The “Dave Hill Look” Revisted, Part One
The image above is from a promo shoot I did last week for rapper “10 Minute” and I wanted to apply a “Dave Hill” like look to the images, but I cheated—I used a plug-in. (click on it for a much larger view).
Now, let me say this up front: From the research I’ve done, I don’t believe photographer Dave Hill actually uses a Photoshop plug-in; I believe he creates his look without a plug, using a series of layer blend modes, High Pass Sharpening, Skin Smoothing, and Dodging and Burning (and I am working on that whole Photoshop-only workflow as we speak, and will do a post on it when I’m finished), but since I needed to get this job done fast; I used the Lucis Art Pro 6.0 plug-in, and I feel like it got me pretty close to the look (a mini-review of the plug-in is coming up tomorrow in the 2nd and final part of this post).
First things first: I was able to use something that I learned previously when researching this look; when Dave Hill says a lot of the look is in the lighting—he’s not exaggerating. This look requires a specific type of lighting, and if you don’t light it that particular way (which we’ll discuss in a moment), the plug-in, or the Photoshop-only technique, just won’t look right. It’s a formula that requires a combination of both the right lighting, and the right Photoshop moves.
THE LIGHTING
We’ll start with the shoot, and I gotta tell you—-it was a train wreck (and that’s being kind). First, we got to the location a little late, so we were already losing daylight. Then once we got our strobes set-up in place, we realized that we forgot to pack flags (large black 24″x36″ panels that you use to keep the light from flashes placed behind the subject from creating lens flare), so we had to run back to the studio and grab them.
Once we got our flags on the set, then we learned that we had a lighting problem—there’s something wrong with our main battery pack—-we accidentally dropped it a while back, and it needs to go in for service, but since it usually works…….well…it didn’t, and we didn’t have time to track down the problem.
Anyway, it just wasn’t working, and now we had maybe 15 minutes left to shoot (the sun was nearly down, and we were already under a roof, so light—or lack therof–was really becoming an issue). Luckily, my assistant (and general boy wonder) Brad Moore had thought to bring some Nikon SB-800s and 900s as a back-up, with some lightweight stands and an umbrella. So, we quickly tore down the strobes and we went with off-camera flashes. It’s not the ideal set-up for this shoot, but we had to get it done.
There are a number of ways you can set-up the lighting, and it will change depending on location, your subject, blah, blah, blah but basically you want two flashes behind your subject —one on each side—bare bulb (we would have used two strobes with just reflectors—no softboxes—if all had worked as planned). You want hard, bright light coming from behind skimming the edges of both sides of your subject (see the set-up image below–click on it for a larger view).
Ideally, you’d put them fairly far back—like 10 or 12 feet back, up high aiming downward (the farther back you go, the sharper the light), but since he was down in front of the car, we had to quickly improvise and we wound up having to place them right up on “10″ (that’s short for “10 Minute.” By the way; we were lucky—he was a really great guy; incredibly patient, and when we got ready to shoot, he just turned it on. He really couldn’t have been better to work with).
So, here was the lighting set-up: Our main light was one SB-800, mounted on a lightstand, and shooting through a 43″ Optical White translucent Westcott shoot-thru umbrella. This was aiming down at “10″ and was off to my right side (as seen in the photos above and below).
In the image above, you’ve got a better view of the SB-800 shooting through the umbrella, and you can see how the flags work to blog the light from the bare SB-800/900 in back.
We had two more Nikon flashes on stands just behind and on either side of him. We had them down pretty low, and we had spent so much time trying to fix the strobe situation, we didn’t really have time to try and position them just right, so we just played the hand we were dealt. (Note: Some photographers shooting with this lighting set-up use a Ring Flash as their main light instead of a regular strobe with softbox). I triggered the flashes using an SB-900 sitting in my camera’s hot shoe—it didn’t fire—I just used it to trigger the other SB-800s and 900.
Now, I do want to make this clear; what I just detailed is NOT the recommended lighting set-up to get this look, and certainly not a “here’s how to do it.” It’s just a “here’s how we did it.” Ideally, we would have used more powerful strobes, and had the time to aim and position the lights correctly, but….sometimes you gotta do what ya gotta do.
CAMERA SETTINGS
There’s nothing too interesting here. It was shot with a Nikon D3, with a Nikon 24-70mm zoom lens in Manual Mode at f/6.3 at 1/60 of a second at 400 ISO. My actual focal length was 31mm, so I was shooting pretty wide. I told you it wasn’t too interesting.
Oh, another thing we messed up; we forgot to bring music to the shoot, so Brad quickly pulled his car up right next to where we were shooting, and put in the new CD from T.I. (from his new album Paper Trail, shown at left) and cranked up his car stereo. The funny thing was; it was the filthiest thing you ever heard! The lyrics we so explicit, when it started we were all just cracking up (and Brad was hugely embarrassed—it was the first time he popped it in his stereo, which made it all the better). I’d be setting up to take shot, and then this T.I. song “Every chance I get” came on (Here’s the link—warning; even the preview is explicit), and and it was so nasty Snopp Dogg would probably blush. You just had to shake your head and laugh or you’d die from embarrassment (especially with all the people we had on the set).
Here’s the before shot (shown above) of the shot you see at the top of this post.
ABOVE: Here’s another where you can see the side lighting a little better. While the side light looks kind of subtle here, look what happens after you run the plug-in (see below). NOTE: The plug-in isn’t the whole technique (but the whole thing only takes about 5 minutes at best), but it certainly does a lot of the work, as you can see below.
Anyway, the shoot part was kind of a bust, and I’m even embarrassed to show you the unretouched shot (shown above), but I felt I needed to, especially for Part Two tomorrow, which is a step-by-step on the post processing, and includes my mini-review of the Photoshop plug-in Lucis Art Pro 6.0. In the meantime here’s a link to 10 Minute’s site (Warning: Explicit lyrics).

























Due to the request of Scott’s NOT to continue this “debate” on the newer blog post, I’ll say here that some of the comments on that post seems to be pretty thin skinned. I read ever post above. I agree that two anonymous posters were a bit “harsh” but nothing IMHO to warrant some of the criticism of what others have said.
First off, for those that like this effect, we should all thank Scott for taking the time to teach it. Any comments I’ve seen (aside from the two I’ve mentioned) seemed to bypass the messenger (Scott) and instead ask if this is an over used technique, asked if people who take images and run them through filters are really using their artistic expression or simply automating an effect for the sake of the effect. Some asked if this was a fad look that would fade in time (the answer to that is obvious). All are valid questions that can and should be discussed without personally attacking Scott for doing what he does, teaching.
That said, a really interesting blog guest (or conversation) would be with Dave Hill about his feelings about all kinds of photographers jumping on the bandwagon and using his “look and style”. Maybe he’s making piles of money and is totally cool with this. But as an artist, and someone who clearly has talent (enough to come up with a unique look), how he feels about this would be an interesting discussion to have.
Scott provided a huge service considering he said that this look is his number 1 request among those who follow his teachings. The question I’d have for that large group is, why do you feel you have to run your hopefully unique images though such a filter?
You can teach someone a technique that mimics another artists style. There’s nothing at all wrong with that in terms of just presenting the technique. The student now has to ask themselves when or even IF this technique is appropriate for their work and if they can come up with their own look and style, which is probably the hardest single objective we strive for as artists. Tough questions that some apparently don’t want to investigate. Some are better at doing copy work, others strive to produce their own unique imagery. One’s a lot harder to accomplish then the other.
hEy dOgG!!!
This stuff gon’ be off the hizzle, fo shizzle!!!
Buzz ‘d comizzle!
m
Here’s controversy…maybe the harsh posters were Dave Hill and his crew trying to deter Scott from revealing their secrets
This look, like every look, CAN be over-used but should be chosen based on the needs of the shot. Split toning, selective coloring, low-sat, and on…. looks get overused and we ALL need to check ourselves and not become paint by number photographers.
What Scott was doing is what his client wanted AND a useful method for dealing with the range of colors, tones, lighting, time, etc. that was available. I’m mostly over the look but to non-photographers it is very in. Also, if you do it from scratch instead of with a filter you learn a lot of new things about PhotoShop and I have been able to use parts of that in very different works to overcome otherwise insurmountable limitations. It doesn’t hurt that the look is out there enough to gain some acceptance.
When Scott posts about the D3 do all the Canon fans chime in about not getting their $ worth? If the look isn’t for you then don’t bother with the tutorial but in this case you would also have missed out on valuable tips about overcoming obstacles in a shoot.
Disregard the haters, Scott, I’m getting my $ worth here!
Excellent results, especially given the background story…
I just want to say thank you for the great blog post. The time and work it took to place this on a blog is beyond the call of duty. I have seen a lot of blog’s that talk about a topic and lack details. That is ok, but, again, thank you for going the extra mile to show one how to do something like this. The pre-photoshop portion is great, we need more about the takeing of the image as we need the post production of an image. Again, thank you for putting out a great tutoiral and I look forward to the photoshop only version. Dennis.
What kind of lighting ratios did you plug in for the side strobes? Looks like hot from the sides, but not totally blown out. Good balance. Any tweaking of the highlights in post?
Hi Scott, Love all you have to offer. and appreciate it all also. Anyway had to chime in and just say, I have been trying for a long time to figure out how to get this look with out shelling out for a plug in, and man do I appreciate you going down this road with this teaching. Please keep it up and and know that there are some of us who SERIOUSLY appreciate this kind of teaching. Any help with this look, is exactly what I am looking for.
Thanks again, Doug
I haven’t read all the comments but thought I would throw out this question…Have you tried to compare results of LucisPro 6 with the TOPAZ filter?
http://www.topazlabs.com/
simply an outstanding work i have ever seen
want to work like that always
Dave has earlier said that he uses the Lucis Art Plugin..