How to acheive this look

[i.ilievski]

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

[makeovermagic]

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

[Cassidy]

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

[snook305]

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,
But jumping in Saying Oh that is easy Just makes my skin curl...
Just my 2 cents.
Snook

[buchner]

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

[Godmother]

AM I CLoser?

Mostly dodge and burn (With a set of curves)

Selective colour

Contrast and so long...

[snook305]

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.
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...
Anyways looks good. Just maybe missing that oily "wet" contrasty skin I guess.
Looks good
Snook

[singlo]

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.)

[Photo678]

Originally Posted by emarts

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

[Godmother]

Originally Posted by singlo

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"

[Cassidy]

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

[goose443]

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.

[lkroll]

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.

[bart_hickman]

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

[NancyJ]

Originally Posted by snook305

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