How do I get good shadow details? Such as in these photos of Steve McCurry. Howrah Mail Train going to Kolkata, Train to Peshawar, Pakistan.

The richness and colors in most his photos are clearly noticeable. One thing I notice is that there are no hard shadows in those photos taken in streets, such as in Old Women, Vrindivan, India. The contrast in those images are too good to mimic.

I checked the histograms. There is more detail in the shadow region and it decreases towards the highlights spanning the entire dynamic range. Any tips on achieving the same?

Does it have to do with the right choice of film and filters? Anything to do with push and pull processing? Or does he manage to find time to use scrims and reflectors even in shots where one would find less time? Seems like most of them are taken in flat light such as in a cloudy/rainy day. Any tips on managing such sharp images in low light conditions? Any input on this will be much appreciated. His consistency in color photography is unbelievable but also promising at the same time.

Read 407 times

Reply 

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on April 23, 2012 8:07:25 PM CDT There is some information on the Internet about how he photographs. Only he can tell you how he makes his photographs, all we could do is guess. http://www.hasselbladusa.com/user-showcase/steve-mccurry.aspx http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/steve-mccurry,1_en_2524 There are a lot more interviews like that on Google. Hey save your money and go on one of his workshops ;-) Reply

From vettri/Jayavel (7,103) on April 23, 2012 8:14:06 PM CDT Thanks Sheena. I will check these and the interviews. Yes, attending one of his workshops is a high priority thing in my to do list. Reply

From darren/Darren (6,841) on April 23, 2012 11:25:47 PM CDT From what I have read and seen about McCurry, there are a few reasons for the always high level of his photos and colors. First, great film. Most of his iconic photos were taken on Kodachrome 64, which is iconic in its own right. Technically, it can't be ignored that film is as good in the shadows as in the highlights and that is not true in digital. Second, he shoots pretty much only under optimal conditions; very low contrast, mostly in the 30 minutes before and after sunrise or sunset, or on strongly overcast days. I have also seen at least one video of him where assistants were holding big scrims over his subject, though I don't think that was his normal practice. It doesn't often get mentioned, but I am sure his magical colors and shadow detail are often the result of very careful metering and a lot of bracketing. Normal folks can't afford to tear through slide film, but I am sure he is not concerned. Also not often mentioned, but terrifically important is that I am sure the costs and quality of his scans are at the very highest level. The last time I shelled out for drum scans (a long time ago) I think I paid about $6usd per scan; those scans looked great, but I couldn't do that often. If you have seen video of McCurry shooting, you would also see that he has a kind of odd set up, where there is a handle that seems to be mounted to the bottom of his camera and he grips things in quite a distinctive way; I am sure this is to help him keep things steady, as I don't believe he is a tripod user. You mention his consistency and in a way I would certainly agree; everything you see from him is rich, saturated and beautiful. I will bet that he is much less consistent than that though; I bet the majority of his photos are not near so rich, but we don't get to see those. The millions of frames he shoots, are an important part of the equation. Though he is not really my favorite photographer, I am completely on your side in thinking that nobody does color better. Reply

From vettri/Jayavel (7,103) on April 24, 2012 11:02:29 AM CDT Thanks Darren for your elaborate reply. He is one of my favorites. The first time he caught my attention, it was his '108 Buddhas' series. Later I realized he shot some Iconic images like the 'Afghan Girl'. I am finding more reasons to try and use film. The whole process is taking time. The learning curve is not so steep unlike digital. Reply

From robertwallis/Robert (12,866) on April 24, 2012 11:42:33 AM CDT One of the old tricks with color negative film was to slightly overexpose. When I shot weddings, the film of choice was Kodak VPS, and rate it at ISO100 instead of 160. Portra would be the comparable film. The reason behind this is that there is more head room latitude than there is in the shadow region. There was about a three stop range on the highlights and only a stop or so on the bottom end. The end result was more saturation, opened shadows, and manageable highlights. Reply

From vettri/Jayavel (7,103) on April 24, 2012 5:25:22 PM CDT Thanks for the tip, Robert. I will try a Portra film and see what you mean. Reply

From marshall/Marshall (11,928) on April 24, 2012 12:28:50 PM CDT I agree with most of what you say here, Darren, though I suspect he did less bracketing for his people shots than we all might wish he had to. He is definitely taking advantage of great light, which often means that overcast you describe. Nothing like a "cloudy bright" day for pictures of people. You note, "Technically, it can't be ignored that film is as good in the shadows as in the highlights and that is not true in digital." I'm not sure I buy this anymore. While I've always liked the smooth analog toe of film as it blows to pure white, the newer sensors offer amazing dynamic range, far exceeding that of film, and it seems to me much easier to pull detail out of shadow areas now than it ever did on film. Reply

From vettri/Jayavel (7,103) on April 24, 2012 5:29:33 PM CDT Cost is a big concern with such high end digital cameras. Reply

From swanda/John (1,023) on April 24, 2012 7:05:02 PM CDT Cost of film and processing is a big concern with film cameras, especially if you like to shoot a lot. Reply

From marshall/Marshall (11,928) on April 24, 2012 7:13:48 PM CDT True, but at this point, even the less expensive cameras do a fantastic job recording shadow detail, and have wide dynamic ranges. The mid-range D7000 captures something like 13 stops, exceeding every slide film ever made. But the point is not to turn this into digital v. film. I think the original point was much more about HOW McCurry's images look, which has a lot to do with light and lighting control. The final appearance has something to do with film choice and processing choices. Learning from when and how McCurry captured these great images can only help inform our own chase for great photographs. Reply

From vettri/Jayavel (7,103) on April 24, 2012 8:35:04 PM CDT That's true. BTW, I used to edit images in 8 bit. I could notice a smoother histogram if I edit them in 16 bit and finally save it as 8 bit. Just in case someone has missed it like me. The RAW image editor in the latest PS CS 6 version offers a lot of control for color control. I don't have access for it most of the time. Any cheaper recommendations offering similar features? Reply

From marshall/Marshall (11,928) on April 24, 2012 9:37:10 PM CDT The raw conversion engine in Photoshop and Lightroom is the same. Reply

From stmv/Sebastian (59,822) on April 24, 2012 12:56:21 PM CDT thanks for the links, looked at some articles and watched one of his short master classes, he has switched to Digital quite a while ago according to at least one article, with the D2X being a swing camera, and seemed to be a real advocate of the shoot alone method (which I tend to prefer myself when traveling), another factor is exotic locales, India seems to be such a rich place to photograph. I know on photosig, we get to see many wonderful shots from India and the Middle East. the right light/shadows and such add of course to the wonderful subjects. Reply

Return to forum