A slice of oblivion wrote:
Each image was retouched differently using a different style.  Care to limit your question to one image in particular?

Agreed.  These are all good images to talk about, but narrow it down to just a couple or one.

Robert Randall wrote:
I realize this is the retouch forum, but even a cursory glance at any of these pictures should have you asking about wardrobe, styling, location scouting, casting, color coordination, props... the list of things that went into making these killer images is daunting when compared to a little thing like the retouching of them. Hell, the pre production meetings to determine the success of the retouch were more important than the retouch itself.

+1

Robert Randall wrote:
I realize this is the retouch forum, but even a cursory glance at any of these pictures should have you asking about wardrobe, styling, location scouting, casting, color coordination, props... the list of things that went into making these killer images is daunting when compared to a little thing like the retouching of them. Hell, the pre production meetings to determine the success of the retouch were more important than the retouch itself.

Ditto

These are great, care to share who shot these?

That may help in determining how they were done and give credit.

Robert Randall wrote:
I realize this is the retouch forum, but even a cursory glance at any of these pictures should have you asking about wardrobe, styling, location scouting, casting, color coordination, props... the list of things that went into making these killer images is daunting when compared to a little thing like the retouching of them. Hell, the pre production meetings to determine the success of the retouch were more important than the retouch itself.

Isn't this mandatory when taking images, he's asking how it was produced once the wardrobe, styling, location scouting, casting, color coordination, props were sorted surely! I agree he could have narrowed the selection down a touch but hell we're here to learn!

Thomas James Dean wrote:
I'm fascinated in how the 5th/7th image was retouched? Like the style a lot, if any one cares to share. Cheers!

How is it possible to even have this conversation with out the before and after images to compare?

Sockpuppet Studios  wrote:

How is it possible to even have this conversation with out the before and after images to compare?

The 5th and 7th images have a distinct style to them! Perhaps an action that is well known, I don't know, just thought there may be someone who might have known purely by the style. I bet someone out there will know!

Sockpuppet Studios  wrote:

How is it possible to even have this conversation with out the before and after images to compare?

Oh come on.  You have seen enough "how was this done?" threads around here.  5 or 6 people chime in saying it's HDR.  3 or 4 come in saying that you need to do it right in camera, then 3 pages later no two people can agree on anything else.

Thomas James Dean wrote:
The 5th and 7th images have a distinct style to them! Perhaps an action that is well known, I don't know, just thought there may be someone who might have known purely by the style. I bet someone out there will know!

Looks like Lucis Art perhaps in the hands of someone who knows how to do it well?  I am guessing its probably more complicated than that, but its a similiar effect.

Thomas James Dean wrote:

Isn't this mandatory when taking images, he's asking how it was produced once the wardrobe, styling, location scouting, casting, color coordination, props were sorted surely! I agree he could have narrowed the selection down a touch but hell we're here to learn!

Mandatory? Take a look in any of the portfolios in here before you ask that question, I doubt you'll find its mandatory. I also don't think the retouch involved in these images is any where near as involved as the OP might think. I see a bit of localized saturation control, some selective highlight painting and some local contrast controls. I don't see any evidence to suggest much more than that, and the usual global controls and cosmetic retouch.

Brian T Rickey wrote:

Looks like Lucis Art perhaps in the hands of someone who knows how to do it well?  I am guessing its probably more complicated than that, but its a similiar effect.

Cool will do, see ya and cheers! Thomas

Robert Randall wrote:
Mandatory? Take a look in any of the portfolios in here before you ask that question, I doubt you'll find its mandatory. I also don't think the retouch involved in these images is any where near as involved as the OP might think. I see a bit of localized saturation control, some selective highlight painting and some local contrast controls. I don't see any evidence to suggest much more than that, and the usual global controls and cosmetic retouch.

OK! Get your point! Off to study the Lucis art now! Thanks

Robert Randall wrote:
I realize this is the retouch forum, but even a cursory glance at any of these pictures should have you asking about wardrobe, styling, location scouting, casting, color coordination, props... the list of things that went into making these killer images is daunting when compared to a little thing like the retouching of them. Hell, the pre production meetings to determine the success of the retouch were more important than the retouch itself.

Agreed. I would love to do shots like this, but I bet the budget involved far exceeds anything I can imagine. The compositing IS damn impressive.

Robert Randall wrote:
Mandatory? Take a look in any of the portfolios in here before you ask that question, I doubt you'll find its mandatory. I also don't think the retouch involved in these images is any where near as involved as the OP might think. I see a bit of localized saturation control, some selective highlight painting and some local contrast controls. I don't see any evidence to suggest much more than that, and the usual global controls and cosmetic retouch.

Agreed....


I watched a video about Leibovitz where she actually did the second shot that was posted up there and the vast majority of whats there was done on set...


I actually appreciated her work a lot more after I saw that...

SPRINGHEEL wrote:

Agreed....


I watched a video about Leibovitz where she actually did the second shot that was posted up there and the vast majority of whats there was done on set...


I actually appreciated her work a lot more after I saw that...

Including the shot of Keith Richards in his hotel room

Forbidden Touch Images wrote:
hours and hours of dodge and burn

I don't know one commercial retoucher that relies on your suggested technique... what makes you think it was used so heavily here?

SPRINGHEEL wrote:
Agreed....


I watched a video about Leibovitz where she actually did the second shot that was posted up there and the vast majority of whats there was done on set...


I actually appreciated her work a lot more after I saw that...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNyIUlra9LU

SOOC visible at 1:16.  Made me much more aware of what I don't know.

Of course, this video taught me a lot about that, too.

Robert Randall wrote:
I realize this is the retouch forum, but even a cursory glance at any of these pictures should have you asking about wardrobe, styling, location scouting, casting, color coordination, props... the list of things that went into making these killer images is daunting when compared to a little thing like the retouching of them. Hell, the pre production meetings to determine the success of the retouch were more important than the retouch itself.

True, true, but this is the digital and retouch forum.  Since everybody here seems to be such a stickler for the "rules" post production of the photos is all that matters here.

Belk Media Group wrote:
True, true, but this is the digital and retouch forum.  Since everybody here seems to be such a stickler for the "rules" post production of the photos is all that matters here.

This was a helpful post on the topic.  Thanks for your insight.
edit - I did not mean to sound like a jerk here.  Sorry if I misread your post!

Robert Randall wrote:
I realize this is the retouch forum, but even a cursory glance at any of these pictures should have you asking about wardrobe, styling, location scouting, casting, color coordination, props... the list of things that went into making these killer images is daunting when compared to a little thing like the retouching of them. Hell, the pre production meetings to determine the success of the retouch were more important than the retouch itself.

Yes..

Belk Media Group wrote:

True, true, but this is the digital and retouch forum.  Since everybody here seems to be such a stickler for the "rules" post production of the photos is all that matters here.

Are you the new hall monitor? I've already stipulated to such, and I posted what I thought were the more salient points regarding the retouching of said images. Go away!

S T U D I O  S I X  wrote:
p.s I think it was alittle about the lighting but not talking about the lights talking about the style fantasy look.
Thanks

It was A LOT about the lighting.  Most of the "look" of these images is the lighting.  Other than that its various skin softening filters.  oh and Great make up artists, stylists and assistants.

Gibson Photo Art wrote:
Here is the video from the Keith Richards shoot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RGunD1tngg

This was probably the least produced of all those images, yet the level of pre-production and and the budget to put this together totally justifies Robert's comment.

I like the DNA based light stand. Mine is made of aluminum and doesn't respond to voice commands.

Belk Media Group wrote:

True, true, but this is the digital and retouch forum.  Since everybody here seems to be such a stickler for the "rules" post production of the photos is all that matters here.

So if I posted a thread asking how one particular image was done, and according to an interview later it was discovered that only a single pimple was removed from the nose of the model, would we then be forced to discuss how exactly to find the right balance of feathering, selection, fade, and how much healing brush versus clone brush were used?

Justin Foto wrote:
I like the DNA based light stand. Mine is made of aluminum and doesn't respond to voice commands.

A grip's always better than a C-stand. Plus, they often work for beer.

Thomas James Dean wrote:
I'm fascinated in how the 5th/7th image was retouched? Like the style a lot, if any one cares to share. Cheers!

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/masters/ma … ation.aspx