Hi

I often see this kind of technique used in commercial and fine art photography. It is specially visible with skintones. Looks to me like it could be some kind of massive airbrushing, but I don't know, it could be a global PS effect..
Notice how colors look half way between paintings and photographs.

Here are a couple of examples (if you see a pattern in all these images, you probably see what I mean, if they all look different to you, just forget about it)

one here and 3 more in attachment


thanks for any ideas you might have

Here is a more extreme example (extreme as in, the effect is a bit more pronaunced)

http://www.hbo.com/sixfeetunder/img/homepage/main_img_posterart.jpg

My first thought would be to take a step back in the whole process before it even gets to PS: make up. All of those look like a similar type of make up.

I may be talking out my proverbial bottom here but a lot of pros that I have heard/read when asked about certain PS techniques mention that it is more effective to do as much as possible towards the "look" of a photo before even pressing the shutter button. I am sure there is some PS done on these but I think the look is achieved mostly through make up.

It's a lot of painting, drawing, sharpening, color-adjusting ;)

My first thought would be to take a step back in the whole process before it even gets to PS: make up. All of those look like a similar type of make up.

I may be talking out my proverbial bottom here but a lot of pros that I have heard/read when asked about certain PS techniques mention that it is more effective to do as much as possible towards the "look" of a photo before even pressing the shutter button. I am sure there is some PS done on these but I think the look is achieved mostly through make up.


Yea, you are probably right about the make up, but if you take a look at the clothes, and surroundings (like in the second attachment) you can see the same "treatment" done to that too, not just the skin.

I've been digging some more and it seems this is some sort of painting after all. Here is one retoucher/illustrator doing that kind of stuff:

http://www.amydresser.com/retouch.html

Sometimes the whole photographs are repainted to make illustrations out of them, like in this case:
http://www.amydresser.com/img/startrek_comp.jpg

Now I'd like to learn more about this. For example, surely they use photoshop, but what tools?

I already know how to make those fashion skintones, by using dodge/burn tool to "repaint" highlights and shadows. But I wouldn't know what to use for drastic repainting like in the previous example.
Is it airbrushing?
Also was this kind of thing done before photoshop? Did people do this kind of thing with chemical retouching techniques? (any examples?)

thanks

I've been digging some more and it seems this is some sort of painting after all. Here is one retoucher/illustrator doing that kind of stuff:

http://www.amydresser.com/retouch.html

Here's my attempt with one of Amy's before pics

/megl

Thanks for the amydresser link. That gave a lot of inspiration.

Well of course yer dodge, burn and sponge I know I used alot in the darkroom before I got hooked on PS. The first thing that sprung to mind when I saw your posted images was colourization... the traditional, hand tinted way which is not that highly saturated and tones are clean and simple.

Yea, you are probably right about the make up, but if you take a look at the clothes, and surroundings (like in the second attachment) you can see the same "treatment" done to that too, not just the skin.

I've been digging some more and it seems this is some sort of painting after all. Here is one retoucher/illustrator doing that kind of stuff:

http://www.amydresser.com/retouch.html

Sometimes the whole photographs are repainted to make illustrations out of them, like in this case:
http://www.amydresser.com/img/startrek_comp.jpg

Now I'd like to learn more about this. For example, surely they use photoshop, but what tools?

I already know how to make those fashion skintones, by using dodge/burn tool to "repaint" highlights and shadows. But I wouldn't know what to use for drastic repainting like in the previous example.
Is it airbrushing?
Also was this kind of thing done before photoshop? Did people do this kind of thing with chemical retouching techniques? (any examples?)

thanks

Hey this is very interesting, have you found any more of this?

where can I find the dodge/burn technique?

cheerrs

Amy Dresser's stuff is a real eye opener for me. I bookmarked her site for sure. Her retouching skills are far superior than the lighting skills of some photographers who took the photos.:bow:...she transforms only not the skin, facial features but radically change the lighting as well. She really understands very well the physics of light---how highlights and shadows behave and manipulate it in such way they look very convincing.

Here is my attempt (2nd photo) to retouch one of her before photo, reproducing her techniques (3rd photo); my first nose, chin and lip jobs ever done in my life :D

Amy Dresser really does amazing work. It angers me to see photographers claiming the work as their own, without even creditting her. The 'before' photos are mediocre at best, they're flat, dull and she transforms them in to amazing pictures. She has to credit the photographer on her website - but on theirs, she is swept under the carpet. I really believe she should take up photography and make a name for herself because she really deserves taking notice of.

As you all know, it takes a lot to impress me ;) But Amy Dresser really does. While I know and am capable of the techniques used to create her pictures, I lack the skill and experience to lay down those shadows and highlights as perfectly as she does - she adds real depth to flat portrait shots.

my meager attempt at emulating her style...

I just gave it a try.

Nancy can I ask you how you went about doing the eyes? I know how to change the colour but I am having trouble getting them like you and Amy have got them (with the green and blue) Thanks if you can help me.

Nancy can I ask you how you went about doing the eyes? I know how to change the colour but I am having trouble getting them like you and Amy have got them (with the green and blue) Thanks if you can help me.
Nothing spectular I'm afraid - just a color layer over the top and painted on the colours I wanted.

another question, how do you guys manage to get such realistic spectular highlights in the "after" pictures?through dodging? Could the gurus please answer this?thanks! The reason why i ask this is because the before pictures in amy's portfolio have virtually no highlights or glows-but the way you guys have done it and brought it out is mind blowing-i've tried dodging but it's not too realistic

Thanks Nancy I should have known that!

another question, how do you guys manage to get such realistic spectular highlights in the "after" pictures?through dodging? Could the gurus please answer this?thanks! The reason why i ask this is because the before pictures in amy's portfolio have virtually no highlights or glows-but the way you guys have done it and brought it out is mind blowing-i've tried dodging but it's not too realistic
How are you doing the dodging? With the dodge tool *shudder* trying duplicating the original and setting the blend mode to screen, then painting in the highlights where you want them. It still takes a lot of skill and experience to get the highlights in the right places and looking right.

Her works are really inspiring. I agree she should be a photographer herself. In her head, there are imaginery studio lights here and there.. She knows so well how to create natural fall-off, accentuating contours...and very creative.

Here is my anothor attempt (2nd photo) to reproduce her techniques (3rd photo) from the before photo. I think she got the reflection on glasses from anothor photo and wrap it around.

How are you doing the dodging? With the dodge tool *shudder* trying duplicating the original and setting the blend mode to screen, then painting in the highlights where you want them. It still takes a lot of skill and experience to get the highlights in the right places and looking right.


Oh i'm not using the dodge tool, but actually using the 50% grey method and then setting it to soft light mode(for the extra layer) and painting in with a low opacity at approx 3-5 percent is that correct? or should i be looking at something else? i still cant get the nice shiny glow though

hi, i am new here but not new to photoshop.

i couldn't resist posting my version of this beautiful model.

yes i agree amy is brilliant.

here is my before and after.

Oh i'm not using the dodge tool, but actually using the 50% grey method and then setting it to soft light mode(for the extra layer) and painting in with a low opacity at approx 3-5 percent is that correct? or should i be looking at something else? i still cant get the nice shiny glow though
It's very simple (the way I did it, at least):

1. Copie you original layer and do the normal retouching.
2. On top of this corrected layer, you put an adjustment layer (brightness/contrast). Than you brighten this layer (because this layer is your 'shiny' layer).
3.You fill this layer with black color.
4. Now you can paint (soft eraser/black color) your highlights. If you make an error, use the white color to correct it. Best is to use a low opacity.

All is done in the normal mode, and no dodging.

Here is my quickie and crude attempt to imitate her pin-up techniques. The head, arms and upper torso came from anothor photo and she masterful joined them togethor. It is very hard to fine tune on tiny web pics :dizzy: BTW I love the way she put shine on the stockings :rolleyes:

Procelain look:

Here is a more extreme example (extreme as in, the effect is a bit more pronaunced)
http://www.hbo.com/sixfeetunder/img/homepage/main_img_posterart.jpg
LOL ok i admit not beeing qualified at all, but i do not see anything interesting in that picture. i dont even see any photoshop work done in the pic, even the skins look totally normal to me. it just looks like a regular screencapture from some movie, except for the little scanlines. hehe please dont be mad! it looks im the only one beeing so ignorant ;)

ciao!

Here is my anothor attempt (2nd photo) to reproduce her techniques (3rd photo) from the before photo. I think she got the reflection on glasses from anothor photo and wrap it around.

Singlo, you're really getting a hang of it! Care to share your workflow?

/megl

megl,
The workflow for the sunglass girl is very simple; i tried to remmeber what i did because I keep changing methods from images to images:

1. Pump up the highlights with a copy of blue channel on top of the original set to luminosity mode. Apply a S-curve adjustment layer to pump the highlights and contrast further. Merge down.

2. Darken the shadows by duplicating the original set to multiply mode. Apply layer mask to brush back the highlights. merge down.

3. PWL or dodge and burn with soft light layer to fine tune highlights and shadows.

4. Curve adjustment layer to adjust skin colour.

The methods are easy; the hardest part is knowing where to put shadows and highlights that are not there in the first place and making them convincing.

Singlo,

And what about the porcelain look? A B&W layer above original and painted back with low opacitiies? Hope you can share those moves also.

megl,
The workflow for the sunglass girl is very simple; i tried to remmeber what i did because I keep changing methods from images to images:

1. Pump up the highlights with a copy of blue channel on top of the original set to luminosity mode. Apply a S-curve adjustment layer to pump the highlights and contrast further. Merge down.

2. Darken the shadows by duplicating the original set to multiply mode. Apply layer mask to brush back the highlights. merge down.

3. PWL or dodge and burn with soft light layer to fine tune highlights and shadows.

4. Curve adjustment layer to adjust skin colour.

Thanks!! Do you ever find yourself airbrushing instead of dodging and burning?

The methods are easy; the hardest part is knowing where to put shadows and highlights that are not there in the first place and making them convincing.

I agree!! That's certainly the hard part ... and the part, that makes it fun and worthwhile exploring ;-)

/megl

HI !

Just an attempt to replicate Amy's work! Please give me your opinion!

BTW: I find great inspiration in all of Amy's examples, Great work!!!

Do you ever find yourself airbrushing instead of dodging and burning?

YESSSSS!!! :lol: This is anothor hard thing to master :tongue:

Singlo,
And what about the porcelain look? A B&W layer above original and painted back with low opacitiies? Hope you can share those moves also.

Nick,
You almost got it. I partially destaturated the original and brush back some colour selectively with a low opacity brush using layer mask. Apply curves adjustment layer to make her skin colour as pale as corpse. The rest is dodge and burn with grey softlight layer plus airbushing. :wink:

BTW I hope Amy doesn't mind us playing with her images here; we just wanna copy and learn from the master.

Here is a quickie attempt to transform a high key photo of Keira Knightley (that I found floating around on the web) to low key.

Singlo.. how did you get that picture on the previuos page so white with out being too B&W looking.. Very nice can you explain..
The girl with no top and Black hair...
I really like it..
And I love this thread...
Why is it that all the big retouchers are so secretive.....
seems like nothing get;s leaked out??/ Hope that changes with these new threads,,
Good work guys...
Snook :eek:

Singlo.. how did you get that picture on the previuos page so white with out being too B&W looking.. Very nice can you explain..
The girl with no top and Black hair...
I really like it..

The skin tone is very easy to achieve with image ->adjustments->selective colour. Mostly you want to reduce the magenta in the red and magenta ranges and balance the cyan and yellow to make sure its not green.

And I love this thread...
Why is it that all the big retouchers are so secretive.....
seems like nothing get;s leaked out??/ Hope that changes with these new threads,,
Good work guys...
Snook :eek:
Perhaps, its because you're looking for something that isnt there. You seem intent on attributing your inability to reproduce any given effect on conspiracy theories.
There is no BIG SECRET to ANY of the techniques I've seen posted about. They all use the same basic techniques as everyone else. What may set them apart from others (besides a good agent) is nothing more than talent, training and a hell of a lot of practice and experience.

Amy Dresser's work is amazing, no question about that but theres nothing special or secretive about her techniques, her work is amazing because she's very talented, not because she has discovered some magical technique that she must guard with her life.

You seem to have got it into your head that these people are photoshop magicians and put them on a pedestal that you will never reach because when you ask how something is done you reject answers that are too simplistic.
You've asked about porcelin skin several times before and each time been answered with a different way to achieve the same effect... yet you still ask.
Aside from that - Singlo already answered the question a few posts up.

Good to see your still around and Still CRANKY Nancy... :lmao:
Trust me I get it.. But I want to learn more and different techniques...
Either say something contructive or do not say anything..
You get a lot further along in life... :wavey:
But glad to hear from you , negatively or not...
Snook

Good to see your still around and Still CRANKY Nancy... :lmao:
Trust me I get it.. But I want to learn more and different techniques...
Either say something contructive or do not say anything..
You get a lot further along in life... :wavey:
But glad to hear from you , negatively or not...
Snook

Nancy, you start to adopt my style ;)

Snook,

what is it you expect people to tell you? As Nancy said, there is no secret or special technique, there is just one hell of a time practicing and frustration.

I decided to have a go at it. What do you all think?

I must agree with Snook. There are those of us on this site who are trying to learn, and if we can't learn from those with experience how can we. I have found 99% of the members on this forum to be extremely helpful and they provide good guidance and direction. There is that 1%, however, who tend to be extremely critical of what others post and/or provide little information of any value other than self promotion. If you have been reading Snook over the past serveral weeks, he asks questions about many good talented artists..each has their own look, but Snook, like myself, just want to understand, if anyone knows, how these looks are obtained. Snook is also very appreciative when someone gives him a direct constructive response. He and no one else on this site need cheap or unrespectful comments from any member.

Sorry Nancy I made a mistake of not reading the before posts before hand.

Guys, what are you so upset about? What do you expect?

When somebody tells you to use selective color to adjust some skin-tone and it doesn't work for you, don't blame the others!

The selective color-layer has four sliders ranging from -100% to +100% to adjust 9 different colors. This gives you a total of settings of (hold on your pants)700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possibilities! How is anyone supposed to guess the settings suitable for the picture you are working on?

It's like driving school, the instructor won't tell you how far you push the pedal through. You just have to find out. Practice makes perfect.

Dog, what's wrong with critism? That's what makes you grow better! A comment like "this sucks" is sure not very constructive while "I'd adjust the skin-colors, they look too dark" is certainly a good way to make you realize what's wrong with your work. Agree?

Patrick I was only talking in general. It may not affect this forum but it happens a lot.

Maybe the most important question is, is selective color the best way to do it? In this porcelain-thing it probably is, but in general you can do the same thing in million ways in photoshop but inevitably some techniques are better than others. Some are even so called "cheap tricks" that you can do with minimum effort vs. doing it with dozens of layers.

All in all, I think we're all looking for the simpliest way to do things so asking different methods shouldn't be considered foul even if someone has provided info how to do it one way. :)

All in all, I think we're all looking for the simpliest way to do things so asking different methods shouldn't be considered foul even if someone has provided info how to do it one way. :)

Theres a difference between wanting to learn all the different techniques to achieve the same goal and repeatedly asking the same question on the same forum, over and over again. Particualrly, ignoring when the question has already been answered by the person they were asking.

Yes there are many ways to 'skin a cat' in photoshop, but how many is too many? Why does anyone really need more than 1, if that technique works for them? I've personally seen on this forum at least 6 different techniques for achieving porcelin skin without looking desaturated. Given that the number of different techniques possible to achieve the same effect are finite but indeterminate (to the person asking, at least), if its ok to continually ask the same question, at what point do you draw the line? When is enough, enough? Do you think its ok for the same person to ask the same question every day/week/month? How many times? When does curiousity cross over into rudeness? (In other forums, asking the same question twice would be considered rude, and possibly be removed by a moderator)
When will the questioner be satiated?

I have no real objection to the desire to learn new techniques, I may object to seeing the same question posed by the same person multiple time but the real issue here is the assumption that its all a big conspiracy. That retouchers arent willing to share their techniques.... even though theres not a single thread here where someone's technique has been questioned, that one of the forum members hasnt 'demystified' and explained. We can impart every ounce of knowledge we have, but that wont make the untalented, talented nor will it make up for years of practice and refining of technique.
Retouchers with a signature style dont crop up overnight. Their style is there own and they have spent a lot of time honing their talents and refining that style. To expect to create an exact replica, relying only on 'technique' is unrealistic. There is no magic formula, every picture is different, you cant just plug in some numbers and make every picture perfectly match a particular style - there is much more to making an image that than.

Nancy , why don't you let Singlo answer for himself for one and for two if you do not like people asking several times something then do not answer the thread... Some may be sick of you answering everytime also.
It goes both ways you know. :wavey:
In any case no body said it was a secret formula...
Have a look at my site, I do all my retouching and the Photography.
I am a photographer first and a Retoucher second.
No body is saying or has said it is a secret One button trick they are doing.
I should know how much time it takes to retouch. Especially since my forte is BEAUTY. Even starting With a great canvas (good models(?) and make-up artist helps alot). I believe that it takes the whole team coming together to produce amazing shot's. Not some retoucher's work.
But I must say the photography "Before" shot's on that site are AWFUL. And that 80% of the shot IS retouching. It varies.
There is nothing wrong with trying to learn "More" is there?
Basically what your saying is that you and Patric know how to do it(which I have my doubts) So it does not matter.
Well that is what forums are for...Hello
After all I learned ALL my techniques from forums and asking AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, as I am a Visual learner, not textual!
So please do us all a favor and say something Positive or do not say anything at ALL.
Thanks, I hope you understand :dead:
Snook

i think the problem is snooks approach. i'm no psych grad, but how he talks, he's like, "you know some secret? then tell me! i want to know!" of course those are not his words, but you get what i mean.

Snook,
i'm not against you, i also reap the benefits of this site, i just don't like reading so much arguements.


Nancy,
i think you are too harsh with snook. i think it's just proper to pm him instead.

Nancy , why don't you let Singlo answer for himself He already has, BEFORE you asked. 2 Posts above your question, Singlo answers the exact same question.


In any case no body said it was a secret formula...

...you did
Why is it that all the big retouchers are so secretive.....
seems like nothing get;s leaked out??
Completely ignoring all the information that is being given to you.



Basically what your saying is that you and Patric know how to do it(which I have my doubts) So it does not matter.

Thats not what we've said at all, we have both shared techniques and given advice, something again you seem to ignore.
You say you doubt our knowledge - but our knowledge is proven - we have shared it, often with picture examples - for the 'visually minded'


So please do us all a favor and say something Positive or do not say anything at ALL.

The same can be said to you also. Your attitude is impatient, demanding and rude, and you will be responded to in kind. You're so desperate to learn this big secret that doesnt exist, you're completely blind to all the great advice you are being given.

Snook,

I've been working in the internet-business for some years and have collected some experience in forums, newsgroups and stuff around all this IT-things. Believe me, this forums are a "put a ton of sugar on top"-people. If somebody on those groups asks a question like "hey how do I get dior-skin", he get's an answer like "Ro's tutorial, RTFM!!!" In case you don't know: Read the fu.... manual

I'm one hell of a friendly person and get bashed for being too harsh, so much for this :)

People like Nancy, Flora, Ro etc. are well respected members who are ALWAYS willing to help and assist other people. It's probably the attitude of some people which makes them become a bit disappointed, in friendly words. They spend hours to sit on pictures someone posts here to help them and give them some good advice and suddenly someone pops up and says "All those things don't work, give me some advice I can actually use!"

Oh and only because Nancy doesn't say something you don't like to hear there is no need trying to attack her, nor to disrespect her opinion or disgrace her knowledge. btw, where is your mentioned website, I'd love to have a look at it and see your skills ;)

Hi everybody!

Just a quick reminder: politeness goes a long way ... :happy:

snook305,

I'm sure you didn't want to hurt anyone ... but ...
Why is it that all the big retouchers are so secretive.....
seems like nothing get;s leaked out??/ Hope that changes with these new threads,,...could be understood as 'brushing off' all the help received so far as coming from 'lesser' retouchers .... and that can really hurt, be considered insensitive or even offensive ... :o:

From what I see, that's where Nancy's objections started .... and she's absolutely right here: no secrets whatsoever ... This Tread alone is full of different tips and advice on how to get to the desired/required result .... in addition, here (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/search.php?searchid=337117&pp=25&page=1) is what I got from a RP search for smooth skin ... you might find the following Threads of my search very interesting:
1 (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13782&highlight=smooth+skin)
2 (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12869&highlight=smooth+skin)
3 (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11842&highlight=smooth+skin)
4 (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12792&highlight=smooth+skin)
5 (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12244&highlight=smooth+skin)

Given Photoshop's (and other image manipulation software) 'flexibility', it's not wrong to ask for different ways to reach a goal... so, here are some of our Tutorials on different ways to retouch skin .... The final aim of a couple of the Tutorials listed below might be different from what you are looking for, but in them all you'll find different techniques for skin smoothing, retouching, highlighting etc. ...

That Soft Dior Look for Portraits (http://retouchpro.com/tutorials/?m=show&id=209)
The quick de-grunge trick (http://retouchpro.com/tutorials/?m=show&id=213)
So So to So Sexy (http://retouchpro.com/tutorials/?m=show&id=191)
Wet Skin (http://retouchpro.com/tutorials/?m=show&id=212)
How to create Metal-Like Skin (http://retouchpro.com/tutorials/?m=show&id=188)

Questions on how to imitate special techniques used by incredibly talented people found on the Internet are a regular feature at RP and other image manipulation Forums ... Personally, I'm not even sure it is right trying to imitate any of them ... but this is only my opinion... and I couldn't agree more with Nancy: Amy Dresser's work is amazing, no question about that but theres nothing special or secretive about her techniques, her work is amazing because she's very talented, not because she has discovered some magical technique that she must guard with her life....and again:....years of practice and refining of technique.
Retouchers with a signature style dont crop up overnight. Their style is there own and they have spent a lot of time honing their talents and refining that style. .... Meaning ... if it were only a matter of technique ... sooner or later we would all become 'whatever' with a signature style .... or? :wink:

Good post flora! Right to the point.

NancyJ,
Very good points indeed and when I tried out of curiosity the selective color trick, it worked like described and should be enough to know how to create porcelain skin.

And Snook, if it didn't bring you the results you wanted, you didn't try hard enough. For example if you had an underexposed photo with strong color cast, you have to make necessary adjustments for it to work (lighten the image, and remove the cast). (Also you could try and use curves in color layer and desaturating but it would be more time consuming and difficult to achieve the same effect.) Not all images work the same as Nancy here said:
Their style is there own and they have spent a lot of time honing their talents and refining that style. To expect to create an exact replica, relying only on 'technique' is unrealistic. There is no magic formula, every picture is different, you cant just plug in some numbers and make every picture perfectly match a particular style - there is much more to making an image that than.
So true :thumbsup:

And Snook, if it didn't bring you the results you wanted, you didn't try hard enough.

Ok - before everyone starts jumping Snook ...

I sure believe Snook is trying very hard - he's a great photographer and retoucher already IMO. Take a look at his work!

I'm sure both sides are misunderstanding each other a little bit - I don't really see anyone being rude here ... ? And I think you're both right - it all comes down to be able to see what a photo needs. I truly belive that the best retouchers out there are using the most simple tools ... BUT - there are tricks involved no matter what. Even if they are only using curves layers and masks or what not, then it is a trick after all. Everyone must have certain things they do over and over again??

And I must agree with Snook, that the top industry retouchers seem very reluctant to tell too much - wouldn't it be extremely interesting to see Amy Dresser do a total breakdown of one of her Photoshop-files? BUT ... I can understand them perfectly - someone like Fiscus obviously worked hard to acheive his own style and wouldn't want to see everyone able to copy that

/megl

And I must agree with Snook, that the top industry retouchers seem very reluctant to tell too much - wouldn't it be extremely interesting to see Amy Dresser do a total breakdown of one of her Photoshop-files? BUT ... I can understand them perfectly - someone like Fiscus obviously worked hard to acheive his own style and wouldn't want to see everyone able to copy that

You're assuming there that someone has actually asked them...

You're assuming there that someone has actually asked them...

You're absolutely right! I don't know if everybody have been asked that question, but I know Fiscus often get asked, but he won't talk about it ... and I respect that 100%

/megl

You're absolutely right! I don't know if everybody have been asked that question, but I know Fiscus often get asked, but he won't talk about it ... and I respect that 100%

/megl
There is ofcourse the possibility that by putting these people on a pedestal you make it impossible for them to share their 'secrets', because they then have to live up to their own hype. (Especially if they're commanding a high wage for their work)

eg. You develop your own unique style of retouching. Some kid on a forum starts raving about your work and before you know it, you're the next big thing and everyone is talking about you. Everyone wants to know your secret. That kind of hype fuels the fire and pays your wages but if you come out and say... well I clean up the picture using x, adjust the shadows and highlights using y and then tweak the colours using z - its like bursting that big hype bubble, your work is demystified and theres a hundred cheap knock off PS actions with your name on them. To say you use the same tecnique in all your work would completely devalue you as an artist. Dispite the fact that every image is unique and to truely emulate your style is impossible, without being you - since only you know the artistry involved in creating your work.

Aside from that - I'm not suprised that fiscus isnt interested in sharing, if you look at his work - he has as many styles/techniques as he has images/series of images. To boil his work down to 'how do you do it' would completely devalue his creative intelligence and artistry.
Another reason may be that if you look at his website - the 'golden rule' that he is supposed to be adhering to is that 'for images to be believeable, the digital imaging must go undetected'. Which is clearly not the case in his work - else there would not be so much hype about his retouching style - it would be about his amazing photography skills. It even possible that he finds such requests insulting.
And ofcourse, possibly the main reason he doesnt share - is that he doesnt do the retouching, he's a photographer, his wife is the digital artist. While they are both involved in the creative process - he gets all the credit. But something else that is often overlooked is that a lot of his particular style is down to good photography (and processing - he shoots film not digital)

Hi, I agree with you and I find that if somene is really great, like Fiscus, it's normal he don't want to share his secret.

So, let's talk about how to achive that knowledge. Is this just talent and PS experiments or there are somethink more like some great design or photography school? How to become so good?
Can it be just experimenting and experimenting or there is a some superior knowledge of somethink that brings him to be so great?

if you come out and say... well I clean up the picture using x, adjust the shadows and highlights using y and then tweak the colours using z - its like bursting that big hype bubble, your work is demystified and theres a hundred cheap knock off PS actions with your name on them. To say you use the same tecnique in all your work would completely devalue you as an artist.

Yeah - I agree Nancy! As I said earlier, I can relate totally! But that doesn't stop me from being curious ... I would still like to look over the shoulders of Amy Dresser and Jill Greenberg for a couple of weeks, so I'm just saying, that I hear what Snook is saying

The fine line between art and craft is (very) blurry ;-)

/megl

All you had to do is ask.

To prove thats its no conspiracy, no secret tricks that cant be shared, just hard graft and a hell of a lot of talent... here is a tutorial by Amy Dresser herself, included is a PSD of one of her images.
As well as being immensely talented, she's a very nice lady, very friendly and approachable.

For the record, I get asked about my methods pretty regularly. I'm
not opposed to sharing my them, but i think most are underwhelmed by
my approach. They expect me to say "blippity blap layer at whatever
mode= voilà!" When in reality, i don't have much for short cuts.
The images i work on i purely labor over.

There's nothing cool about clients showing me a blurry raw image and
saying "make this look like THAT" while pointing to a photo that has
completely different lighting and shot with a super high-end camera.
My approach is far from beeline, and much more touchy-feely and
gradual. Unfortunately, the more a photographer gets used to the
idea of retouching, the lazier some of them get. The example I'm
sharing was a fantastic photo to start with, so it didn't need any
damage control-- just the fun stuff.

before i do any retouching...
I adjust the overall color of a photo (no point in retouching
anything that will be blown out or hidden in shadows in the end).
Most of my color adjustments are through curves (i adjust the
individual channels) and an occasional hue/sat layer--- just personal
taste. typically desaturate the reds a bit... as most peoples'
flaws are reddish in nature, this diminishes some the areas vs.
actual bumps. Also, i'm a bigger fan of desaturated images vs.
saturated ones... i think i can control the shape of things better
when i don't have to worry about weird saturation drop-offs.

I usually work an image up in an all over and gradual manner... kind
of general to specific. I refine color as i go along, carve features
and remove blemishes sort of all at the same time. This way, if
don't spend as much time as i'd like, the image should be fairly
presentable if the deadline is sooner rather than later.
Here are the general things i do:

Rubber stamp out major stuff (on a copy of the original layer of
course) at 100% on normal mode. I make sure that all the cloning i
do is completely unnoticeable. No big blur blobs all over the place
or step-marks. Not a fan of the healing brush either.

Dodge and burn small light and dark spots and areas... anything that
distracts and jumps out at me-- always set on midtones at about 3-4%
with the fuzziest brush you got with "other dynamics" selected so the
pen pressure is in effect. This is where i spend the bulk of my
time. To speed this up, i have programmed the 2 buttons on my pen to
be the short cuts for decrease brush size and increase brush size.

Even out the skin tones to be basically the same hue, saturation
through out a figure/face/image. i'll use the lasso with a fat
amount feathering on it and circle/trace areas that i want to
adjust. Again, i favor curves. These typically will be very subtle
in nature... with the middle of a channel's curve just pulled up or
down a notch or 2.

Carving and painting highlights:
I refer to already existing highlights and exaggerate and/or simplify
them. This is one of those things that will come naturally if you've
done a lot of figure drawing, otherwise, it just takes practice. I
have a few methods of doing this and sometimes i use one...
sometimes more.

1--more dodging and burning! I almost always do some amount of
carving directly on the retouched image by dodging and burning– pure
and simple. 0% hardness brush, still at about 3%. It's a good idea
to do this on a second copy of the retouched layer just in case i get
carried away and something starts to look weird. In case the client
says "woah, too much!"-- it's easy to lightly mask out what's overkill.

2--make 2 curves layers... one curve pulled down, the other pulled
up. I fill both masks black and then paint in areas on the
individual layers that i want to carve down or up (0% hardness on the
brush, 100% opacity, 1% flow). This is method make a low-impact on
your file size, but i dislike it because i have to switch back and
forth between layers.

3--make a new layer, fill with 50% grey and set that layer to
"overlay" and paint black or white (again, 0% hardness on the brush,
100% opacity, 1% flow) to carve down or up. This method sometimes
adds more saturation to the carved shadows than i would prefer.

4--plain old painting white on an empty layer set to "normal"-- 0%
hardness on the brush, 100% opacity, 1% flow, "other dynamics"
selected. I do this to every image i work on.

5--this may possibly be my only "trick." This has to be done as a
final step or it will magnify any so-called-flaws that are white in
nature. Make a new empty layer on top of everything. with pure
white selected as the foreground color in the tool bar go to Select >
Color Range. The whites of the image should already be selected by
default. Move the fuzziness slider so the slightest dusting of
selection will be made (click selection radio vs. image radio), hit
OK. Fill this selection with white. Mask or erase out what is too
much. sometimes i blur this layer a bit.

And that's it.

http://www.fearofbodd.com/ADresserSample_RET.psd

Simply great Nancy!!! ... :bigthmb: :bigthmb:

Thank you so much for sharing!!!

Reading Amy Dresser's Tutorial confirms what I've been experiencing and saying .... "each image has a life and a 'mind' of its own ... so there isn't, and probably there never will be, a fool-proof method that works perfectly in every occasion and with every picture ... even if the final aim is the same and the 'problems' appear similar ..." ...
My approach is far from beeline, and much more touchy-feely and
gradual.

Far from comparing myself to anyone as talented as Amy, I've also never believed in fast, global, one single layer adjustments ("took me 5 minutes"... and, most of the times, it shows!!!).... I often talk about 'the feeling' I get from each picture I work on and how I approach each restoration individually ... I understand time pressure and deadlines ... but, in my opinion, hurry, fast, quick have rarely been synonymous of quality ...
They expect me to say "blippity blap layer at whatever
mode= voilà!" When in reality, i don't have much for short cuts.
The images i work on i purely labor over.

Thanks again for taking the time to ask and posting the result of your query!!! :pleased:

Thanks for sharing that! Wow, this is what I call reall speed up. This is the kind of things i like to read for learn. This is 100 times more than a step by step tutorial. It's really great to listen speak someone really great, about his work.

Where to find other articles like that?
Thanks,

Ciao!

Nancy,

I appreciate the time you took to find and make this post. Information like this is what I seek. It provides me some guidance on some of the basic tools and approaches that I need to learn and practice. I always sent my son to the best guitar teacher in the area to learn those "little things" that would take him to a new level...then he would practice ...practice...practice...

thanks again..

Thank you Nancy for once and always crushing the myth on mysterious techniques and magic retouchers. I agree with you, Amy and Flora that every image requires a unique approach. There are definitely no shortcuts to getting good results. I remember an ad from Klinko & Indrani where they explicitly were looking for a person willing to spend weeks on a single image. That alone ought to tell how much work is invested in a single project. It's all a matter of creativity and patience - as well as an intimate knowledge of Photoshop. Mastering the tools completely are the basics of any craft, really.

Singlo.. how did you get that picture on the previuos page so white with out being too B&W looking.. Very nice can you explain..

Hi Snook :bigthmb: Sorry sorry for the late reply. i have not checked out this forum for a while..i thought nobody is interested in this thread. With regard to your questions. I thought I answered it already but maybe I didn't explain it in details. So here is my workflow specially for you ( i am sure there are half dozen variations to get the same effects):

1. Duplicate the original and desaturate the copy partially using Hue/saturation adjustment layer.

2. Create a layer mask "reveal all" and brush back some skin colour "locally" using a low opacity black brush. Merged down.

3. Creat a curve adjustment layers. Sample skin tone control point for the curves. Fiddle with the RGB curves to make the skin pale.

4. Fine tune highlights and shadows: Dodge and burn with a grey softlight layer.

5. Subtle highlighting: Creat a new layer. Sample a fairly "white" colour using color picker. Airbush the white highlights using a very low opacity brush set to color mode. You build up the highlights slowly and carefully by brushing several passes as if you were airbushing. This gives the illusion of a porcelain shine. As I said before, the hardest part is to know where to put the highlights and that's creativity from Amy's mind.

Snook I love your photos and followed your threads in Dpreview. Your works are awesome! :bigthmb:

Please don't be so harsh to Snook. He meant no harm or tried to cause offense to the retouchers here.

To prove thats its no conspiracy, no secret tricks that cant be shared, just hard graft and a hell of a lot of talent... here is a tutorial by Amy Dresser herself, included is a PSD of one of her images.

Great!!! I have only seen this now. Thank very much for sharing!!!!!!!!!! :thumbsup: I can see the differences and similarities between her and my workflow.

5--this may possibly be my only "trick." This has to be done as a
final step or it will magnify any so-called-flaws that are white in
nature. Make a new empty layer on top of everything. with pure
white selected as the foreground color in the tool bar go to Select >
Color Range. The whites of the image should already be selected by
default. Move the fuzziness slider so the slightest dusting of
selection will be made (click selection radio vs. image radio), hit
OK. Fill this selection with white. Mask or erase out what is too
much. sometimes i blur this layer a bit.



This is interesting. I try to get my head round on what does she mean by white highlight flaws...patchy or blobby white highlights??? :rolleyes: Really what she does here is to fill selectively the solid white highlights with fuzzy soft edges on the top of the final.

Thanks all that is what I was talking about.. Seems I am not the only one that is Thankful... :bigthmb:
I still think Patrick needs to take a Chill Pill and give 2 more to Nancy.. But I do appreciate the explaination..
Thanks guys(and Gals)
Snook :devil:

Is the Carve Layer in the Highlight layer a Dodge and Burn Layer?
50% grey layer set to Overlay.. That lost me a little bit?
Looks to be....
Thanks for any information..
Snook
That is really cool.. I like the PSD.. Thanks!

Is the Carve Layer in the Highlight layer a Dodge and Burn Layer?

The Dodge and burn layer is on top of the two curve layers. The two curves layer masks are to "pop" and "tune down" local areas selectively.

50% grey layer set to Overlay.. That lost me a little bit?

That's straightforward PWL or dodge and burn..I am sure you used it a lot already in your car junk yard photos.You can download Kent Johnston's or whoever PWL action from somewhere called plug-in action central i can't remmeber URL. This method not only change the luminosity of the pixels but also causes small colour shift if you aggressively burn the shadows...yucky muddy colour sometimes you get. :D

Singlo.. Yes I use PWL a lot or D&Bing a lot.. Just in the PSD that was given .. there is a layer (In the Highlight Folder)that is called Carve layer..
That is a D&B layer right.. Just never seen so much detail in a grey layer.. If you option click on the layer you'll see what I mean.. A lot of detail in the Brushing.. Or is it something else..?
Thanks Singlo,
Snook :clown:

That is a D&B layer right.. Just never seen so much detail in a grey layer.. If you option click on the layer you'll see what I mean.. A lot of detail in the Brushing.. Or is it something else..?

The "carve" layer shows her B&D brush strokes with graphic tablet using fine to broad brush sizes...the details show a lot of B&D on eyes as well.

"Painted white " layer shows hand highlighting/airbushing with pure white.

"Sampled white" layer is her colour range trick with fuzzy edges and then she masked out those unwanted whites. The fuzziness slider adjusts the cut-off threshold and coverage areas of the selection. This final layer reinforces the spectacular highlights.

It is time for me to study human anatomy and revise my figure drawing skills. :dead:

Hi All - I worked in Hair and Make-up for 15 years before jumping head first into this world of retouching .

Alot of these looks start with great editorial makeup - they may spend an hour getting the base correct or using an AirBrush to apply foundation This changes the whole look of the skin and looks like porceline straight away .I will sift through some shots ive got and post to give you some ideas of manually applied foundations and airbrushed .

Stray hairs is just sloppy work alot of the time and that all comes down to the hairdresser on the shoot - sometimes you might see hair that has a sheen to it but not alot of detail - maybe its best to keep it that way as its a look they may be going for with the direction of the shoot .

last but not least -Lighting plays a major game in all this as a finished product.

Hope this is of some help :jacko:

i just discovered this a minute ago:

Amy Dressers PSD file is very nice and i appreciate her for sharing this file with us (how come??). i think you see how "human" and natural she is (right words?), as no other professional would do that sharing his/her own superprivate files with other people perhaps...

i will study the file now. i think thats big fun, besides, from reading the according text, i presumed some steps, she did what she did, but i didnt think its so much steps and its that complicate like it is.

:classic: i love that.


------------------------------------------------- :shocked:
another difficult question please, maybe OT:

how is that done? i think its a blending method/diff. blendings and also painting with light, right? (pic taken from new movie "the fountain"
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thefountain/)

http://i16.tinypic.com/34gt3s8.jpg

You guys are all right in a way.
I do this type of work and it is a two part job. There is an extremely intimate communication between the photograher and retoucher.
It begins with concept, allot of thought to lighting and makup and plates.
Most of this is shot and composed. Bkg, fig1, fig2, element1, 2, etc.
The lighting and makeup are chosen not by how the photograph looks but often how it will react to ps. Like in the case where Amy's original photographs are flat. That is on purpose and looks more so against her unrealistic painting. Not so much that she makes a crappy photographer look good, but that they know how to work together to achieve a united end result.
Most fo this is done on action layers and channels. The original aside from cleanup is never touched. It is most important to watch color breaks and total ink coverage. Other than that it's mostly hand work like the old days, just with a wacom pen tablet not a brush.
peace out

Wow.... thats a nice move... great Amy*g*

lg Calvin

ok this is a REALLY old topic but I thought I'd mention..(not sure if others will agree) but as a retoucher it's a bit rude taking our before images and trying to mimick our style. The photographers give us permission to manipulate the image/s not for us to do work on them and the public to take a shot at it. I just think it's a bit rude and against permission/rights of the photographer. (more rude to the photographer then retoucher, actually)