Put aside the controversy about this artist and let's discuss how she acheives this look in her photography: http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/index0.htm

It has been suggested that she works in the Lab color space. Any ideas?

quick look, to my eyes, looks like each have colour cast and the highlights are exaggerated

quick look, to my eyes, looks like each have colour cast and the highlights are exaggerated

Hi, sorry, what do u mean with "color cast"?

each photo looks somewhat desaturated skinwise and looks to have a deep blue cast which would accentuate the reds too. Easiest translation in photoshop is probably mask skin, desaturate a little and then use a dark blue photo filter. To accent the highlights, then over paint with white before guassian blurring and possibly set to soft light mode. Unfortunately my children are too old for a belting and do not often display this type of distress :)

Thanks so much for your explanation! ;)

Do you think it's mostly done in Photoshop? Or is most of the work done in the camera and lighting? It looks like there are at least two sources of light coming from both the right and left of the subject at equal strength. A modeling light behind and another fill light in front. The skin does look desaturated except for the faces.

I like the look alot. It almost feels illustrated.

Did you see the prices for those prints?

It looks like to me that not only was good photography was used, as in the backlight, and backdrop, but also Lucis Art was also used for the skintone/illustrated look.

In case 'some' weren't aware of the filter...
http://www.lucisart.com

Randy

According to Jill Greenberg herself, in a podcast, the images were front lit, then she added "sheen and drama" in post-production. By that, I'm thinking she basically airbrushed in the highlights along with some contrast adjustments. I don't think it's a special program or any huge secret technique. I think the "secret" is lots of manual labor, tweaking and just knowing when to stop :wink:

--
Pam
http://www.pbase.com/pam_r
'art is working on something 'til you like it...then leaving it that way'

The technique is quite simple if you have a good starting quality image.
Once you've sharpened and acheived the tonality you want then its just a case of exaggerating the highlights - particularly on the drool, snot and tears. My favored method is multiply and screen layers of the original but its basically just dodge and burn so whichever method you prefer will get you to the same/similar end.
You can achieve similar with a highpass overlay, setting a large radius will go beyond sharpening and into contrast adjustment nicely but you have less control over what you enhance.
This is just a quicky I threw together from a stock xchange image - obviously the quality is poor so you wouldnt mistake it for the real thing but it kinda demonstrates the technique.

First I adjusted the levels to get a good black point
Then I sharpened with a highpass layer
Then I adjusted the tonality by using selective colour to increase the cyan in the reds and enhance the 'blueness' of the blues and cyans
Then just dodge and burn

Nany J that is really awesome! I do believe you've got it right there!

It seems like there's quite a bit going on in terms of painting with light. If you take your time (something I didn't really have the luxury to do with the example below) it's incredible the dramatic effects you can achieve. the trick is to maintain your light sources and really use the brushes to their full potential. Below is a very quick example using Nancy's photograph. It's just separate layers curved darker or lighter, masked and painted back in. There is a final sharpening (which kills the details due to the compression of the JPG) and an overall desaturation.

Amy Dresser retouched(/es?) Jill Greenberg's pics, so check out http://www.amydresser.com/pages/sipper.html for a before and after comparison. In an interview with her, she revealed her techniques as really bright frontal lighting in combination with highlight enhancing postprocessing (which is very visible in the example pic).

Do u think is possible to obtain a retouch like that starting from a pixellated starting photo?

Of course it's possible; I mean, it all boils down to your intents with the photo.

Amy Dresser retouched(/es?) Jill Greenberg's pics, so check out http://www.amydresser.com/pages/sipper.html for a before and after comparison.

That one show that Amy is one of the best!!! Wow!

/megl

HI ... Here is my attempt....
I've used some different method, didn't came out as I expected but, with better before photo I think that this might work...

here is what i suggest : first find the darkest and the lightest point, then duplicate layer, remove all white (transparency-eliminate white) on the duplicate, and set blend mode to darken.... you might want to make another copy of the original, just in case (I always do)... then go back to the original and pop up the highlights as much as possible...
the rest will be just some color adjustments to the duplicated layer

nancy, i too borrowed your image -- i like your version a lot.

this was totally an experiment, a combination of things, and probably not close to what was being sought out in this thread, but it was a lot of fun to work on and i liked the end result.

marsha

Hope you don't mind Nancy, had to have a go at your image :)

Goose came the closest so far.. all the others look nothing like what Jill is doing..:+{
I find it halariious when people jump in saying "oh it is so easy... jsut need the right picture".. cough cough
It is not easy and if it was, everyone would be doing it instead of "trying" to do it..
These guys are very experienced Photoshoppers and have "their" technique that gives theirs or others photographs a "special" look.
It is not just done in one try on some photoshop forum.
Hate to sound harsh, but these come up all the time.. First Rave was the "DRAGAN" look , that by the way no-one really ever got.
And then there is the Loretta Lux "look" with her pale colors and enlarged kids heads and eyes..
Then there was the Jim Ficus "Look" and now we have moved to the Jill Greenberg "Look"
Ofcourse these people are marking the times with great photography first of all, accompanied by awesome photoshop skills and retouchers.
So for some one to comment.. That is easy this is how you do it.. Must be Joking themselves and the people on these forums..
It is great that people comment and work together to try and figure out some of what is going on in these retouched pictures to help "all" of us, :eek:
But jumping in Saying Oh that is easy Just makes my skin curl...
Just my 2 cents.
Snook

Thats exactly what I think when one of those threads come up, theres always someone saying "that's easy!" and post a result which sometimes is laughable.
I dont want to be rude too, theres nothing wrong about trying to get better, and ask for positive critiscism and advices, but when people post an his workflow as the definitive solution, but the result proves otherwise - thats the problem.
Ricardo

AM I CLoser?

Mostly dodge and burn (With a set of curves)

Selective colour

Contrast and so long...

Yeh GodMother that looks pretty good. But have to see the original I guess to determine that.
In any case no one has to ask me.. I was just making a comment.
I have learned all I know in these forums mainly and some VTC's.. So I am not sturring trouble.
Just do not like when the "know" it all's do not know. :bow:
You are belittling someones artistic interpretation and something they have worked hard to create. So to say oh that's easy I can do that attitude is not Kewl in my mind... :bawling: :lol:
Anyways looks good. Just maybe missing that oily "wet" contrasty skin I guess.
Looks good
Snook :D

First of all, Jill worked on the original images already got some existing spectacular highlights on the skin and she strongly enhanced it with Photoshop. She didn't start off with a flat photo. She mixed hard and soft lights in studio. Unless you got an orginal of Jill's before photo, it is difficult to work out her techniques. (I don't enjoy looking at crying children photos and personally prefers Lorreta Lux's "other worldly" photos more, but my opinion is off-topic here.)

Put aside the controversy about this artist and let's discuss how she acheives this look in her photography: http://www.paulkopeikingallery.com/artists/greenberg/index0.htm

It has been suggested that she works in the Lab color space. Any ideas?


Cool, I was a student of chan chao (who is represented by that gallery) few years ago

First of all, Jill worked on the original images already got some existing spectacular highlights on the skin and she strongly enhanced it with Photoshop. She didn't start off with a flat photo. She mixed hard and soft lights in studio. Unless you got an orginal of Jill's before photo, it is difficult to work out her techniques. (I don't enjoy looking at crying children photos and personally prefers Lorreta Lux's "other worldly" photos more, but my opinion is off-topic here.)

This is not question of like and dislike.
And we all know (I asume) she takes the picture knowing where that image is going to end.
What we try to do here is duplicate that "style"
If client tells me: "Hey... I Want this picture to look like that" the only one who is going to care about original light source... it's me.
And... It's good for the mind to study a picture and try to know what what you can do in Photoshop to "get it"

These forums and these type of objectives have a very real benefit to many. It stretches us, makes us explore methods, find new methods etc. Even if one pronounces they have it down pat, it does not matter, as everyone executes differently and by exploring methods and ways of doing things, you grow in your skills and awareness.

Just my 2 cents

Thanks for the comment Snook.

I agree it is not easy and in fact is quite time consuming even for a low rez. A high rez print image is down right painstaking. My sample is mean as a very quick approximation as this is a learning site.

I also agree that a little humility is in order when trying to disect/reproduce the work other skilled artists took the time to develop, master and in some cases pioneer.

To say the process is easy is like saying impressionist painting is easy; just take some paint and put it on the canvass until it looks like a Monet. You can make it sound easy but really there's a lot involved.

That said, I think that to try and approximate an approach that will yield results in some small way similar to those of an accomplished artist allows for a great many lessons and new techniques learned.

First, I did use Nancy's image (hope you don't mind Nancy). Since I don't have (or can afford) Lucis arts, I tried to duplicate a few of the features using Flaming Pear's Mr. Contrast. I also did some smoothing and such, but I can't seem to duplicate the edge shimmer. :)

This reminds me of something I stumbled on a while back. It's semi-formulaic, but goes something like this:

-Add a channel mixer, set it to monochrom, and slide the blue channel towards negative (near -100%) and slide the red and green channels towards positive (near +100%). Push red higher than green. Tweak things so as to prevent blown highlights on the subject.
-Set the blend mode to luminosity.
-Merge duplicate (ctrl-alt-shift-E). Set blend mode to overlay.
-Apply high-pass filter--adjust the radius to look about right.

I attached one I dug up:
1. Original
2. Channel Mixer
3. High pass

In this particular case, the channel mixer was RGB = -88, +70, +142. And the highpass was radius 30 and I set the fill to 80% on the highpass layer. It's best if the subject is lit with diffuse light (overcast day or in the shade). I don't have the benefit of bright backlighting as in the referenced gallery--that would probably complete the effect.

Gives the eyes a funky color too.

Bart

Goose came the closest so far.. all the others look nothing like what Jill is doing..:+{
I find it halariious when people jump in saying "oh it is so easy... jsut need the right picture".. cough cough
It is not easy and if it was, everyone would be doing it instead of "trying" to do it..

Yet again snook you're mistaking technique for skill. You're also trying to compare quick sketches with the finished artwork and complaining because they dont look like something that takes a few days and a wad of cashola to create.

Theres a huge difference between being able to easily see how something is done and reproducing it.
It is clear from looking at those photos that they are all well lit and well photographed, the subjects are sharp, slightly cold and the expressions have been exagerated through enhancement of the lights and darks - otherwise known as pwl.
Simply knowing that wont make you Jill Greenberg though.
You made the same complaints in the Amy Dresser thread - who very kindly provided a sample file and written tutorial - showing that there was nothing special about her 'technique' and that she was doing exactly what we all said she was.
In fact nearly all these 'big names' that everyone wants to emulate are using the same techniques - sharpen, tint and pwl - but that doesnt mean their work is all the same. The same simple techniques used in different ways create a multitude of different effects.
First and foremost *most* of these people are photographers not retouchers - they may retouch their work but its about the photography and the finished product - not 'oooh see what a great photoshopper I am' - so yes - the right photograph does make a BIG difference. Thats why photographers shoot hundreds of frames and use only 1 or 2 of them. They're not just snapping the first shot that they can get or grabbing a pic off stock xchange.
They have training and experience in photography and lighting - these things are far more important than the post production work - which is the metaphorical icing on the cake.
You're not going to convince anyone that your retouched 'jo bloggs' is a Jill Greenberg original but that doesnt mean you cant use the same techniques in a similar way on it

I don't know. Looking at Amy's site, I'm not sure she's using any filters or relying entirely on global effects. It looks to me like she is painting over nearly the entire image. Especially highlights. If fact, it looks like she's adding highlights that weren't there in the original image. I don't think you can do that with a global change. You have to go in and "paint" them in. Sure, she's probably starting out making global changes to get the image into the neighborhood, but then she's finishing the image in local areas.

i tried my attempt... heres what i came up with.. still something in progress.

Effect Attempt (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wowzzaa/255545779/)

from a previous discussion:

Originally Posted by Amy Dresser
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.

ooo awesome thxs!

http://www.solpyraphoto.com/exhibitions.html