Can ANYONE help me duplicate this effect?

[scottben]

Ok, these images are being processed somehow and I can not for the life of me duplicate it.

The background is becoming extremely contrasty and saturated, and yet the flesh tones on the models become broad and smooth (better than any skin processing I've seen in fact). For example in the first pair of images, notice near the models chest in the un-processed image, the brown tone of her skin almost perfectly matches the brown curtain in the background - and yet, after processing, the curtain becomes blown out.

I have to assume this process is completely automated, because the images come from a site that is updated daily with about 10 models. If you are interested, I can fwd you the site, but it does contain nudity.

Can anyone replicate this and let me know what genius act it took to be done?

Scott

[pixelzombie]

it looks like a plug in, i recall seeing a sample that looks similar to the effect above:

http://www.autofx.com/mystical_ttc/mystical_ttc.html

[mcupido]

just mask out the model and you can do whatever you want right? this was done in less than a minute.........take 3mins and ik looks good.

[mcupido]

what a cheesy pic btw

[scottben]

thanks pixelzombie - you may be onto something here - it looks like the plugin may be applying saturation based on focus or luminance or something, and allows you to apply some basic masking. I'll give it a try.

mcupido - did you see the processed images? your 1min result looks nothing like them, especially dealing with the flesh hilites. And the 'cheesyness' of the photo is kind of irrelevant. I am looking at what appears to be a rather advanced image processing technique that could be quite useful to people going after that hard to achieve smooth skin look.


s

[mcupido]

sorry dude .......

try kodak airbrush plug-in for smooth skin....
http://www.asf.com/products/plugins/.../pluginAIRPRO/

[superkoax]

this effect is done in 2 ways...first the skin, then the background.,.or the other way around...there must be a reason why the pictures with the effect is smaller then the original...maybe the contrast get's too high in the background...???

gerry

[scottben]

I think the images are smaller because they are used for links to picture albums is all...

[superkoax]

okey...I was thinking in that direction afterwards...but why are the original pictures bigger?

G

[Baby]

I don't think this is one process. I think the saturation and lightness of the background is done in one process, and the skin in another. For the skin, it's definitely been smoothed, and then maybe even something like a softlite layer. There are already plenty of highlights in her skin, and they'd get enhanced with some of these processes. If not to the degree you'd want, you could always go back with some layer masking and curves adjustments.

If you're looking for a shorter process, I have no idea. But I'd be interested in it too!

[grannysdc]

Did the girl then the background

Masked the girl used levels, brightness/contrast, hue/saturation to bring out the highlights then smoothed skin using action called "KentC skin fix." The one called "paint soft skin"

Used levels, brightness/contrast, hue/saturation on the background till I was happy.. cleaned up some of the cutout jaggies.. which, I found out, was why the sample was soooo small... when magnified you could see the cutout on the model..

I know mine is not perfect either but the idea is there..

[scottben]

Thanks for the attempt grannysdc. I don't think the small versions are to hide anything, they are just being used as links to full albums. I also question what you think is a visible mask on the processed image - I believe it's an artifact of whatever process or filter they are using. There are just far too many of these types of images being processed on the site I found them at for them to be done by hand, individually. Your end result just looks overy processed, and won't hold up even at screen resolution.

s

[Baby]

I think you asked if anyone could help you replicate this process. But so far, two people have tried to show you their attempts to come close to that look, and you've criticized both of them for doing so. I'm new here. Is that how this forum works?

[scottben]

Sorry, I'll be more considerate when people try to help. This is not how the forms should work.

[grannysdc]

Baby.. I followed your advice.. except for the softlite layer.. and THANKS for sticking up for us...

if he thinks he is going to get a finished product here he is in for a big surprise.. all the examples presented to him here need... is some further tweaking.. My feelings are really hurt... (NOT)

Scottben wrote:
>I also question what you think is a visible mask on the
> processed image - I believe it's an artifact of whatever
> process or filter they are using.

The "Process" is called "MASKING" scott.. and DUH, YEA, it is an artifact when there is a line all the way around the girl..

I would like to see a sample of his work flow and what he has tried thus far..

If, like he says there is a production area to process these images then the process shouldn't take longer than 5 minuets.. if you know what you are doing and do it all day long..

I don't think he really wants to learn the process... Me thinks that "Scottben" is looking for the magic one button answer instead of a learning experience..

Also when he PM's me with a "thank you" then Spam's an Old Granny with the address to go to see a bunch of naked ladies on the site he visited... it makes me suspicious of his intent...

Guess I will chalk this up to practice...instead of help..

[scottben]

I PM'd you the site as not to post adult material to the forums - not spam. I assumed seeing all the examples of the processing - you might conclude that it's not someone slaving over each image. I apologize the images are adult oriented - nudity, not pornography. I would think you might be mature enough to look past the nature of the photos, and see what I am pointing out.

Why is it so hard to believe that the process is not hand done?

The 'further tweaking' the samples need is exactly the opposite of what I'm looking for insight on. It seems obvious to be that there is no pro retoucher with years of experience working on a nude photo blog - what a waste of time and energy.

I would in fact would love to learn the process. I am simply stating that given the examples, and the sheer quantity of examples - I believe the process is a simple one. It seems as though it's beyond you that this process could be simplified.

I admit I don't know how it's done - but I do have enough knowledge and experience to know that it is certainly possible to have this process simplified. And what I have provided is 100% clear evidence that it has in fact been simplified - I am just hoping that some of the more pro users here could shed some light on it.

And as for your DUH YEAH masking comment - did you even look at the other hundreds of examples I sent you - and see an obvious mask in them? - no. This is not amatuer hour, I know what I am talking about.

I've read other threads on this form where people gripe about not having a before/after set to work from when a particular image style is up for discussion, and attempted to re-create. I've done that here, and yet, still more griping.

You can dismiss something you don't understand, which is the easy way out.

[jimhob]

I like the look as well.

This has potential to be close to what you are looking for....
http://www.autofx.com/mystical_ttc/m..._safari_lg.jpg

I'd like to see more images done like this. =) Where did you see them?