Forums >
Digital Art and Retouching >
Look at this effect
Hey there lets see what you guys think of how the retouchers did these photos. p.s I think it was alittle about the lighting but not talking about the lights talking about the style fantasy look. Thanks Jun 07 09 09:09 am Link Each image was retouched differently using a different style. Care to limit your question to one image in particular? Jun 07 09 09:41 am Link A slice of oblivion wrote: Agreed. These are all good images to talk about, but narrow it down to just a couple or one. Jun 07 09 09:54 am Link Agreed with above. Jun 07 09 10:12 am Link It appears as though the group shots might have been composited in photoshop. Each model might have been shot either separately or in small groups of two or three. Facial expressions may be altered by taking the best expression from one exposure and placing it in another one that may have a better pose. This is a technique that I have used many time to 'perfect' an image with multiple models. KM Jun 07 09 10:17 am Link 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. Jun 07 09 10:23 am Link Robert Randall wrote: +1 Jun 07 09 10:26 am Link I'm fascinated in how the 5th/7th image was retouched? Like the style a lot, if any one cares to share. Cheers! Jun 07 09 10:28 am Link Robert Randall wrote: Ditto Jun 07 09 10:32 am Link Robert Randall 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! Jun 07 09 10:32 am Link Thomas James Dean wrote: How is it possible to even have this conversation with out the before and after images to compare? Jun 07 09 10:41 am Link Sockpuppet Studios 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! Jun 07 09 10:46 am Link Sockpuppet Studios wrote: 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. Jun 07 09 10:47 am Link Thomas James Dean 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. Jun 07 09 10:47 am Link hours and hours of dodge and burn Jun 07 09 10:49 am Link Thomas James Dean 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. Jun 07 09 10:50 am Link Brian T Rickey wrote: Cool will do, see ya and cheers! Thomas Jun 07 09 10:50 am Link Robert Randall wrote: OK! Get your point! Off to study the Lucis art now! Thanks Jun 07 09 10:52 am Link Robert Randall wrote: 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. Jun 07 09 10:53 am Link Robert Randall wrote: Agreed.... Jun 07 09 10:53 am Link SPRINGHEEL wrote: Including the shot of Keith Richards in his hotel room Jun 07 09 11:00 am Link Forbidden Touch Images wrote: I don't know one commercial retoucher that relies on your suggested technique... what makes you think it was used so heavily here? Jun 07 09 11:00 am Link SPRINGHEEL wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNyIUlra9LU Jun 07 09 11:05 am Link Robert Randall 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. Jun 07 09 11:07 am Link Belk Media Group wrote: This was a helpful post on the topic. Thanks for your insight. Jun 07 09 11:12 am Link Jun 07 09 11:13 am Link Robert Randall wrote: Yes.. Jun 07 09 11:14 am Link Belk Media Group wrote: 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! Jun 07 09 11:15 am Link The fifth one is the only one that looks heavily retouched to me. Jun 07 09 11:31 am Link S T U D I O S I X wrote: 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. Jun 07 09 11:50 am Link Gibson Photo Art wrote: 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. Jun 07 09 12:01 pm Link Belk Media Group wrote: 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? Jun 07 09 12:16 pm Link Justin Foto wrote: A grip's always better than a C-stand. Plus, they often work for beer. Jun 07 09 12:16 pm Link answer to q: an ass load of photoshop. toning/ gradients/ selective coloring/ dodge and burn recreation of lighting/ super imposing ...theres a lot of work in those photos. Jun 07 09 12:51 pm Link yay! bob's back. /jack lot's of very cool images Jun 07 09 12:55 pm Link sorry for the late response I am traveling. the shots are from annie lebovitz and augstine bradley. I know there is some lighting involved. also I have seen the videos on the shoot from annie so I know compositing was only for some things on the walls. I like the effects that were done here. nothing else not wardrobe or lighting or location just technique. thanks Steve Jun 07 09 12:57 pm Link Images 2, 3, and 4 from the bottom are photographed by Mr. August Bradley. He is a member here on MM and I got to meet him at Sifu Ayola's studio party. If you visit Mr. Bradley's website or google him, you can find a video clip of the behind the scenes with classical music playing in the background. Jun 07 09 12:58 pm Link Thomas James Dean wrote: Jun 07 09 01:03 pm Link The Louis Vuitton Richards one is available in two (or more) variants, with items/object moved between the two. It's been discussed on MM before, showing two different versions. The 5th one (Victrola) is from August Bradley (See interview with August Bradley in imaginginfo magazine.) The others use a lot of different approaches as well. As has been repeatedly stated; there are a wide range of techniques used in the images shown. Perhaps narrowing it down to one 'look' might be more helpful. Jun 07 09 01:05 pm Link I could have possibly answered the op's question regarding effects/retouching/image manipulation if I had found the originators of the work I saw today at a end of year university students show case. Very similar effects. Jun 07 09 01:18 pm Link |