| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/12/2008 05:36:46 AM · #1 |
I'm amazed by the work of amy dresser. see for example //www.amydresser.com/beauty.html
One effect that I would like to emulate, and doesn't seem like impossible, is the lighting effet on the skin. For example see the #3 picture (run the mouse over it to see before/after). see the light effet on the shoulders and arms?
Any advice on how that can be done?
Message edited by author 2008-04-12 05:37:01. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 07:39:38 AM · #2 |
| Bumping because I'd love to know the answers too - that is a VERY interesting site. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 07:46:39 AM · #3 |
I think there's a lot of selective dodging and burning.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2008 08:43:53 AM · #4 |
| Photo number 9 is a bit of a drastic change. There are some interesting techniques which do have their place in pp. All of the shot are highly pp'd though. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 08:59:07 AM · #5 |
There is minor dodging and burning but a lot done with layer masks. Shoot your model at 1 stop over exposed creating a slight bright light on their skin. Do a levels adjustment making the image darker or correcting the exposure, then with a soft brush, brush the correct areas that light would shine on your model.
Putting the light in the correct area is the hardest part of the processing but over all it's very simple.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2008 10:03:19 AM · #6 |
Extraordinary work on the arm/hand/butt on the jukebox shot...
R. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 10:30:06 AM · #7 |
| what's cool to me is how dull the originals of the advertisements look on her other gallery! A lot of those photos aren't any better then ones on here, then jazz them up with a professional artist and bam! |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 08:09:38 PM · #8 |
Here is an edit that I did for another thread.
But you get the idea.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2008 09:03:50 PM · #9 |
| we all need to experiment more in our pc dudes. do it! |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 09:42:47 PM · #10 |
| its brush work, and dodge and burn as well as some layers and what not. I don't think its multiple exposures and layer masking as it can be done much simpler with brush work. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 11:43:01 PM · #11 |
rubberstamp-tooling, bandaid repairing, adjustment-levels, noise-replacement, color sampling, white overlay, color-replacement, dodge/burning, lowering opacitys of layers and blending...
i used to have to do a lot of this stuff for a photographer I worked for (headwaps/under eye touchups, blemish-removals, whitening of teeth, removal of braces) it can be a really lot of fun...
but its so sad too...because you really realize how photoshopped the world is...
oh- liquify tool is pretty great in some-cases too...
Message edited by author 2008-04-12 23:43:33. |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 12:27:01 AM · #12 |
Wow, some impressive PP there, especially the one of the pretty woman that looks about 30 and the original shows her to be 60-something.
Message edited by author 2008-04-13 00:27:14.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 01:08:19 AM · #13 |
What sucks in all of this is she credits the photographers yet gets no credit in return from the photographers on their web sites. Although that's no surprise...
Message edited by author 2008-04-13 01:10:04.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 04:18:10 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Love6:
rubberstamp-tooling, bandaid repairing, adjustment-levels, noise-replacement, color sampling, white overlay, color-replacement, dodge/burning, lowering opacitys of layers and blending... |
could you elaborate on white overlay? I use to do white with soft light, when do you do white overlay? thanks |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 10:07:22 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by yanko:
What sucks in all of this is she credits the photographers yet gets no credit in return from the photographers on their web sites. Although that's no surprise...
|
Since when have lab techs/photo retouchers EVER gotten "credit" in photographers' profiles? So you're right, it's no surprise. I wouldn't expect to see credit given.
R. |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 12:03:00 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by mouten:
Originally posted by Love6:
rubberstamp-tooling, bandaid repairing, adjustment-levels, noise-replacement, color sampling, white overlay, color-replacement, dodge/burning, lowering opacitys of layers and blending... |
could you elaborate on white overlay? I use to do white with soft light, when do you do white overlay? thanks |
sometimes in the eyes/teeth, or on the skin- it depends on the tonal range I usually use multiple layers to garner an effect, if I can get my friend michelle to model for me within the next few weeks i'll show you a before and after of a 'simple' edit then i'll go indepth with a -major- edit on her, I do like to do some overlays on hair sometimes (ie she wears hairfalls and in my myspace I show an image of the original, and then an overlay of 'blue' on her hair it looks like she is actually wearing blue hairfalls; if you lower the opacity of the layer it looks less like you applied a layer and more like it is 'light' on the skin (a little gauzian blurr helps this effect if you want the skin to almost look like its softly glowing) I used to add a little noise that simulated skin texture and then lower that opacity also- so as not to have the skin look like it is entirely 'airbrushed' preserving a look of having some pores or being more 'real' is part of the appeal afterall ;) there are about a thousand ways to do one image; everyone kind of develops their own style; I never work on my 'original' layer- incase i ever make a mistake I can always erase back to my original, and I always use a lot of layers, even if i'm doing something simple like 'sharpen' because I may like sharpening sharpening-sharpening and then realize that the 1st 2 sharpens looked better... history is all grand and dandy but being able to use the 'eye' in P.S. is a great feature ;) so you can 'turn it off and on' and compare or take a snapshot and put them side by side (its also great to see how diffrent your original looks from your edit, and if you like the diffrence...)
being able to erase or lower opacity on whitening is always nice :) -- it preserves a 'realistic' look :)
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 12:05:56 PM · #17 |
I believe her work is a prime example of this technique: //www.dpchallenge.com/tutorial.php?TUTORIAL_ID=55 along with some other hand-work and probably Portraiture filter.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2008 12:15:23 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by yanko:
What sucks in all of this is she credits the photographers yet gets no credit in return from the photographers on their web sites. Although that's no surprise...
|
nope no surprise at all -
i worked for a photographer for years and my main job was photoshopping/fixing images (headswaps/braces removal/ acne removal/ fixing lighting, putting one person from one image into a family shot that they weren't in or didn't look good in and making it 'look like' it was taken that way (adding shadows etc) removing trash from the beach, taking people out of the background etc.. (sometimes we did these edits before they saw the photos in their 'viewing' so they'd have at least 1 or 2 good images to choose from- its funny that 99% of the time they'd choose the image i created -and you can't tell them you 'created that shot' because then they start 'seeing things wrong with it' (-that- is soooo annoying; they dont' know where your edits are but suddenly they think they see where someone was cut out or such and such -after- you tell them that someone was moved from one image to this image to create this image... )*and 98% of the time they point to people who were already in the original shot and not even edited at all* *heh*
Message edited by author 2008-04-13 12:15:56. |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 08:12:23 PM · #19 |
| instead of waiting till next week i did a fast and quite crappy example of white overlay/light-adjustment/dodge-burning, some rubber-stamp usage- edit job on one of my daughters images (i'm going to post the before and the after in here as soon as i get it uploaded) it was one of those 'no-flash-snapshots' outside when i was testing the light-and i never trash photos of her (being a mommy) because I always figure I can 'edit' them or at least have them for something else someday/sometime ;) *L* here is just an instace! see?... (look to my next post! :) ----) |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 08:12:24 PM · #20 |
| instead of waiting till next week i did a fast and quite crappy example of white overlay/light-adjustment/dodge-burning, some rubber-stamp usage- edit job on one of my daughters images (i'm going to post the before and the after in here as soon as i get it uploaded) it was one of those 'no-flash-snapshots' outside when i was testing the light-and i never trash photos of her (being a mommy) because I always figure I can 'edit' them or at least have them for something else someday/sometime ;) *L* here is just an instace! see?... (look to my next post! :) ----) |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 08:12:25 PM · #21 |
instead of waiting till next week i did a fast and quite crappy example of white overlay/light-adjustment/dodge-burning, some rubber-stamp usage- edit job on one of my daughters images (i'm going to post the before and the after in here as soon as i get it uploaded) it was one of those 'no-flash-snapshots' outside when i was testing the light-and i never trash photos of her (being a mommy) because I always figure I can 'edit' them or at least have them for something else someday/sometime ;) *L* here is just an instace! see?... (look to my next post! once photoshop finally 'saves' it *gads my computer is goign soooooo slowwww today!* ;) I'll do a 'before after' :) ----)
Message edited by author 2008-04-13 20:30:43. |
|
|
|
04/13/2008 08:52:58 PM · #22 |
[thumb]669019[/thumb]
[thumb]669017[/thumb]
that is my crappy quick edit- i can do a -lot- better than that when i take my time (edges need to be refined/fixed, the lighting still needs some burning/adjustment, cheeks should be lightened up a bit more.... but u get the idea?) :)
to do this img i layered- adjustment layered - sampled where i wanted to be more 'white' and burned where i wanted to take away color- added highlights into he eyes by making little squares and lowering the opacity, then selectivly erasing, colored white where i wanted to overlay with the brush (then lowered opacity of that layer, dodged-burnned, overlayed with some more tan/cheek textures-used liquify to give her that almost eerie half smile ;) since she was scowling.... smoothed out the scowl lines w/light touches of/clone stamp on approx 12% opacity...etc.etc..etc...
Message edited by author 2008-04-13 20:57:41. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 01:20:21 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
What sucks in all of this is she credits the photographers yet gets no credit in return from the photographers on their web sites. Although that's no surprise...
|
Since when have lab techs/photo retouchers EVER gotten "credit" in photographers' profiles? So you're right, it's no surprise. I wouldn't expect to see credit given.
R. |
Well it still rubs me the wrong way. If it was me, I would credit everyone who help shape the final image rather than take all the credit myself. If there was a creative director who came up with the concept/vision, he or she would get that credit as would the makeup artists, stylists and post production artists. If that just makes me the guy who clicked the shutter, posed the model and arranged the lighting, both of which ended up needing to be fixed by someone else in post, then so be it.
Message edited by author 2008-04-14 01:22:27.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2008 10:45:28 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
What sucks in all of this is she credits the photographers yet gets no credit in return from the photographers on their web sites. Although that's no surprise...
|
Since when have lab techs/photo retouchers EVER gotten "credit" in photographers' profiles? So you're right, it's no surprise. I wouldn't expect to see credit given.
R. |
Well it still rubs me the wrong way. If it was me, I would credit everyone who help shape the final image rather than take all the credit myself. If there was a creative director who came up with the concept/vision, he or she would get that credit as would the makeup artists, stylists and post production artists. If that just makes me the guy who clicked the shutter, posed the model and arranged the lighting, both of which ended up needing to be fixed by someone else in post, then so be it. |
:) sweet! :)
|
|
|
|
04/14/2008 11:33:09 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Well it still rubs me the wrong way. If it was me, I would credit everyone who help shape the final image rather than take all the credit myself. If there was a creative director who came up with the concept/vision, he or she would get that credit as would the makeup artists, stylists and post production artists. If that just makes me the guy who clicked the shutter, posed the model and arranged the lighting, both of which ended up needing to be fixed by someone else in post, then so be it. |
In the movies the director and the producer get the most prominent credits (not counting the stars of course) and the photographer is way down the list, relatively. The lighting people and the editing people don't tend to get much face time either. Maybe we should seek parity with films by upgrading the models to top billing, upgrading the art director to near-top billing, and so forth?
I'm vaguely tongue-in-cheek here, of course. It's just the way it always has been, and of course the PHOTOGRAPHERS aren't gonna rush to change anything because, frankly, if the average client realized how poor the average photographer's work really was (I am speaking commercial photography here) and how much of the success of the finished shot is in the hands of the photoshoppers, then the clients might start to think "Aha! I'll hire the photoshopper, give him/her a budget, and let him/her contract out the photography so s/he has something to work with!" :-)
R. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 11:10:05 AM EDT.
