How to achieve the "vogue"-style

[PatrickB]

Hey all,

a make-up artist recently asked me if I could make some of her images more like they are in Vogue and other fashion magazines.

First thing I told her (obviously) that this needs a good studio, photographer and stuff first, but yet I wonder how to achieve it in Photoshop.

The two images attached will obviously show the difference, but I just can't spot it! I realize the saturation on fashion is turned down a bit, but what are the other differences???

The problem is not that I don't know how, but what to do! Perhaps somebody can give me a push into the right direction?

Sorry for not having a more appropriate photo to compare, but you will certainly figure out what I mean with the question "What's the difference between a traditional glamour retouch and a "make it fashion-style" retouch"

Patrick

PS: The second photo is obviously not retouched at all.

[Kraellin]

the first thing is lighting. look at those two pics again with nothing but lighting in mind. notice the highlights and shadows. if you've ever talked with an 'old pro' photographer, they can tell you all sorts of lighting methods. i certainly dont know them all, but a study in lighting is well worth the effort when it comes to photography and retouching.

the 2nd is contrast. look at the woman's clothing in the touched shot. it's very high contrast and very sharp edges, especially compared to the other image, which is much softer. this makes things bounce out at you more.

the 3rd is skin tone/textures/color. if you look at the model's face in the 1st image you can tell that the retoucher stopped about 1 billionth of a fraction short with smoothing and toning and blurring and noise reduction and so on, before it would have completely ruined the image. and to my eye, he/she maybe went over the line a tad.

the background and composition are important, but i dont think that's what you're looking for here. you can also include contrast and so on between the foreground and background for punch, but again, that's probably not what you're looking for either.

glamour photography is all about makeup and hair and perfect skin and clothing and highlights and shadows and contrast and all those things that would make someone stand out in a crowd. you want punch. you want attention. you want to lure the viewer in.

i'm hardly an expert, but those 3 points are what i see as the major differences.

Craig

[PatrickB]

Hi Craig,

you didn't quite hit the point in what I wanted to express

I attached another pic here which I call "normally retouched". Perhaps this makes you understand the difference between them?

This one is obviously retouched in a traditional way. But the first one (with the army top) is still different...

[Dreamypix]

In the army top, the skin is overly smooth, no details in the skin at all. IMO this is a bad retouch. You can def tell that it was retouched. Whereas the 2nd glamour retouch has some details in the skin (not much) but to the common eye it's more realistic. Ms. Barbie skin doesn't seem real at all due to the plastic look. Maybe this wasn't the answer you wanted either, but I hope it helps. To me it's seems to be more saturated as well?? At least her skin tones...

Hope you find the answer because it's an interesting question!

~Amber~

[Dreamypix]

Here's what I came up with in PS7. Let me know if this is what you had in mind and I will write the steps I took to achieve this. Hard to retouch her skin because of the low resolution.

In the army shirt I also noticed that even though the photographer used rembrant lighting- the lighting is really flat. It could be the retouch or that is how they set up the lighting (1:1/2:1). But that is another fashion thing-flat lighting. But I am more used to seeing Butterfly lighting used in fashion than rembrant.

If I think of anything else I will send it your way.
Hope that helps.

~Amber~

[Kraellin]

ok, let's do a little side by side here and you tell me what you see.

to me, the the image on the left is over-retouched. the eyes are fine, the hair is fine, the lips could stand a bit more texture, but the skin has been overdone. the highlights are too high, and the mix of tones is too severe. both have lost almost all the texture, but the one of the right looks more like she lost the texture from the application of makeup rather than retouching, so it looks better to me. a 'natural' looking photo is one that shows how a person looks at the time the shot was taken. so, if the person had a great makeup job and then the photo, that's fine. but, if the retouching alters the image to make it look like she had a great makeup job, you have to be pretty good. the image on the left has gone over into the 'pasty/plastic' look a bit too much, to my eye. the one on the right hasnt as much. it looks more like a good makeup job that is covering up textures.

hehe, i dont know if that's what you were talking about either, but keep going; we'll eventually get what each other is talking about.

Craig

[Andrew B.]

Is this somewhat in the direction you are trying for?

[PatrickB]

Ok, I deleted the second picture in my first post since it's obviously distracting most of you Neither did I mean anything about the retouching work done on the first picture, it's merely the overall look and feel.

The first one seems to be much much more sophisticated while the second one I posted is more of a traditional glamour/beauty retouch. But there is still a big difference. First one looks "more decent", don't know how to put that in words, it's colors look flatter, in some way, yet being very well adjusted. Maybe you can compare it with a tv-screen and an LCD display, the colors are the same but yet the LCDs brightness is somewhat turned down while preserving full contrast.

I am lost

[Flora]

Let me call the pictures

1= Army Top
2= Under the trees
3= Portrait

In my opinion, the difference between 1 and 2 is that 1 has been heavily manipulated while 2 barely so ... if at all ...

The differences between 1 and 3 is that, even if both seem to suffer from a severe case of 'oversmoothing', 1 brings this, partially, to the extreme .... while some effort was done to keep something resembling texture around eyes and mouth, her cheeks and décolleté are vintage plastic ....the colours are good though .... 3 isn't that bad but still very unnatural ...

...but the real difference between 1 and 3 is the very strong 'edge sharpening' in 1 which drastically detaches the subject from background giving much more impact to the whole image ... while 3 is much softer and and the subject's edges ever so softly fade into the background

[Andrew B.]

The main contribution I see to the difference you describe is the makeup, not the retouch style.

[Panpan]

Glamour is about the model and fashion is about the clothes.

My impression of the Vogue look is more about posture: a runway model striking a stylised pose. I didn't know there was a Vogue retouching style.

The main difference I see between the two images is the simple background of the 1st. Looking at Vogue covers, that seems a general feature. So that could be part of the retouching effort.

Anyway, my best idea is to ask her what she means .

[PatrickB]

I did that, the answer was: I don't know, there's just a difference! LOL

What I noticed first was those pictures are mostly a lot darker than usual photos, not underexposed but the upper quarter of light range was very narrow.

[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...

[PatrickB]

Seems like a simple overlay on the skin to me, right?

It's kind of somewhat closer, but still lacks the feel I'm missing

[Flora]

Hi Patrick,

Is this in the right direction?

[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