How to: "Annie leibovitz' Queen Elizabeth" look

[garibaldi]

Originally Posted by krisdaloo

whoa dude, if your implying that the shot(s) is what it is, because of post production, that's just uncool. i'm not saying retouching doesn't play its part, but she is far from someone who presses a button and leaves the rest up to someone else to fix.

I think youre missing the point, the question originallly posted was about how to achieve the look in that photo, not the photo itself as far as composition. So yes, in this case it deals with the retouching and colors, and that is a part that Im sure is handed off to another person (what does everyone say she uses, Box studios?) Up to that point, her Canon 1DS spits out the same RAW file mine does. So in essence, I could have plopped the queen down next to the window, set my strobes up with an octabank and kickers, handheld it and fired away for 20 minutes. Only.... I would have had the queen look a little less bored, and I probably would have told her to leave the crown on, but to try it topless for a few shots just to see what we came up with....ahahhahahaha

[PatrickB]

Garibaldi,

I see by your writing, you do not want to see the point in my posting.

I do not care about the name of the artist or whether it's a photographer or retoucher, so there is no use in critism at all. But what I did say is, there is no use in asking about what kind of tool to use, nor how to use it, if you don't know the color you want to paint with!

There just is no magic, no secret gizmo and no filter to get the effects those people are famous for.

But I guess it's useless to explain, unless people realize the special style and touch of a persons artwork cannot be copied by applying filters.

[garibaldi]

Are you freaking kidding me!!!! I can buy an exact copy of the last supper painting, done on velvet, with a gold frame for less than $20 in any flea market across the country.. You would be hard pressed to tell the difference from the orginal. Last year for Christmas I got an EXACT replica of the "David" statue....guess what, it was a handsoap! Now its worn down do a small sliver sitting in my soapdish. So you wanna start talking about copying work we can do that.

[PatrickB]

Ok, the straight way then:

To create a photo like the ones you posted, skills are only 10% of the show. The rest is a gifted artist. You are no gifted artist, so your photos will never reach the class and level of Annie Leibovitz' pictures.

Was that freaking clear enough?

[transoptic]

Originally Posted by PatrickB

Ok, the straight way then:

To create a photo like the ones you posted, skills are only 10% of the show. The rest is a gifted artist. You are no gifted artist, so your photos will never reach the class and level of Annie Leibovitz' pictures.

Was that freaking clear enough?

wow, i hope there's a secret magic trick for removing the stick out of your ass.

[CaptainHook]

Take it to PM's or anywhere else.

[Benny Profane]

Originally Posted by krisdaloo

whoa dude, if your implying that the shot(s) is what it is, because of post production, that's just uncool. i'm not saying retouching doesn't play its part, but she is far from someone who presses a button and leaves the rest up to someone else to fix.

Well, she's directing the process. But Annie don't retouch. And her pics are retouched a lot.


I remember her being proud way back when she was a Rolling Stone photog about not using a light meter. So she has a long history of techs saving her butt.

[krisdaloo]

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Well, she's directing the process. But Annie don't retouch. And her pics are retouched a lot.


I remember her being proud way back when she was a Rolling Stone photog about not using a light meter. So she has a long history of techs saving her butt.

I'm not trying to take credit away from retouching, in fact I have a lot a pride in my work. I know that post can make the shot... But there is a clear difference in the photographer making the shot, and the photographer's retoucher making it. You don't get a reputation like that from someone else's work.

[Ant]

kris, you may know my friend/past co-worker Trevor B?

[Benny Profane]

Think of her as more like a film director rather than a pure photographer. That would make it easier.

[Ant]

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Think of her as more like a film director rather than a pure photographer. That would make it easier.

Gotta disagree here. You ever check out her book A photographer's life 1990-2005? That's only just 15 years and she has been shooting for much longer than that. She's most likely made more exposures than half the other 'legends'. True artists need not be techno nerds, especially in this day and age. There is more to photography than perfect exposure, etc. Sure, we all know she has teams of crew and that often she may only just come into the set and press the shutter, but it's more than that. You may work on selects that she shot that are less than perfect technically, but they were chosen for other than that. Plus, what artist isn't striving for perfection, whether it's capturing the moment or finalizing the ultimate vision be it the art directors', photo editors' or hers. "I want to because we can and it's expected of me." je refuse! non. no one else is. I'm rambling and incoherent. oh well.

[Benny Profane]

Hey, I love her stuff. The Sopranos portraits in Vanity fair last year were fantastic. I've enjoyed her stuff since '69 or so, when she covered the Rolling Stones tour for RS. And I guess I'm talking out of the wrong end since I've never seen her work, so, I'm outta heya. Good night.

[janekm]

Originally Posted by garibaldi

that really didnt make any sense. But, if you are seriously comparing AL to Michaelangelo, then your on crack. lets do apples to apples here, im sure michaelangelo didnt roll in with a Dewalt air compressor and a wagner spray gun, and a bunch of $5/hr assistants, shoot the ceiling, with a base coat and then hand the rest of the job off to a retoucher to finish it off. That guy gets props becasue he did it all himself. Word around the campfire is that he made the red color in the paint with his own blood, and the browns were made from his....well you get the point. None the less, those two clowns arent even in the same league, sport, or arena for that matter.

But to get back on track, nobody still has answered the original question anyway.

Do you really believe Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel himself? That man used a bigger team than AL
http://www.newstatesman.com/200211250029

[bitzao]

Originally Posted by Ant

kris, you may know my friend/past co-worker Trevor B?

not sure ant... why would kris know me?

[xfx]

Here are some new shots and behind the scenes of Annie's Leibovitz work...Enjoy.

http://journeys.louisvuitton.com/

[hermanvangestel]

she had taken the backgrounds separate the day's before while scouting, this was in the gardens...she would have wished the queen would go outside with her robe, but no...but in the end she photographed the queen in front of a grey canvas in one of the chambers ...remember she had only 25 minutes for this whole private session......no time for change either...the queen started with 3 layers of clothings and with every set took one garment of....

I'm still very curious about the colour use....

Herman

[_ManWithNoName_]

I find it a bit strange. In the shot where she asked the queen to take of her helmet, there didn't seem to be a huge elaborate lighting setup, unless I am missing something. She was by a large opened door.

So I would say there was a lot of retouching on this shot to get the look. I am far from an expert tho and I suppose this is a question, not a statement...

D

[r*po]

Originally Posted by PatrickB

Millions of people paint their appartments when they move houses.

Thousands of people make a living as a house painter.

But there was only one Michelangelo...



I wonder how many people who just finished painting their apartment look at the paint-bucket, see there is some color left and then go to the internet and ask "Hey, how do I make a Leonardo da Vinci painting?"

this type of response goes without saying. This is a forum for retouching, this should be an expected question and help for people trying to reach work that is highly valued in the community wether its to your taste or not. at least this response is clever but theres a lot of this here.

THE ORIGINAL QUESTION since every post has really little to do with it:
how to achieve
greenish/brown/golden look of the image.

a very respectable question on color grading

also shouldn't be so much debate about if theres post work or not, there is , a lot of it on all her stuff. even if there wasn't theres a way to do it in photoshop.

I personally cant do it to a point im content with so I cant help here and if I could I wouldn't be on this site anyway because Id have the answer.

in plenty of posts on here people happily share tidbits and even some screenshots on possible solutions to get closer to a color grade. Yes it will take time to learn and get good at even if someone on here knows the exact recipe.

she doesnt really do anything that out of the ordinary as far as the color and plenty of other photographers use the same color grading. yet there is surprising very little reliable guides to the best course in getting there. Lots of bad ones out there though. and box cant be the only place that knows these things Ive even seen new unknown photographers that have been close enough.

Annie and other portrait photographers like her use color grading common with movies and there seems to be plenty of colorists that know those basic grades. doesn't mean they can do them as well or the same but it helps them in the market and they can either choose to just mimic or take that knowledge and grow from it and find how these tools best can be used in their work.

It would be nice to find a resource that offers a good tutorial for that renaissance painting style coloring that is on the right path. or even if theres other cinematic color tutorials that are out there and available that dont require the use of of buying some filter.

if you dont know, dont care, or simply dont want to share thats all fine, just dont post.

how to get a greenish/brown golden color grade to your image seems like a perfectly good and would be helpful question.

maybe lets take the Annie Leibovitz part out and just focus on the image color, assuming you've got your 1d, prosoft lighter on hand, its a well exposed raw key lit by the window on a semi cloudy day and you've dodged and burned it to where you like the tone, holy crap, that sort of Leibovitz/...but you just aren't happy with the color....

what to do what to do, ive got those curves, thats not working right, some selective color and saturation, nope.. mask this? nope. Gradient map?
Im missing something basic here,maybe over thinking, maybe not enough, wtf is it... oh heres a retouch pro topic, thats usually helpful...

nope..

could be ...

we've all learned in different ways, some technically trained, others from experience and sometimes it just helps to have some guidelines to go with so you know you're on the right track. if in the process you help some punk who's never used a camera in their life but found this site, don't be a grump, be a teacher. and I don't know about you but getting smacked by a teacher with a ruler didnt help me a damn bit.

rant complete.

golden/brown, Renaissance. lets do this

[r*po]

Randomly just came across this tutorial. Their end result goes a bit too far for my taste especially in the skin and hair but the landscape and the clothing looks pretty good. I havent done it yet but as a tutorial it seems to give you a lot to work with for that painting style light and although it looks like the resource pieces already have gone through adjustments they dont show that youd have to do in your own work.

http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/t...FeatureID=1941