RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Technique > Photo Retouching
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Photo Retouching "Improving" photos, post-production, correction, etc.

Going for the terry richardson look

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 03-24-2010, 01:05 PM
ezprod ezprod is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 55
Re: Going for the terry richardson look

Or you can simply molest your models, shoot mostly naked in front of them and shock them. Bam, terry richardson results.
Reply With Quote top
  #12  
Old 03-24-2010, 08:47 PM
holgaman's Avatar
holgaman holgaman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 135
Re: Going for the terry richardson look

Andrewwintour-
From what I've seen of Terry's work, he shoots with a shutter speed high enough to not let in much ambient light. His shadows are usually quite dark, yours are too soft and light. Also, the environment and the situation has a lot to do with his look. Even in a fashion shoot with beautiful models, there always seems to be those ugly details (like the wall sockets with the cord in the photo above), that shifts the whole scene to his level of weirdness and/or debauchery. You should probably re-shoot the shot if you're really going for the Richardson look. There's a lot more to his look than just the technical (or non-techical), you have to think like him, live his life (just don't get arrested).

That being said, I've never really been a big or little fan of his. Basically, he reproduces the technical look that anyone just picking up a camera with a flash for the first time produces, and adds his own bizarre slant. I personally don't see it as anything great or amazing. My guess is that he takes pictures rather than seeing a psychiatrist, which doesn't impress me in the least. Compare his work with Avedon's studio portraits - Avedon used very simple light, you hardly even notice where the light is coming from, but captures moments that are in an entirely different league from Richardson's - they are art.
Reply With Quote top
  #13  
Old 03-25-2010, 03:50 PM
Caesium Caesium is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 92
Re: Going for the terry richardson look

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezprod View Post
Or you can simply molest your models, shoot mostly naked in front of them and shock them. Bam, terry richardson results.
Thank you! I was going to be so horribly upset if someone had not made the joke yet.
Reply With Quote top
  #14  
Old 03-28-2010, 07:26 PM
teknofile teknofile is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3
Re: Going for the terry richardson look

I've worked on some of Terry's images and it's really nothing special in terms of retouching/color correcting. Seriously, it's mostly white balancing, which is easy when 80% of jobs are shot against white walls. Add a touch of contrast and that's about it. Really. I mean it. He doesn't over think it and neither should you.
Reply With Quote top
  #15  
Old 04-05-2010, 05:43 PM
clicks2's Avatar
clicks2 clicks2 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 15
Re: Going for the terry richardson look

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveB2005 View Post
I have seen his work and there is nothing really complex to getting his "snapshot" look. On camera flash, hard shadows, funny expressions.

Check out the famous Vogue photographer Steven Meisel's work if you really want to see some impressive fashion images.

Steve

Agreed. TR's photo-style is more "Reality TV-ish" which may explain why it is popular. In my opinon, I find it lazy. and litle thought is put into it. Don't get me wrong, he is a talented photographer. But lately his work is more about soft-core, Myspace-like imagery then about the technical savvy (ala SMeisel).

Personally, I enjoy complicated images as I think in complicated terms (just ask my wife, hahaha!)
Reply With Quote top
  #16  
Old 11-22-2011, 12:25 AM
r*po r*po is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 45
Re: Going for the terry richardson look

I like Terry, he's a great example of makes photography so great in that you don't have to be a technical shooter to do interesting work or work that can be recognized broadly.
In interviews his attitude about it seems pretty good and he's just happy to be there and be able to do it. I don't get much of an impression of putting on heirs with him which is nice. He doesn't claim to always know what he's doing and he just wants to have fun with it and sometimes thats a great approach to getting a good image. The point of his style is to not over think it. call it lazy, but he gets paid well to do what he likes to do.

In an interview he talks about how he started, using a Kyocera point and shoot because his eyesight was so bad he wanted a camera that he didnt have to think much about. This was a pretty popular hipster camera for awhile because they just took photos like this ( it is however worth noting that despite this being a popular camera hes the only terry richardson and thats whats cool about photography). His style was more about his subjects and have that feel of a good party shot and I always liked that about his stuff. at the time I was taking a lot of photos out at night and I liked the hard falsh look because thats just what it brings to mind. I think its nice to strip a portrait down to a basic lighting style that most professional photographers would never consider and have it be sexy because it isnt overlit or over staged. It gave it a reality factor of a party you werent cool enough to be at but wanted to and hey he blew up. Granted he did take a lot that seemed to be that party you stayed at too long and needed to leave before you were molested by a fuzzy or tr himself.

He also has said that he took that same kyocera when he started getting hired on big jobs but started to shoot digital when people literally laughed at him for showing up with this little point and shoot camera and places the flash to essentially mimic the same position as the point and shoot, but thats why a style can be a good thing for you and its yours, theres plenty of people with the same camera that cant take the same shot and theres a lot of people that use this lighting style now for fashion that still don't come close and I think people should give him a break for that.

Ive seen some nice versions of this look on digital leica point and shoots actually, besides having the same basic flash position they just seem to get the tones right without much work in post.

What I like about his images is common across the board for high end fashion, nice even skin tones that are a bit more matte than this lighting style lends itself to be for most people and yes there is a lot of retouching but theres only so much you can do without going too far and ruining that raw illusion. Before, the film was responsible for most of the look, film has a much broader tonal range and does really beautiful things to skintones that you just have to retouch digitally to get. That is though what makes digital nice is how much detail it will get and how much range you have to work with and be your own lab, but most of what is still being done in fashion is meant to look like what film and makeup would do on its own under the right conditions, otherwise it just starts to look too plastic really.

I dont think theres anything wrong with making these posts on here and people shouldn't post if they aren't going to contribute positively.

Its a retouch and learning forum. you say you want to accomplish a terry richardson look you should get info back on how to get closer that not whether or not he's good. and if you don't know you shouldn't post because it gives misinformation and leads you the wrong way.
Someone suggested Meisel to look at and if you don't know who he is but want to shoot fashion you've probably seen a lot of his images and didn't know it, he's awesome, also look at Testino and steven Klein as some staple fashion photographers that do really beautiful work and there's many many more, but thats not what you asked about.

a lot of times with photography you get inspiration from a lot places and sometimes the best way to learn is to try and mimc something you saw and liked and then you find your own style somewhere in there. famous artists since the renaissance all borrowed heavily form their contemporaries styles and had their own emerge within that.
Its still true today that if you want to shoot high end fashion there are certain "looks" the images needs to have because ist just what people are used to until someone else comes along who breaks all the rules and gives a new set of standards to follow.
I say do both, try from shoots you've seen but try to be true to yourself, shoot often and experiment and think about why you're shooting this subject, and what it is you want to communicate, if there even is anything, sometimes thats only for the group of people standing around a forum debating wether you're style is worth a damn or not. Fuck em if they cant take a joke, your'e doing what you love.

sorry for the rant but i get tired of seeing post on here where people seem to be trying not to help the question.

someone suggested a small beauty dish and I personally think that would diffuse the light too much for this particular style but is a great light to play with.
Like I said for his earlier stuff just get a Kyocera if you can find one, they are discontinued but still floating around. for the digital stuff get an SLR use a regular flash positioned to mimic a point and shoot, there's attachments for this or have an assistant hold it and play with the position.
Just look up "flash brackets" and you'll see all sorts of fun options, a lot position the flash higher than it would be if you just mounted it straight on the camera and that brings the shadows down a bit which is good for keeping those hard shadows most photographers would try and avoid away from the face. Look up terry richardson too theres behind the scenes videos out there, you can see him shooting.

note though that the power source for a regular flash gives you some limitations but for personal work its fine and the less junk and people you have around you the more fun you can have with the model and get some of those moments terry is known for.

I really really dont recommend the nude molesting your models part unless that's who you are. it worked for getting his stuff recognized in the beginning and thats just part of who he is but professionally its not something models or clients will put up with on most occasions.
Reply With Quote top
  #17  
Old 11-22-2011, 03:23 AM
insmac insmac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 190
Re: Going for the terry richardson look

The guy above has a point

I find most of my favorite shots done just playing around, during a quick gap between changing the clothes and the makeup, or just after trying the pose which happened to be a huge fail. There's a moment of smth like stretching or decompression from a staged frame and that particular few secs often occur to be the best.

I agree with the idea of not expecting certain poses from certain people - which was posted by cyberphonics a few posts upwards. Terry became a legend by being consistent on using jokes throughout his shots. The fact is, you're not limited to laugh in order to do so. Someone above suggested Meisel as an example of the hi-fashion craft, lighting, posing and so on and with this I also agree. But take a look:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__doDJVY0di...28-600x403.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__doDJVY0di...11-600x403.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__doDJVY0di...-meisel-10.jpg

These are the parts of two Vogue editiorials done by him. How often do you see supermodels in a mental ward so deeply engaged in their play? Some of the images are even shot and retouched in order to achieve the "paparazzi look". Of course it's been done before, you may say, but these look surprisingly well.
Reply With Quote top
  #18  
Old 11-24-2011, 05:01 AM
Pics2 Pics2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 75
Re: Going for the terry richardson look

His flash is on camera or on a bracket that put it even closer to the lens. His work is what's Martin Parr in documentary photography. When you first see Martin Parr picture you say: What a ... is this? But after longer period of time you just star to adore him.
Reply With Quote top
  #19  
Old 11-24-2011, 06:06 AM
fraiseap fraiseap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 104
Re: Going for the terry richardson look

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pics2 View Post
His flash is on camera or on a bracket that put it even closer to the lens. His work is what's Martin Parr in documentary photography. When you first see Martin Parr picture you say: What a ... is this? But after longer period of time you just star to adore him.
How long do you think it will it take me to like Terry Richardson's "style". After all "Ars longa vita brevis".

I do think that his images are successful because he shoots some of the best models in the world, not because of his photographic skill.

Having said that, Terry Richardsons lighting style can be emulated, as long as the flash is close to the camera axis, by a simple curves adjustment layer to brighten the mid tones, moving the black point on a levels layer to darken the shadows and an increase in contrast.
Reply With Quote top
  #20  
Old 11-25-2011, 07:07 PM
r*po r*po is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 45
Re: Going for the terry richardson look

Quote:
Originally Posted by fraiseap View Post
How long do you think it will it take me to like Terry Richardson's "style". After all "Ars longa vita brevis".

I do think that his images are successful because he shoots some of the best models in the world, not because of his photographic skill.

Having said that, Terry Richardsons lighting style can be emulated, as long as the flash is close to the camera axis, by a simple curves adjustment layer to brighten the mid tones, moving the black point on a levels layer to darken the shadows and an increase in contrast.
the point is it doesnt matter if you like him or not. Some of the highest paying clients in high end lifestyle companies do and pay him a lot for his work. Galleries like his work and a large group of "influential" people thought it was a refreshing departure from the standard technical work everyone else does long before he started shooting famous people. Even so, you don't have to like him if its not your thing plenty other styles out there. Plenty of other photographers with different approaches.

This thread is for a photographer who is curious about this approach.

ars longa.. actually suggests experimentation is dangerous and in photography the opposite is true in finding how you want to shoot.
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Technique > Photo Retouching


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved