Can someone help me dissect how these pictures are created?

1. Wide aperture -> shallow DoF. 2. Increased contrast. 3. Increased saturation. 4. Fairly heavy USM.

I'm assuming that you're talking about the opening flash page images....looks like a good deal of PS work and possibly a Nik filter or two. You might want to shoot her an email and ask her specifically.

Take consumer grade nikon body and lens, shoot auto, buy Really Rad Actions by the Boutwells and spend some time with the images in Photoshop. Like the images from many wedding photog's today, the images look "canned"....because they're the product of canned, mass market actions produced by a handful of action providers.

Like going to McDonalds or Burger King for lunch, you can count on consistently mediocre photos by using the actions.

I am not interested in using anything out of the box (i.e a bought action or a nik filter etc). Can this be broken down with things inside of just Adobe Photoshop? For example editing the curves in the Lab layer or using the Highpass filter to develop the glow, etc?

Here's another photographer that I really like: http://www.karenwise.com/

Her images are similar to the other link. I like the colors and how vivid they are without looking blown out and harsh.

I like to take pictures of architecture with vivid colors but my colors aren't always as saturated and sharp!

Hmm... the style on the first one was all over the place.

If you really want to imitate, start with a good exposure- try a high-key image with light skin, walls, etc. Then airbrush any skin until any and all texture is gone. If you are lazy you can use gaussian blur on a selection. For slightly more realism use the clone/heal tool.

Don't forget selective desaturation, adding vignetting to the picture's edges (can use circular gradient map for this I believe- Lightroom has a nice tool for this, too).

Lots of Clarity (Lightroom) and sharpening. Almost to the point of making the images look like drawings or paintings. Look up Topaz Adjust or Lucis for plug ins that mimic the painting look.

Lighting, timing, compostions and some PP work. In short, personal style.

She does have really great composition though.

New, interesting angles too.

If I were to try to duplicate the look I think you are asking about, I would throw two flashes on stands w/ umbrellas & pocket wizards. Depending on the ambient light, I may set them at full 1/2 or whatever. I would put one close (about 3 or 4 feet) the other a little bit further away. I'd use a 2.8 24-70 lens. Set camera on M, start at ISO 400 and under expose by about 1 stop. leave at 2.8 for DOF look. Check to see how it looks. Too hot? Dial down the flashes, etc.

Then, I'd run them through PS Lightroom. Desaturate a little, maybe hit a little vingnette, etc. It's tough to say exactly what someone is doing whithout being there.

Anyway, that's where I'd start. I ahve ony been doing this for 6 months or so...so others may do something else.

Forgot to add...I'd up the blacks a hair, and play a little with fill to get her look. You shouldn't have to do much if you use the strobes on stands and check it on camera. If you need pointers on using off-cameraq flash, google "strobist".

Karen Wise shoots film. That's why her images are not too blown out, and have a nice consistant look to them. No post-production.

Study good books on portraiture and duplicate a lot of pictures as best you can.

That will give you the technique and sensitivity to light that she has.

She obviously has both talent and skill.

There are no shortcuts to this level.

For architecture, pick a nearby building and photograph it every hour from sunrise to sunset.

Walk around your town or city with your camera and shoot any building or detail you like.

For interiors, study things like Architectural Digest. There are good books on interiors. Look on Amazon.

For residential interiors you need 3-4 heads and at least 1000 ws to provide adequate fill lighting.

The best interior lighting does not overpower the ambient effect.

Does anyone have recommendation on good lighting books?

"Light: Science and Magic" is number one to me. I learned more from that than any other lighting book.

Both photographers you cite have great eyes. Impeccable timing, careful choice of backgrounds, etc. Some of Allison's stuff is a touch over-processed, IMO, probably with some variation on the so-called 'Dragan Effect'. Most of her shots are superb. Lighting is very important in getting the 'glow' you mention. There are also tutorials around for getting the glow in PS, with or without plugins, filters etc. In Karen's case, it helps that she has VERY affluent clients. This gets her wonderful couture, fabulous locations and (no doubt) lots of equipment, like lights, softboxes, etc.

Is it an accident that Karen has affluent clients?

I actually know Allison quite well from another forum and happen to know that she doesn't actually use and commercial actions on her photos. She does use Lightroom to process her images, but uses Photoshop minimally if at all.

I think the effect that you like is acheived through careful metering of each scene (most of these scenes would NOT meter properly in automatic modes) and good knowledge of what the equipment is capable of. All are available light images, sometimes there is a flash or two available!

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/06/l102-light-controls-overview.html

Wow - Chris, a little harsh, no?

I really can't say I object to those images - I know many brides who would be ecstatic with those kinds of results.

Different strokes, of course, but let's not be so critical of the style - if its working for the client, then what's the problem?

--Rich

I agree with Rich... that was a very harsh response. Unprofessional and uncalled-for, if I do say so myself.

I think Allisons images are beautiful. The only "actions" I see that may have been used are some slight facial touch-ups, which, speaking as a woman... I have to say, the brides love it! The only thing I see done to these photos is a contrast bump and maybe a little too much sharpening. Her images are fabulous. Nothing "mediocre" or "canned" about them.

I can't say I know a single professional photographer that shoots on auto. I mean seriously. I thought this post was supposed to help someone get ideas and inspiration, not to tear down the photographer.

I agree with Crystal and Rich... Allison's and Karen's photography skills are both excellent. Even though I am primarily interested in architecture and landscape shots, what drew me to their images is their ability to make the pictures feel so real - i.e not flat. That's what is missing from my photographs right now and I just want to get advice on techniques.

If you're into shooting architecture - check out:

http://www.wscottchesterblog.com/

I love how they always find these fabulous colorful geometric settings for their portraiture!

I agree. The portrait portfolio is really nice. Unfortunately the blog is down!