Going for the terry richardson look

[Andrewwintour]

I shot this photo and i wanna give it the terry richardson look.

any suggestions for how I can improve it with photoshop/psp?

[snook305]

First of all terry uses an on camera flash so the shadows are much harder and closer to the body.
So you might need to change your lighting first.
Terry use little to NO photoshop and is what makes his pictures special. Thye are crude and raw.
Not an easy task you have a head of you b/c the boudary beween something great and cheasy snap shot is what you will be battling more than any photoshopping.
Snook

[cptjh]

BUMP

I´m also interested in Terrys look. What about the fashion shot he shoots? Is he still using one flash? Does anyone have any suggestions of how to achive that cold look? Like you said snook, the line between great and cheasy is very thin.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resou...ee%20jeans.jpg

http://frillr.com/files/images/Sisle...10.preview.jpg

Mark

[insmac]

Even though his shots seem raw that doesn't mean they aren't retouched.

You can use a film camera, a highly saturated negative and a dedicated flash in order to achieve the vibrant look you need,
OR use a DSLR with dedicated flash with an E-TTL cord or a wireless trigger to position the flash unit from an angle and play with the lighting direction,
OR use a studio flash with a relative small beauty dish which works best for me.

[204studios]

Terry seems to be less concerned with lighting, composition and PP and more interested in the moment. the connection between him and subject. He captures a moment rather then creating one with fancy lights and hours of Photoshop. I'm not a big fan of him but I do understand what he's trying to do. instead of emulating him... try to find your own style, your own voice. Connect with your model, snap away and pick the perfect shot where you captured the moment. A candid smile, a laugh or cry. Capture the moment that when looked back on the story of that moment just has to be told!

[BinaSchneider]

he's style seems very simple but great how it turns out.

[SteveB2005]

Originally Posted by Andrewwintour

I shot this photo and i wanna give it the terry richardson look.

any suggestions for how I can improve it with photoshop/psp?

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

[garibaldi]

Originally Posted by snook305

First of all terry uses an on camera flash so the shadows are much harder and closer to the body.
So you might need to change your lighting first.
Terry use little to NO photoshop and is what makes his pictures special. Thye are crude and raw.
Not an easy task you have a head of you b/c the boudary beween something great and cheasy snap shot is what you will be battling more than any photoshopping.
Snook

Do you think he stays on the better side of that line simply because his subjects are famous people? Imagine the same shots of ho hum average joes, do you think they would err more on the cheesy snapshot side then? Im truly asking. Take his Jackass series for example, if that wasnt the guys from the show, and it was a bunch of wasted frat guys from North Dakota state univ, and they were on my website under their own section labelled jackasses, do you think I would be landing major campaigns? Im not disrespecting Richardson, I am truly asking a straight question. I understand that art is subjective etc, and theres a place for everything, but when the subject of that type of work comes up and people start discussing it either with praise or with discontent, I really am curious. Is it becasue he is shooting a celebrity, that suddenly that point and shoot blasted with flash snaphot goes from cheesy to oh its so raw and terry richardson?

I did not mean to sway the topic form the original question, but here..... imagine really hard if you will that the example posted by Andrew was of Beyonce for instance. I mean really imagine it (well, except for the hairy armpits she has....but even still, leave the hairy pits, it would make it more raw) now presto.....you dont have to touch a thing, that shot went from a point and shoot shot of some girl nobody knows, to a raw and edgy shot of beyonce....richardson style....oh and look, he even got her to leave the armpit hair....how does he convince his subjects to be so trusting of him....he is a magician!

[cyberphonics]

Originally Posted by garibaldi

Do you think he stays on the better side of that line simply because his subjects are famous people?

Sometimes I think people find things interesting simply because it's not what other people of the same level of fame are doing or have gotten famous for. His images aren't interesting to me personally. They remind me of the shots my buddies put up in their Facebook galleries.

They're all very animated people, not photographers, just a bunch of crazy 20 somethings with point and shoots who like taking pictures of anything they think is funny or weird or creepy so they can laugh about it later on.

So I'm used to seeing images like these all the time - what someone called "in the moment". Still - is it interesting that Terry is famous for this "snapshot style"? Sure.

No, he's not the only one who does it, he's just the one who got pegged for it, and no, it's not hard to replicate, but to be known for something that just looks like plain old pics anyone takes in a sea of remarkably creative images attempting to achieve flawlessness and avoid the very things that are a signature in his images is sort of interesting in and of itself.

It's like the first artist who got famous for something like painting a single line on a canvas. It's not hard, it's not breathtaking, but it's not the visual masterpiece other artists are constantly trying to paint either, so the fact that he had the desire to do that is something people respect and consider him to be even more of an artist for, in turn seeing more in his images than there is when they stand alone.

I think people want to model for him for the same reason - because it's a change of pace. People who are constantly in positions where they need to look a certain way and have everything natural about them critiqued and altered often welcome the opportunity to just do "something else".

Celebrities are a perfect fit for that.

And as for as it being celebrities, I think that lends more to credibility than how much people like the photos. People tend to judge a photographer's work by the quality of his work, yes, but there are also times when people say, "Well, if famous people let him shoot them, he must be legit, there must be something to it".

Particularly when you're talking about models trying to determine if someone is a real photographer or a creep with a camera.

Images with celebrities in them do, generally, have more "value" to the public, though, and to the ones who pay you a pretty penny for them.

A snapshot of your neighbor rubbing her tits on a cow while your friend milks it? Some people may get a kick out of it for it being weird and there being boobs in the shot, but then they'd get over it.

The same picture only with someone like Nicole Kidman rubbing her tits on the cow while Barack Obama milks it? Priceless - because they're "somebody" and most "somebodies", you'd never in your life have the opportunity to see in that kind of situation or even imagine they'd ever be in it in the first place - so whatever photographer can give you that opportunity must be an "artistic genius".

Lastly, I think the "thin line" between great and not is often just intent and continuity. I find pretty much all of Terry's images to be cheesy, but because they're all consistently the same thing, it gives them intent and that elevates it in people's minds - whether they realize it or not - to being something more.

If his entire gallery looked like something out of a standard fashion magazine and then you threw in one of his snapshot style images, people would immediately say, "What the hell is that? Why is that up there with all those great images? Maybe the person in it is a friend or something, because he definitely didn't keep that pic in his port for its quality..."

Whatever you do, however you do it, when you do it consistently, when you make it your "trademark", you give it more artistic weight than if things were just scattered all over the place with no identifiable style whatsoever. Even mistakes can become creative when you make the same one all the time.

Anyway, to the original poster, I would second whoever said to find your own style instead of attempting to replicate someone else's unless it's just for the sake of understanding a technique so you can apply it to your own individual vision.

[Yooner]

Originally Posted by insmac

Even though his shots seem raw that doesn't mean they aren't retouched.

You can use a film camera, a highly saturated negative and a dedicated flash in order to achieve the vibrant look you need,
OR use a DSLR with dedicated flash with an E-TTL cord or a wireless trigger to position the flash unit from an angle and play with the lighting direction,
OR use a studio flash with a relative small beauty dish which works best for me.

Thank you for the one helpful comment. The rest of you must simply not know. I believe you turn the ISO way up, Put your flash to 3/4, and stand close to your subject fully zoomed out. Start with black and white and you'll get that "terry richardson" look soon enough.

"good artists copy, great artists steal"
-Picasso

[ezprod]

Or you can simply molest your models, shoot mostly naked in front of them and shock them. Bam, terry richardson results.

[holgaman]

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.

[Caesium]

Originally Posted by ezprod

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.

[teknofile]

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.

[clicks2]

Originally Posted by SteveB2005

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!)

[r*po]

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.

[insmac]

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.

[Pics2]

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.

[fraiseap]

Originally Posted by Pics2

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.

[r*po]

Originally Posted by fraiseap

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.

[Maximilianr]

Terry Richardson lightsetup is probably the cheapest of all lighting setups. One of my best friends was on set with him in LA helping out and Terry only uses a Mini CB Bracket which you can purchase on B&H and speedlite also a cord running from the top of his camera to the bracket. A photographer in Orlando uses the Terry style and shoot with agencies models.

http://www.shootforyourlife.com/wp-c...ck-suarez1.jpg

[sehmuzb]

Terry Richardson is a genius There, I said it... I used to wonder why would anyone who take simple snapshots would be this famous. I just did not get it until I start shooting fashion and interact with models.

Terry has a distinctive style, simple on the surface but very Zen like He eliminates all the complexity and focuses on the model and eliciting emotions. Also most fashion is shot on single hard light nowadays, so he is in with the current styles.

See the attached image of Mila Kunis: white clean backdrop, hard light, and a great moment captured for the cover of GQ. And the image is definitely retouched for the magazine.

To achieve this look with studio lights you need to try bare-bulb, or reflector directly pointing to the model. For Handheld see the above post about the 'Terry Richardson' flash bracket. It looks funny but it works (no I do not own one).

Getting back to your specific question of how to make your photo look like Terry Richardson style, I'm afraid it will not be easy. The photo you have is a soft light shot, also the direction of the shadows are not correct. What I suggest may not be easy to do but :

1. Remove the shadows on the background
2. Increase the contrast, add some crispness with high pass
3. Rebuild the shadows using the image
4. Overlay the image on the new shadows
5. Probably need to tweak catchlights as well

I'd say it is a lot of work for simulating such simple method of photography.

[plugsnpixels]

I hadn't heard of Terry before reading this thread so I did a Google. Funny, on one website where Terry's photo of Sean Lennon and his girlfriend recreating the famous John and Yoko pose is shown, a reader comments, "...whoever took this picture is a near amateur at lighting and that lousy tousled sheet background. This ends up saying a lot about the decline of photography as well as music."

I'm surprised the OP had to even ask how these pix were done, they're so basic (I call it "assault lighting", which in Terry's case might be unintentionally appropriate ;-) ). IMO this is one of those cases where someone doing everyday imagery (in terms of technique; his interaction with his subjects is a bit unique) is somehow catapulted into megastardom in the fashion industry due to some odd combination of personal quirks (cannot be described here) and dress style (Deliverance for nerds, anyone?).

Given what is said in the various articles about Terry, I'm surprised the FBI hasn't visited him yet... Or that he continues to receive work. Then again, this is a mirror image of what goes on in Hollywood.

And before I read it in a comment above I was also going to say, stop trying to emulate others and get your own style of shooting and retouching. If someone is already doing something, why do you want to do the same?

[Maximilianr]

^ Funny you asked a lot of new photographer emulate others that have a certain style they seem attractive I know I do. Now if terry richardson's style is simple and amazing plus gets him magazine gigs wouldn't you want that as a upcoming photographer?. I know I would! I'll get the same light setup, learn how to do post similar to his ways and people would notice that I can do terry's style and I would work my way up. Now I don't mean copy and paste everything he does but a lot of photographers do workshops to show others their post work or lighting. Emulate never duplicate!

[plugsnpixels]

I don't know exactly how Terry worked his way up with a lot of people already shooting like that (whether they mean to or not), so... Must be all the other "stuff" he does!