Loretta Lux's skin tone and pastel tinting

[RAitch]

Originally Posted by imsireal

I am fairly new here and I saw this discussion on Loretta Lux's skin. I have attached two files and while it may not be exactly the same as Loretta Lux's images, it might help in giving you some hints as to how to get voluminous, pastel/porcelain skin.

This tecchnique is my own, so I am not going to give a full play-by-play. Most of you are smart enough to figure out what's missing anyway.

Firstly, for this effect, you need a well-lit subject. You can try it on a high-con, or dark, moody image, but your mileage may vary.

Open the image in PS, do you basic adjustments and retouch the image to fix the skin etc.

At this point I would do a batch of capture sharpening. If you don't know what I am talking about, then google it.

Next, I create a new blurred, layer with an alpha layer mask. I then paint in the layer mask wherever the skin is, being careful to leave in important details like eyes, lips, etc. This gives the skin an overall consistency. Adjust the opacity of this layer until you like it and it still look convincing.

Next step is to create a merged layer and convert it to black and white (I use a Deep Red Contrast filter). This layer is the key really. You can copy the layer mask from the blurred layer, but then you will want to make some adjustments to the layer to get everything looking right. Play with opacity to taste.

Next you can finish sharpening and then make any other adjustments as you like.

That's it in a nutshell.

I have no idea if this is anything close to LL's technique. I imagine her's is more involved, but while I admire what she does, I don't really find her work all that compelling. It has a 'Children of the Corn' effect to it, and I am always expecting their eyes to start glowing.

This technique of mine is just a simple way to get a nice soft, porcelain skin effect. Please do not ask me for more details. My instructions are a bit vague so that you have room to experiment and take it further, so do just that. If you come up with something new or easier or better, then let me know.

Bryon Paul McCartney
www.atelier-mccartney.com

I never understood why people would want to post half-ass instructions as a "tutorial" on how to do something. If you're not going to share everything... why spend the time?

Not trying to duplicate this skin tone... here's something cool that I have used before to give a picture a real muted pastel type tone.

Duplicate your merged layer and desaturate it. Then copy the desaturated layer 2 more times.
On the middle B&W layer, change the blend mode to screen.
On the top B&W layer, change the blend mode to soft light (and/or play with the other contrast blend modes - hard light/vivid light/overlay)
Now, drop the opacity of the first (untouched) B&W layer so the original image won't be totally converted.
Then drop the opacity of the screen level a bit so you won't blow it out totally.
Then drop the opacity of the soft light layer (top) to get the effect you want... combined with masking, it's a cool effect. Once you get the effect you want, you can merge the new B&W layers together and add a mask.

Just tweak around with the layer opacities until you get something you like.
The bottom layer controls how desaturated the image is.
The screen layer controls brightening the image.
And the softlight layer controls the contrast of the image. Generally, it'll look better with high opacity.

Anyway, those instructions might not get the exact result you're looking for, but at least it's something to play with that has complete instructions not holding anything back.

Knowledge is only power when you share it.

[limaze]

hello, first of all i must say i am no art nor photoshop expert, but what i see of "Loretta Lux" in googles picture search does not make me a HUGE admirer of what she does. can someone please post one picture of her work that shows what all you guys think is so genius?

the website lorettalux.de also seems dead.

[toyo]

RAitch, thanks! It's simple and effective

[Benny Profane]

I'd like to meet her. The first question I'd ask is how she really intends to have her images seen. By that, I would ask if she wanted her images admired on a gallery wall, on paper produced throught the latest high end archival technology on the best printers (Epson? Iris? Veris?). Or does she see her stuff in a well printed gravure book. Or cheap magazine mass produced offset printing. Or low rez on the web, which, by the way, is what everyone in this thread seems to be basing their critiques on. Which is cool, it's the most democratic medium of the time. But, you know, flesh tones look a whole lot better on a nice Epson print than an old 15 inch monitor. Or maybe not. Low rez web graphics hide a lot.

Maybe she doesn't care (heresy alert!!). Maybe she just wants you disturbed by those "looks". Wants you talking, thinking about something else but photoshop. That's what I think.

[NancyJ]

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Maybe she doesn't care (heresy alert!!). Maybe she just wants you disturbed by those "looks". Wants you talking, thinking about something else but photoshop. That's what I think.

...or maybe she just wants your 5 figure $$ for work thats largely media hype (as all contemporary art is)

[Benny Profane]

Hey, Nancy, we're all trying to get by. If she can make a living doing that and disturb me and make me look more than once or twice, great. She's young, and may just evaporate from the spotlight, or do something wierd like Cindy Sherman did just to shake up the expectations. I'm a little obsessed with her because I want a friend to do child photography, and I'm studying the look. God knows, as a mature man, I'd probably be arrested for making those pictures.

[pindaro]

Originally Posted by RAitch

I never understood why people would want to post half-ass instructions as a "tutorial" on how to do something. If you're not going to share everything... why spend the time?

Not trying to duplicate this skin tone... here's something cool that I have used before to give a picture a real muted pastel type tone.

Duplicate your merged layer and desaturate it. Then copy the desaturated layer 2 more times.
On the middle B&W layer, change the blend mode to screen.
On the top B&W layer, change the blend mode to soft light (and/or play with the other contrast blend modes - hard light/vivid light/overlay)
Now, drop the opacity of the first (untouched) B&W layer so the original image won't be totally converted.
Then drop the opacity of the screen level a bit so you won't blow it out totally.
Then drop the opacity of the soft light layer (top) to get the effect you want... combined with masking, it's a cool effect. Once you get the effect you want, you can merge the new B&W layers together and add a mask.

Just tweak around with the layer opacities until you get something you like.
The bottom layer controls how desaturated the image is.
The screen layer controls brightening the image.
And the softlight layer controls the contrast of the image. Generally, it'll look better with high opacity.

Anyway, those instructions might not get the exact result you're looking for, but at least it's something to play with that has complete instructions not holding anything back.

Knowledge is only power when you share it.

Niiiiiice.

Thanks a lot, its simple and works fine...

[RAitch]

Simple is good!! Glad you like it.

[imsireal]

how is your technique any more detailed than the one I posted which you saw fit to criticize me for?

[RAitch]

Originally Posted by imsireal

how is your technique any more detailed than the one I posted which you saw fit to criticize me for?

Hmmmm

• "This tecchnique is my own, so I am not going to give a full play-by-play. Most of you are smart enough to figure out what's missing anyway."
• "do you basic adjustments and retouch the image to fix the skin etc." (this is detailed)
• "If you don't know what I am talking about, then google it."
• "Please do not ask me for more details."
• "My instructions are a bit vague so that you have room to experiment"

Unlike yours, instead of tying to control the technique by withholding information, I gave every step required to get the finished result. There's nothing there that I'm holding back... or leaving for somebody to figure out.

And sure, there is some flexibility in that you can change the layer opacities to the desired effect. That's alright because you have everything already in front of you... Instead of leaving out gaps for "experimentation" in which somebody won't get to the end result (because you left out some critical steps).

What I'm trying to get at is that if you're going through the trouble to post a tutorial/walkthrough... you should include everything that'll help instead of taking the "well, I know how to do it... and here are a few of the steps... but since I think I've patented this technique, I'll withhold some things so you can't duplicate exactly what I'm talking about... but TRUST me... mine stuff looks cool!" road.

I believe in total release of information... otherwise it's not as helpful. That's all I'm getting at.

[pavel123]

Interesting technique.

Thanks for the tips. Followed the suggestions...
b&w layer (pretty much mimiking a red channel)
selected skin
duped b&w three times, blending in luminosity, screen, soft light
for the layers used a mask based on a skin selection
adjusted opacity of b&w layers
cooling filter at small opacity
quick and dirty hand painting

Posted the picture at a thread there it belongs

http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/sho...283#post131283

I'm not sure if I'm getting close to the target.
For Loretta Lux's images it is not just the skin color that creates the overall effect...much, much more to that.

Regards.
Pavel

[harthartman]

i should sell my original loretta lux photos to you (the rose garden, girl with a loaf of bread, spring, dorothea) - so you can learn by watching

in fact i really like her artwork and her precise colour matching!

[Dan Ryan]

All the skin tones look very cold and plastic like. Do people really
like this look.

[imsireal]

EXCUSE ME!

Yeah, sure you can take my words out of context and make me sound like a real dickhead, but that doesn't make it so.

In actuality, I did not include information on 'basic adjustment and retouch' because this is not part of the technique and everyone will have their own approach to preparing their own images; not giving a 'full play by play' in this case translates to not including precise opacity adjustment for each layer because that will vary from image to image; I saw no reason to explain capture sharpening in a skin technique tutorial, capture sharpening is related to a plug-in suite from pixelgenius.com, google it; the rest I don't need to justify but there is no sense in giving every detail in a technique that depends on variables from image to image.

Now I understand why I have heard so many complaints about this forum.

Originally Posted by RAitch

Hmmmm

• "This tecchnique is my own, so I am not going to give a full play-by-play. Most of you are smart enough to figure out what's missing anyway."
• "do you basic adjustments and retouch the image to fix the skin etc." (this is detailed)
• "If you don't know what I am talking about, then google it."
• "Please do not ask me for more details."
• "My instructions are a bit vague so that you have room to experiment"

Unlike yours, instead of tying to control the technique by withholding information, I gave every step required to get the finished result. There's nothing there that I'm holding back... or leaving for somebody to figure out.

And sure, there is some flexibility in that you can change the layer opacities to the desired effect. That's alright because you have everything already in front of you... Instead of leaving out gaps for "experimentation" in which somebody won't get to the end result (because you left out some critical steps).

What I'm trying to get at is that if you're going through the trouble to post a tutorial/walkthrough... you should include everything that'll help instead of taking the "well, I know how to do it... and here are a few of the steps... but since I think I've patented this technique, I'll withhold some things so you can't duplicate exactly what I'm talking about... but TRUST me... mine stuff looks cool!" road.

I believe in total release of information... otherwise it's not as helpful. That's all I'm getting at.

[Lasse]

Funny I actually prefered the quick and easy way imsireal descriped his version by.

Anyhow just to add a little twist on how to make white skin here goes quick and easy. add a white color layer set to color and mask it using normaly the green channel. try this and see for yourself. You will sometimes need to add a second cooler layer to adjust the transition. Or do some work on the mask and ofcause mask out more or less depending on the image.
I saa this done by a pro retoucher with 12 years of experience and on a Image that should be blown up high. So I know it works, might need tweaks to fit your images and to fit the pastel colors I would add such a color layer second or third layer.

Hopes this made sence, most techniques isnt that trickey once you get the experience of masking and colors.

/Lasse -Risici