Question for photographers... colored backgrounds? Lighting?

Hey There,

So I've lately become obsessed with looking over some of the more fine art style of images... and while I have no concept of how it all works, I find myself wondering if a lot of the "effects" of a picture are done afterwards in photoshop.

Take for example ... shots that I've seen in caves or against textured walls... There are blues and reds -- colors that wouldn't naturally be there. Do you use special lighting to get that affect or do you snap the pictures and then add in the colored lighting through photoshop?

Or how about the pictures that seem to bend... fishtail I think it is called? Is that a special lens or is that done afterwards?

I've also seen pictures that look like they had been aged so to speak...

I guess what I am trying to figure out is... how much of the work of producing those really cool images is done at the time of the shoot and how much is done after the shoot is over?

I think it really all depends on the photographer. Some like to keep it natural and do it with lighting others will do it later.

Using a Fisheye lens has become popular again. That effect is almost always done with a specific lens.

Aged images are usually done in photoshop. There are some people that will actually do them with old cameras in film, but they take a really long time to do. So most of the aged photos you see are done in photoshop.

The added colours really all depends on the images and the photographer. It is possible to put a colour gel on a light and add in a colour that isn't there. It is also possible to do it in post. If I had to guess I would say 80% of wedding images like this are done in photoshop because wedding photographers generally don't carry tons of lights on them for their day of shoots. If it is a wedding fashion shoot however, it is most likely done with lights.

Again I really think it comes down to each image and each shot, but chances are unless its something like a fisheye, or a tilt-shift lens, its done after the shoot is over.

Oh. Wow.

That helps put things in perspective. Some of these photographers charge like $10,000-$15,000 dollars for a one day shoot and I couldn't figure out why... so I'm guessing there had to have been some sort of after work done.

Thanks!

That's been the huge disadvantage to the switch from film to digital. Almost all digital images have to be looked over after they have been taken, and depending on the photographer - need to be heavily edited.

I would say I have it down to about 1:1 now, where if I spend eight hours shooting images at a wedding, it will take about eight hours to edit the images after.

That makes a lot of sense.

I like tinkering with pictures... I'm not so sure I'd like taking them. I wonder if that is a legitimate business "you take the pictures, I'll edit them."

Off to google to see what i find...

Yep, its a big business.

This guy is the best:

The World of Fashion: Pixel Perfect: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

Great question and answers. I've always wondered myself. LIke "how do they do that...." We have had the privilege of viewing some of the most amazing pics.

I was taught to get it right in the camera.

Are you talking about matt & sol's photoshoot in the cave? Those were done with lights that had red & green filters. Matt explains the process on his blog. Pretty cool stuff.

Yeah... Matt and Sol's pictures are beautiful... and that's what got me originally thinking "how does that work?"

...But then... I started seeing other photographers that do it. It is way cool!