirely different image. Am I missing something here? Thanx

Albert

[OTRphoto]

I didn't look at what service he is selling - but it seems that he is marketing to real estate agents. Showing them the "decent" snapshot they (or somone else) shot - and showing what he can do to improve the over look and feel of the image. And that probably does mean adjusting the time of day for the shoot and the extra equipment and possibly HRD processing of the final images.

I think it's a good slide-show to show the difference between amatures (ie- me) and professionals! >:o)

Thanks for sharing the link

[Shane]

Very nice . . .

[BCPhoto]

Appears to me to be just fancy photoshopping. No more, no less. Great liberties have been taken in "improving" light sources, angles of chairs, etc. have been changed. You know what it reminds me of? ...those overly photoshopped baby pageant faces with the plastic looking skin and bulgy eyes...At what point has it lost the photography feel and just become a "painting"? While they are quite striking to view, they've lost the "real" look to me....

[LWimages]

I think the idea of the website is to show off what's better, even if it has to be different time of day and additional props. HDR sure comes into play for showing of architectural sceneries.

[dfwlens]

I would be pissed if I booked a room based on the 'after' in photo 11 of portfolio 3 and looked out the window and saw the 'before.'

I think that crosses the line beyond advertising "puffery" and into deception.

Gotta love the moutains off the coast of Miami tho.

[akimartymar]

While those are some nice images, most of the "after" images are completely different images than the "before" shots. There is no way to alter some of the lighting in some of the evening shots and in some shots items appear in the second shot that weren't there in the original. These should be marketed as how good this person can make a home or room look, not how much they can fix a shot in Photoshop.

[dfwlens]

Originally Posted by akimartymar

. These should be marketed as how good this person can make a home or room look, not how much they can fix a shot in Photoshop.

Yeah when you read about them in the website PS is a small part of what they do. Lighting, techniques, props, etc. are most of their work.

[Gordon]

Sure looks like before and after reshooting/ relighting/ rearranging the scene and then doing a proper architectural shoot.

[Jaime Vinas]

To me it looked more like re-lighting , furnishing and time of day had more to do with it than photoshop.

[dbphotos]

Commercial photographer showing normal shots with what he can do with staging a room and adding a huge amount of lighting under tables, etc. Probably multiple exposures at different times throughout the day to get the outside light to mesh with the inside light as well.

With all that said he has done a great job and I'm sure people pay high dollar to get his images on their brochures, marketing, etc.

[TheObiJuan]

This guy has certainly raised the bar.
Count me impressed and envious.

[wjmphoto]

There's not that much photoshopping going on here. If you look at the shots, it is a matter of the photographer being very good with light - and in the case of a lot of these shots there are a lot of lights being added to the photos.

Don't mistake a firm grasp of lighting for photoshop techniques. It's kind of sad how people readily assume that to improve a shot you have to use Photoshop, when the facts are that correct exposure and the addition of strobes will create the effects that you see here. (As well as the addition of an interior decorator to spruce up the rooms) Digital is good, but it does create a lot of shooterrs who could not survive in the film world if they had to actually expose a shot properly.

[Collins]

Originally Posted by wjmphoto

There's not that much photoshopping going on here. If you look at the shots, it is a matter of the photographer being very good with light - and in the case of a lot of these shots there are a lot of lights being added to the photos.

Don't mistake a firm grasp of lighting for photoshop techniques. It's kind of sad how people readily assume that to improve a shot you have to use Photoshop, when the facts are that correct exposure and the addition of strobes will create the effects that you see here. (As well as the addition of an interior decorator to spruce up the rooms) Digital is good, but it does create a lot of shooterrs who could not survive in the film world if they had to actually expose a shot properly.

resisting....urge...to comment.

Urge has passed.