How to achieve the "vogue"-style

[kaiblas]

How did you got this result Flora?

grtz

[PatrickB]

Hi Flora,

yes that's somewhat closer to it, did you just remove the light areas in the skin and sharpened? That was my first idea What's still wrong is the very bright eyes and lips, that's some point to work on for me, good try

Patrick

[Flora]

Patrick,

I'm posting this because it was what I originally wanted to post, but changed after comparing with the 'army top' model for saturation and sharpness ....

This version isn't as saturated or sharpened like my previous one and probably a far cry from what you have in mind ...

I put the original in the middle for comparison ...



Hi kaiblas

Welcome to RP!


_____________________________

What I did is the following:

To 'flatten' the colours I used a Selective Colors Adjustment Layer ... tweaked the whites only ... increasing black to remove the highlights, yellow and magenta and decreasing cyan, to equalize the colour with the rest of the face .. The skin had now a 'flat', even tone and colour

I slightly increased the saturation.

I used Neat Image to 'oversmooth' her skin.

I used the Levels for contrast

USM to lightly sharpen ...

[ourmanflint]

Hi...

just read the thread, and that "elusive" vogue look is not I suspect something you can create on a computer, it starts off with very special lighting systems... Kino Flow and Ring flash for example, both of which give an effect virtually impossible to reproduce by manipulation... believe me I've tried!!!

but you can go along way towards them as Flora has above....

Otherwise Vogue I'm sure would be quite happy to do everything on com puter

[megl]

Flora - that's great. The first one has a nice overly artificial kind of barbie-look which reminds me of some of the works by Glenn Feron (http://www.glennferon.com/ ).

Did you use the method described for both the first and the last one?

[Sean2]

Hello,

I've ben away for awhile, but just logged and had a look at this piece. I was interested in the comments by Amber, vis a vis the lighting piece, but i would venture to say it is as much the model as the lighting. The Vogue look to me, is very much the thin, stylized fashion model that has angular or planar cheeks and facial features that create the 'look' that can be found in Vogue. Admittedly this changes over time, but none-the -less the styole and models set the tone.

Regarding the retouch, one is often looking at an amateur or good looking individual who is average sixe and perhaps form. A retouch in this case will be quite different in appearance than the svelte, workout driven glam or runway model - how could it be otherwise.

This is not meant to be sexists, simply a statement that perhaps we are trying to compare retouching between apples and oranges instead of apples and apples.... same issue as needing the best shot under the best conditions and lighting in order to effect the most glam retouch.

Am I all wet or do people think it is as simple as taking a normal ohoto an dmaking it vogue, without body and facial surgery combined with lighting touches???


Sean

I would also be interested in G Deezy's steps for attaining his retouch.

[PatrickB]

Hi Sean,

I don't think you are right about the "model"-question. I do actually work with pro-models and makeup-artists, yet can't seem to quite get what makes the difference.

I have seen a lot of different photo-styles in Vogue and divide them into three categories: Usual photos, with all the lights and shadow things, just like usual glamour retouch. Pictures with atmosphere like mist and other things. And the last one is the one I am looking for. Obviously shot in a studio, dark uniform background and there is that "decent" overall look. They are somewhat darker, look more flat but yet there is something drawing your attention...

Patrick

[Sean2]

hmmm perhaps you are right Patrick. However, looking over the V ogue magazine covers, what jumps out is the following:
1_ Classy, tasteful shots
2_Stereotypical beauty
3_High Fashion ( cutting edge etc..)
4_Different looks, but looks that stand the test of time (classic)
5_Quality shots _ airbrushed to the max
6_The definition of Fashion and elegance
7_ The shots are not simply pretty / stunning/ beautiful girls with or without clothes or scantily clad, but fashion plates (euphemism)
8_ Hugo Paez has done some fantastic work with modelling hair/ dresses and other things and he has a great look to some of his fashion shots - could they adorn the cover of Vogue? I think some of them might, but many may be far too dramatic or 'out-their' for a relatively conservative, but tasteful cover.
9_ I wish it was as simple as a bit if technical magic, but I think it is a combination of all the above.

Hugo Paez

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=458084
Still wondering,

Sean

ps

let me know what you think of Mr. Paez's work and if any of those shots meet your expectations for a 'Vogue-ish' look

[mister fingers]

Coutre fashion photography is really about desaturated images with brilliant sharpness. I do retouching for fashion rags and you wouldn't believe the crap I get and have to paint in, everything from makeup to lighting. It's a pain in the ass.

Here's what I might consider:

- Redo the background. The drop paper gradiated background isn't going to cut it. Either flatten it out, or send it way back in the distance.
- Skin tones should be slightly desaturated
- Pump the sharpness on the clothes using a merge-copied layer that has had the Highpass filter run over it in overlay blending mode. Block out the areas you don't want to be sharp with a layer mask.
- Fix the lighting through painting and emphasising highlights. The lighting in the army top photo is far too flat.
- I'd smooth her lightly, but retain skin texture detail through a sharpening layer as I mentioned above. Toy with the opacity to get it right. Make sure the shapening layer is on top of your smoothing.

I'd also might pop the saturation on the clothing just slightly.

HTH,

Mister Fingers

[Sean2]

Hello Mr. Fingers,

Interesting take (you have to add light and make-up? What the heck are they taking pictures of or what kind of models??)

When you say paint, are you talking about smudging the image or painting over in color? Do you have an example or could you do something with the army top ?

Are you implying that the Vogue mag. is equivalent to the real 'Coutre fashion'?

Sorry for all the questions, this is an interesting thread - for me anyway


Sean

[mister fingers]

A lot of high end fashion photographers don't know jack about photography, but they do have a good eye for composition. Sometimes they hit the lighting right, but sometimes I have to literally paint it in.

I mean paint as in painting over with color.

You can see some of my non-commercial work at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/misterfingers/

I'd love to take a crack at the army top. Do you have a higher-res version?

[NancyJ]

Is this the kind of thing you're looking for? Since the picture was already retouched this took under a minute to go from soft glamour to high fashion....

[Cassidy]

Yes the composition of the photo and the pose and clothes make a difference however this picture looks brassier than it needs as the lighting and details are so harsh. With a bit of softening of features using the blur tool and removing all the harsh highlights, I think we end up with a much more sophisticated image. I regard the vogue type shots are being a little more upmarket and tasteful with sometimes a sultry but not brassy look. Anyway, just using the blur tool, this is what I came up with. BTW personally I'd remove the nipple but have not done so here.

[CMS]

Originally Posted by G Deezy

I posted a similar post "Get the Amateur Look out!" and I think I was referring to the same question as this. I have no problems making professional shots looking better, just not the ones I take! Here is what I came up with...

I know it is late for this thread but maybe you will be allerted!!!

I like this picture a lot !!!! Can you describe the improvments step!!!
I'm photographer in Bucharest and learning a little bit of PS

[snook305]

No those are definetly not "Vogue"ish. They are more like transvestite-ish.
Very 80's and awful Hair and Make-up.
That is why there is a fine line between Vogue and Cheesy..
That site was just horrible in my mind.
Vogue has Class.
Just my 2 cents
Snook