Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Julia x 3  (Read 1148 times)

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Julia x 3
« on: September 27, 2011, 05:00:17 pm »

Here three from the studio, something different. Any critique welcome - mostly interested in lighting and post-processing comments.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 09:15:05 pm by feppe »
Logged

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: Julia x 3
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2011, 06:36:53 pm »

Been a long time since I didn't visit this section and a good surprise indeed. No lake on the sunset but some human beauty! Rob C would be happy too.

Shot number 2 is cool. Reminds me a little bit a Cooter picture.

Looking at the overall render, there is something (and not specially a criticism, depending on the author's aim) on the shade: they tend to have a reflection of the pink that create a different dominance. I'm sure that If you look at the shadows in PS you'll find that they don't belong to the same tone from a side to the other. That's visible just like that. Some shades belong to the red family, while others are much more balanced with the overall skintone. Those differences gives a sort of "metal effect" that I don't dislike but maybe a little too shy in the context of an assignement. If this "metallic" effect was on purpose, then I would go even further on it to show clearly that it was intentional and not an unwanted effect. On shot 2 you got thios "metal effect" on the back arm but the premier plan is free of it.

Then, the transitions between shadows and mid-tones are in some cases different, according to where you look at. It's like some parts (the face) have been more retouched but it could also be the lightning. Or it has been rather over-processed or not processed enough. I can't answer to that but I have this sensation. On the first pic, the light on the legs "should be" the same that the light on the arm but it's a completly different treatement. See that the lightning reflection and transitions are not ecuals. Try to avoid that as much as you can, unless you want to strenghten the muscles and shapes, wich is the case here. So it really depends on the goal. Be carefull on details like the elbow bone when they shape (left arm), better erase it because it doesn't add info but makes her harder. (this woman, good looking, is not easy at all anyway from a photographical point of view. One of those person that are more difficult to get it with so your results are indeed encouraging).

Image 3 is the hardest as being the most artistic orientated. There, you need IMO the same: don't be shy. If you choose a path go for it completly. Personaly, there are details I'd like to see on the shoes so it balance the hair, and details I would erase on the body and just put: shoes-hair in the vertical axis as detailled and body lignes just suggested. But that's just me.

To me it's a nice and promissing work, you're almost there.

I don't know what is your training when it comes to post-processing with models, specially the lightning. As I said, you're not far and if you keep going this route you'll end to get it. Very simple, if you don't end with minimum 10 layers, bad sign (I'm kidding). We generally work with channels and "calculations", sweets like that. Avoid like the plague (if it was the case) the magic plug-ins that suppose to fasten the workflow because nobody learn with those shortcuts and I recommend to work with C1 or Phocus to rawdev. I give you here a link to the guy I work with, you can check the skin-tones and lightning is generally very simple. When not strobes, he uses Kinos. Reflectors are crucials. MUA is key. You can be the best shooter or light director, if the MU is not good it would ruin the shots.  So if you feel something's wrong, it might not necessary mean you did it wrong. All aspect on the chain are important to get good results with models.
http://www.pepe-botella.com/private-site/private/editorial-priscilia-y-reyes/priscilia-y-reyes.html  (almost no post-prod on that, just lightning and smoke, Full frame Canon)

All my best in that route.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 07:16:44 pm by fredjeang »
Logged

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Re: Julia x 3
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2011, 07:45:46 pm »

Thanks for the thorough and helpful comments, Fred!

I was struggling a bit with the pink tone the feathers cast, especially under her chin in the 2nd picture. I picked up a tip from Natalia Taffarel to add an opposite color to it to take off the cast. I didn't want to get rid of altogether, but eased it off quite a bit as it looked almost luminescent.

The cool metallic effect you see in the 2nd picture is on purpose, but it's not supposed to be so strong as to call attention to it - I'll tone it down. It's meant for print but it's night here and I want to balance it in daylight.

Although the PP of the skin is global with some D&B to bring up her muscles a bit better on her legs and back in the first pic - it's almost graphic and slightly overdone on purpose -, I see what you mean about the unevenness of the tones, I'll work on that. It appears her upper body is more saturated than her thighs. It's in the original, and again a result of the pink cast from her outfit.

Good call on the shoes in the last picture, fully agree that they need more detail to balance the composition. I entirely neglected them.

The 2nd picture has 15 layers, D&B, spotting, curves, adjustment layers, skin smoothing, etc., no plugins, so it should fulfill your requirements :P I'm working up my skill set to start a fine art project. No training other than Kelby Training and other online sources, and endless hours figuring out how to best retain skin texture while smoothing it out (currently using Lanenga's version of frequency separation which is a good compromise between time-consuming D&B and decimating natural texture with blurring). I still haven't figured out how to get skin to look normal with pores and all in both web size and print - I believe I will need two versions of the same file.

You are absolutely right about the value of a good MUA.

Again, thanks for the very helpful comments!

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: Julia x 3
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2011, 08:02:55 pm »

Yeah, sounds crazy but nowdays it's almost more difficult to get a good technique to obtain natural skin texture with pores because everybody is working sooo hard to erase it. Even the great retoucher I know would have hard time on that.

I've noticed better results in this area with hot lights, but I must admit that I'm not an expert when it comes to both "fashion or beauty" work and at the same time preserving skintones. I guess the lowest possible isos, (we generally shoot in studio at 800 isos) MF cameras are also better in that aspect. But this is a very interesting question, worth IMO asking in the MF section where some gurus would give clews. Rob C might also know a lot on that because his imagery was very natural with real skin texture. And I'm thinking also of Michael Erza in this forum who has a very good nude tech with proper skin texture with visible pores. You could ask them.

Best luck,

Cheers.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 08:06:35 pm by fredjeang »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up