PitchBlack wrote:
I'm usually pretty good at toning, but I've tried to recreate this look and I've mostly failed. I know it's desaturated and has lots of greens and cyans, and there are probably some textured overlays, but I’ve been fiddling with blend-if, apply-image, selective color, and even some LAB… and nothing seems to work. Any thoughts?

I don't see any textured overlays, just lost of compression artifacts. Also this is not a desaturated look. If you look at a vectorscope for the image you will see that it is actually oversaturated (clipped) in certain zones of the color space:



Another view of the vectorscope also shows the main palette colors of the image:



As you see the individual colors are quire well separated which is typical for fashion images which accent on particular product and its characteristics.

fireshoot wrote:
Hi Pitchblack
In a similar topic discussed the Gucci color correction  and other similar post productions. It's not an easy job. I work with numerous techniques to get that type of picture. Selective color correction, match color, color grading and other way to have a good process. But each image has a similar processing and not always the same. I think you work with the right technique as you wrote. Not other way.
I took a sample image and recreated the shades of the Gucci image that you linked. The important thing is to have tones in harmony, even when the colors seem not to fit well. Gucci's pictures are prepared before shooting and then post production. Editing an image, with colors not suitable for tones like Gucci, is much more complicated. Bye

Nicely done. Thanks.

PitchBlack wrote:
Interesting. Though I'm still not sure how I might get there.

I believe you can get there in Lightroom or ACR alone.
Spent a couple minutes just to make sure. Seems close. kinda sorta

fireshoot wrote:
Hi Pitchblack
In a similar topic discussed the Gucci color correction  and other similar post productions. It's not an easy job. I work with numerous techniques to get that type of picture. Selective color correction, match color, color grading and other way to have a good process. But each image has a similar processing and not always the same. I think you work with the right technique as you wrote. Not other way.
I took a sample image and recreated the shades of the Gucci image that you linked. The important thing is to have tones in harmony, even when the colors seem not to fit well. Gucci's pictures are prepared before shooting and then post production. Editing an image, with colors not suitable for tones like Gucci, is much more complicated. Bye

Some shared observations (Please don't take any of this as a critique):

- On the screenshot it is visible that you have changed the original - her cheeks and lips are more red, all colors look more saturated.


- Trying to match the original to that modified target can never produce a correct match

- What's the purpose of talking about preparing colors in pre-production, then choosing a source image which has nothing to do with it?

- One of your samples is from the "Gucci" text (?!?)

- Your other sample shows visible problems all over the image. Obviously you have painted or used selection masks and hence all the issues



- The face doesn't match the neck

PJKRetouching wrote:
if you want to achieve these colours you need to mask out each element

As you can see above and below this is a wrong approach.



If one uses paint masks this means the pre-processing is totally wrong (which normally means the image does not need post-processing but deleting). A fashion image like that of Gucci is aimed to sell a product. It must create the impression and the mood of the original colors of the product, so if there is any color grading it is usually meant to match the environment to the palette of the product or to create contrast between the original color and the environment. The intent is not to create some total fake with illusory colors because when the customer sees a blue sweater and goes to the shop and sees a yellow one she will simply move on. So first comes seeing and understanding the whole thing, then photography, then retouching. Not merely playing with tools.

Also technically: using a source which is totally different (as light and colors), highly manipulated and with saturation and contrast pushed beyond clipping points (+ downsized and compressed to jpg) is something which can never give good result. It is simply impossible to color grade it correctly because the original data has already been lost in the process.

fireshoot wrote:
But as mentioned above, it was only for demonstrative purposes. Very accurate work takes time. It was not the purpose of showing a perfect editing, but just explaining in summary, the technique for obtaining these images.

Of course, it was quick and dirty just to explain generally. We are not clients.

We are not clients.

If one uses paint masks this means the pre-processing is totally wrong (which normally means the image does not need post-processing but deleting). A fashion image like that of Gucci is aimed to sell a product. It must create the impression and the mood of the original colors of the product, so if there is any color grading it is usually meant to match the environment to the palette of the product or to create contrast between the original color and the environment. The intent is not to create some total fake with illusory colors because when the customer sees a blue sweater and goes to the shop and sees a yellow one she will simply move on. So first comes seeing and understanding the whole thing, then photography, then retouching. Not merely playing with tools.

Also technically: using a source which is totally different (as light and colors), highly manipulated and with saturation and contrast pushed beyond clipping points (+ downsized and compressed to jpg) is something which can never give good result. It is simply impossible to color grade it correctly because the original data has already been lost in the process.

okay you need to step back for a second, the image was just a sample that everyone here was using so I said that if you want to achieve the same look as in this Gucci image you will need to use the same colours and tones, its logic, and obviously Gucci shot their images with the colours, moods and locations that was most fitting, I am fully aware that this Gucci image has not been as colourised as what I did because they are shot differently and are not even slightly alike.

Also i don't even know why you are talking about the colour of the sweater and customers buying stuff? like thats not the point of this topic, its irrelevant, stay on topic.

and as for paint masks, I can tell you have never worked on a campaign image before because you wouldnt say that otherwise

I don't see why you are talking about compressing jpg's and loss of detail? this is just a sample, and all I am doing is telling the poster that if they want their image to look like Gucci's that they have shot they need to match the colours and the light to the image, simple!

PJKRetouching wrote:

okay you need to step back for a second, the image was just a sample that everyone here was using so I said that if you want to achieve the same look as in this Gucci image you will need to use the same colours and tones, its logic, and obviously Gucci shot their images with the colours, moods and locations that was most fitting, I am fully aware that this Gucci image has not been as colourised as what I did because they are shot differently and are not even slightly alike.

Also i don't even know why you are talking about the colour of the sweater and customers buying stuff? like thats not the point of this topic, its irrelevant, stay on topic.

and as for paint masks, I can tell you have never worked on a campaign image before because you wouldnt say that otherwise

I don't see why you are talking about compressing jpg's and loss of detail? this is just a sample, and all I am doing is telling the poster that if they want their image to look like Gucci's that they have shot they need to match the colours and the light to the image, simple!

I looked at your work on your website and when it comes to hair for beauty your work is marvelous.

PJKRetouching wrote:
Also i don't even know why you are talking about the colour of the sweater and customers buying stuff? like thats not the point of this topic, its irrelevant, stay on topic.

That's because you take an excerpt. You have to read carefully and understand what was said as a whole. If you split what was said word by word or letter by letter - it will never make sense.

and as for paint masks, I can tell you have never worked on a campaign image before because you wouldnt say that otherwise

Not that this is on topic but just for info of your highness: I have been managing a studio for video and print advertisement since 2002. So your crystal ball may be broken.

I don't see why you are talking about compressing jpg's and loss of detail?

Again - you don't see because you don't look. I have never even mentioned the word "detail".

anchev wrote:
You guys talk too much and I don't have the time for this. So to keep it as short as possible:

you don't have the time for this yet you wrote the biggest and longest post in this thread.. hmmm

anchev wrote:
When it comes to learning: I don't see any reason to make a practical demonstration of something, then confirm (verbally, theoretically) that it is not how things are done, then put a lot of words to justify that the wrong thing is right. It is just meaningless.

This sentence is pointless, like most of your sentences were, but when it comes to learning, the best thing to do is show, tell, example something as much as possible, it will help them to read it, see it, and take it in.. it's basic understanding. it was just an example photo, we do not have the photo that the poster wants to change, and all they asked was to make their own image look like the gucci image, they didn't ask how to shoot and set up one, they already have the image! so it's me just answering their question.

anchev wrote:
That's because you take an excerpt. You have to read carefully and understand what was said as a whole. If you split what was said word by word or letter by letter - it will never make sense.

I am reading it as it is, and you are going off topic

anchev wrote:
Not that this is on topic but just for info of your highness: I have been managing a studio for video and print advertisement since 2002. So your crystal ball may be broken.

Managing a studio for 15 years and still no Elle, Vouge, L'officiel, Harpers Baazar, L'officiel or any high-end publication?...  hmm interesting

PJKRetouching wrote:
Managing a studio for 15 years and still no Elle, Vouge, L'officiel, Harpers Baazar, L'officiel or any high-end publication?...  hmm interesting

I don't see anyone asking you about me or my work.

anchev wrote:

I don't see anyone asking you about me or my work.

My point is that you have no creditability to say or tell me that masking elements in an image is wrong when I know it's not, because I have experience in working on images that get published in high end magazine and as campaigns, and paint masks are used.

It's what you usually asked to do when working on high end publication images and campaign images, mostly for depth and to avoid colour contamination, it's not up for debate, it's what happens - something you don't have experience in from what I can tell - and I don't need a crystal ball to see that

PJKRetouching wrote:
My point is that you have no creditability to say or tell me that masking elements in an image is wrong when I know it's not, because I have experience in working on images that get published in high end magazine and as campaigns, and paint masks are used.

Your really must learn to read more carefully.

A. I said

As you can see above and below this is a wrong approach.

and it is completely factual and valid because the example sucks big time, even for a non-professional eye. This is a fact, not an opinion, not a personal remark. I also explained why providing bad examples accompanied excuses about time and so on is meaningless. Superficial learning is not learning, just like superficial reading is not reading.

B. What I said further about masks was

If one uses paint masks this means the pre-processing is totally wrong (which normally means the image does not need post-processing but deleting).

and it is also a fact. Changing color completely by painting it in post means that the color was not chosen very wrongly in pre-production (e.g. a blue shirt instead of a red one). But even if such significant color change is justified for some peculiar reason there are methods to change it without masks, more accurately and efficiently, without spending 24 (or 2) hours. This is also a fact, I use it in my work all the time, there have been earlier threads about this in which I showed some examples. In case you are interested about it read the article "Retouching with LUTs" on MM edu.

It's what you usually asked to do when working on high end publication images and campaign images, mostly for depth and to avoid colour contamination, it's not up for debate, it's what happens - something you don't have experience in from what I can tell - and I don't need a crystal ball to see that

Your urge to tell that you know and that you are superior because you have some list of names is quite obvious. That doesn't need clarification and I can read quite well your sneering "hmm"s. I have been trying to avoid this discussion but you keep pushing and pushing. Let me tell you something about campaigns, most kindly and respectfully:

1. The word "campaign" or the name of some magazine is not a synonym of image quality. There are thousands of examples of failed post processing for big brand names and published in popular magazines. Some of them are well known, others not so much. I am sure you have seen at least a few around the web.

2. In case you are so concerned about what I have worked on: I have fixed the mistakes of many photographers and retouchers who take pride in working for campaigns, talk about high end and all the rest of it. The clients were not happy with their result (and for a good reason) and have looked for a new vendor. That is how I met some of my long term clients. I am not going to provide a list of names because who I work for is not of anyone's business, I don't want an avalanche of retouchers to start spamming them and last but not least: I don't feel the need to support what I say with the name of another. I deliberately keep my mainline work separate from my portfolio.

3. Putting an unsuitably over-polished image in a portfolio with a magazine name on it doesn't make it less unsuitably polished.

4. Putting just the name of the magazine and not crediting the photographer really means "Look how great I am, I don't even give credit".

So I may have no credibility and you may be sitting on the right side of God but considering how you see, how you understand, how you invent things which were never said and how you twist what has been said, I think that "hmm"ing at others and telling them what great experience you have is of very little value and completely off-topic. I won't fight with you, it won't happen, so forget it. You will either read carefully and understand or you will post another arrogant remark and I won't respond. It's up to you.

Please bear in mind that I really don't have the time and this is my last lengthy post in this thread - for the sake of clarity and hopefully for better mutual understanding. Take care.