i'm just amazed with this...

LostHighway · #1 07-29-2009, 07:04 PM

Godmother · #2 07-29-2009, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LostHighway

do you think there is so much retouch here?
some of them is evident in colors, but skins as well?

I don't think so - I've seen that done in RAW with just lighting.

x

ray12 · #3 07-29-2009, 11:03 PM

The camera captures reality...the reality of the models existing skin...problems and all...the reality of specialized and controlled creative lighting...and creative posing, wardrobe, makeup, props.

Some people that spend a LOT of time in PRE-PRODUCTION and can attend to all these elements and try to optimize each aspect as best as possible. Some have a good sense about this instinctively and are gifted...some have experience based on experimentation...or learning from others.

It is my experience that those that point and shoot...just get average images...those that are more committed to learning the craft can get very superb images with smart efforts....BUT...BUT

Even the best models, even the best photographers, even the best cameras and lights...they ALL can go only so far...after that its time for Photoshop. Retouching is an artistic skill much like the makeup artist in front of the camera...we can take care of things...to make them look better than reality.

Most images that are almost perfect...combine all of these elements as part of a total process. The model, the art director, the lighting tech, the makeup artist, the photograpger, the equipment and the retouch artist are all a part of a continuous chain. If the team is experienced, or gifted, or professional in skills...some prtetty hot stuff can be created!

If youre just starting out, or just learning, or need time and experience...then the best you can do is to learn how to observe and pick up the aspects of these elements...and try to string all the aspects together to make your own magic. You will be better if you have worked at this for 3 or 5 years...Unless youre gifted...craftsmanship takes time!!

Ray12

Quantum3Studio · #4 07-30-2009, 12:14 AM

Yeah Ray, I agree with 99% of your comment, but the camera doesn't capture the reality. That's seems to be, but it's an illusion =D

ray12 · #5 07-30-2009, 12:22 AM

Quantum,

Yes, I agree with you 100%...

Its all about illusion creation, illusion capturing, and illusion modifying. If you miss any one of the 3 illusion steps...then ugly reality sets in...and then your image looks like regular ugly!! LOL

Most of us dont have the patience or skill to control all 3 elements of the "creating an illusion process". It takes a dedicated, observant, scientific, artistic, creative, and craftsman like individual or team to come up with those images that we all drool over. Thats why I like photography and retouching so much...it uses the best of science and art to create stunning beauty!

Quantum3Studio · #6 07-30-2009, 12:54 AM

Now we agree 100% Reality absolutely sucks. You know, I have a quote I made myself "Life smells like shit, and we spend every cent in perfumes" (and we're the perfumes!) lol!!!

LostHighway · #7 07-30-2009, 03:21 AM

totally true what you are talking people.
agree 100% (and the reality usually sucks, yeah!).

in my opinion the light is the key here.
he knows controlling it perfectly. the compositions are a huge part of each capture, he knows create a believable atmosphere, telling us stories.

BUT, that "bokeh" series for example, would be impossible without retouching.
beauty shots as well, and some colors are totally redefined.

so we are agree it's a really nice and controlled combination of elements.
a genius.

Quantum3Studio · #8 07-30-2009, 11:53 AM

I think those 2 photos with the bokeh effect in form of little circles is mounted. I already see many photomontages with that bokeh effect mounted on the picture. Also, the depth of field of those 2 pictures is quite closed, no less than f/11 for sure. Impossible to make a bokeh like that with that focal aperture. IN the next pictures, the same effect is used but more pronounced and it makes obvius that they're mounted.
The lighting is quite normal but damn original. This guy really don't use the silly triangle of lights like moooooost photographers. And also, those lights are edited a lot in PS, very good postprocessing. I like his photos. Thanks for sharing these

LostHighway · #9 07-30-2009, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quantum3Studio

I think those 2 photos with the bokeh effect in form of little circles is mounted. I already see many photomontages with that bokeh effect mounted on the picture. Also, the depth of field of those 2 pictures is quite closed, no less than f/11 for sure. Impossible to make a bokeh like that with that focal aperture. IN the next pictures, the same effect is used but more pronounced and it makes obvius that they're mounted.
The lighting is quite normal but damn original. This guy really don't use the silly triangle of lights like moooooost photographers. And also, those lights are edited a lot in PS, very good postprocessing. I like his photos. Thanks for sharing these

indeed, but i never said that bokeh effect was real, but i really like how is composed and introduced.
in my opinion is not a "hey you, look my spectacular skills", he save a really good taste for the light, the girls and the scenes. and when it's beauty, it's real-real look as hell.

that triangle is not welcome here haha. as said the post-processing is very good. no so much spectacular. just smooth and brilliant.

and you're welcome Quantum.

pd: by the way do you talk spanish?

snook305 · #10 07-30-2009, 12:32 PM

The Guy is incredible talented.. and that is the bottom line.
No photoshop.
His lighting is Masterly and anybody saying otherwise is belittling themselves.

He combines different color temperatures and Gels to achieve a well thought out and well balanced image.
Kudos to him for being so talented and putting out images like that.
And Thnaks to the poster because I have never seen this guy before and his portfolio is OUTSTANDING to say the least!!

Get over, It is not all photoshop.. I am sick and tired of hearing people give credit to Photoshop.
This guys images are stellar, well thought out, and he obviuosly working wih VERY talented people including the whole crew!
Photoshop is something people in here are looking to for the answer which is sad.

Snook

Or you can beleive the know it all Godmother and do it all by RAW like she has obviuosly Done.. That is Great trick she let you in on..

Godmother · #11 07-30-2009, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snook305

The Guy is incredible talented.. and that is the bottom line.
No photoshop.
His lighting is Masterly and anybody saying otherwise is belittling themselves.

He combines different color temperatures and Gels to achieve a well thought out and well balanced image.
Kudos to him for being so talented and putting out images like that.
And Thnaks to the poster because I have never seen this guy before and his portfolio is OUTSTANDING to say the least!!

Get over, It is not all photoshop.. I am sick and tired of hearing people give credit to Photoshop.
This guys images are stellar, well thought out, and he obviuosly working wih VERY talented people including the whole crew!
Photoshop is something people in here are looking to for the answer which is sad.

Snook

Or you can beleive the know it all Godmother and do it all by RAW like she has obviuosly Done.. That is Great trick she let you in on..

err.... I meant FROM the raw...with no editing.

I've seen raw files like that, not everything is Photoshop.

xx

LostHighway · #12 07-30-2009, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snook305

The Guy is incredible talented.. and that is the bottom line.
No photoshop.
His lighting is Masterly and anybody saying otherwise is belittling themselves.

He combines different color temperatures and Gels to achieve a well thought out and well balanced image.
Kudos to him for being so talented and putting out images like that.
And Thnaks to the poster because I have never seen this guy before and his portfolio is OUTSTANDING to say the least!!

you're welcome snook

and yes, he's a total lightning genius. he combines colors with an amazing taste and the LOCATIONS look spectacular with the girl's stylish and make up. Locations are underrated sometimes on fashion/editorial photography in my opinion, but with a good planing is not so hard make something cool. the problem is this gentleman makes all BRILLIANT. and i'm totally motivated and inspired with his portfolio.

talking about retouching, i'm pretty sure he uses postprocessing just for adjustments. look at this pics:

http://brunodayan.com/pics/fas2/fas2_23.jpg

^ legs? what is that noisy-texture? are in some of his photos

look at this too on the face:

http://brunodayan.com/pics/fas4/fas4_24.jpg

--

http://brunodayan.com/pics/fas4/fas4_29.jpg
http://brunodayan.com/pics/fas4/fas4_27.jpg

^ on this latest photos he used a gradient as well.

the last thing i want to ask it's about this "film look":

http://brunodayan.com/pics/fas4/fas4_25.jpg

i just don't know if its cause the machine (almost sure he's using hasselblad or mamiya) or there's some texture/tip for make that.
im really curious.

Quantum3Studio · #13 07-30-2009, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LostHighway

indeed, but i never said that bokeh effect was real, but i really like how is composed and introduced.
in my opinion is not a "hey you, look my spectacular skills", he save a really good taste for the light, the girls and the scenes. and when it's beauty, it's real-real look as hell.

that triangle is not welcome here haha. as said the post-processing is very good. no so much spectacular. just smooth and brilliant.

and you're welcome Quantum.

pd: by the way do you talk spanish?

Yeah, the pictures are very good, amazingly well composed, very creative and the scenarios are very, very dream-like. I saw almost all the portfolios from there, really interesting stuff. And yes, the shinny dots adds lot of dream effect to the scenes; a well done balance between art and fashion. Not spectacular, as you say, but quite appealing. I like that way, spectacular images tend to be too artificial and vanal for my taste, but I like those too. It's I just preffer more natural stuff

Yes, my mother languaje is spanish

Quantum3Studio · #14 07-30-2009, 04:00 PM

Snook, I know high contrast images cannot be achieved through the camera unless using direct flash, but these pictures have a very smooth shade. Adding different light sources will also spread more light. It's impossible to get so deep blacks straight from the camera unless using direct flash or changing some parameters in the camera such contrast and brightness. Also, the black point of many of his pictures is quite raised, nothing that a camera can do. I don't know what about the gels, there are some colors spilled by reflection which makes me thing you're right about the colors. There are also pictures with some bleachpass/overlay effect with very deep shadows. I certainly think there is Photoshop or RAW Editing there, like always, but also good lighting set-ups, that's for sure.

Quantum3Studio · #15 07-30-2009, 04:07 PM

Yeah, Losthighway, I was attempting to mention the skin is flawless, but my repky to snook was about photography more than skin smoohting, yet your opinion is correct.

Mmmhhh... about the film look I may ask what film look? I certainly find quite good setting up the camera with very low saturation and low contrast (or high contrast too) with about 7000 and 10000 ºK in order to get something similar to that. I have shot some pics today looking for some color setups in-camera. Will post it, just let me download the pics from the camera.

LostHighway · #16 07-30-2009, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quantum3Studio

Yeah, Losthighway, I was attempting to mention the skin is flawless, but my repky to snook was about photography more than skin smoohting, yet your opinion is correct.

Mmmhhh... about the film look I may ask what film look? I certainly find quite good setting up the camera with very low saturation and low contrast (or high contrast too) with about 7000 and 10000 ºK in order to get something similar to that. I have shot some pics today looking for some color setups in-camera. Will post it, just let me download the pics from the camera.

thanks Quantum.

about the film look i mean that soft sharp appealing around all the photo with a little bit grain. i have a 5D with L lenses, and even after retouching hours the look it's too "home made" you know? maybe it's my fault, i'm photographer and i usually retouch colors and lights but i'm still looking for a good contrast feeling on my retouching files.

i'll upload some on the next days too, i have around 600 raws for edition and i'm a little bit saturated lately and seeing portfolios like this one i feel small haha.

pd: spanish is my mother language too.

Quantum3Studio · #17 07-30-2009, 04:33 PM

In-camera Settings:

Monochrome. ISO 500. Sharpening = 9. Contrast +3. Brightness +1.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r...d/_DSC9102.jpg

Neutral. ISO 500. WB = 10000 ºK. Sharpening 1. Contrast +3. Brightness +1. Saturation -1. HUE = 0.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r...d/_DSC8936.jpg

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r...d/_DSC9046.jpg

Same Settings but saturation -2 or -3.

Vignetting off in all the pics.

I have another cool setting but the ambient light I have right now is not propper. I should adjust quite a lot the settings, but the effect is quite similar to pictures with selective desaturation.

These photos weren't edited, but with in-camera settings before shooting, not after. After the shoot I still can adjust the picture, but not in these pics.

snook305 · #18 07-30-2009, 04:50 PM

Hey Quantum I was not trying to say he does not use a little photoshop, What I was saying was Photoshop is not how the image was made and I guarantee you those images were pretty much spot on out of the camera with a few tweaks here and there.
Basically I was saying the guy is crazy talented and has a great cew woking with him. But that is obviuos to most professional and maybe not for 95% of the people that come in here.

That looks like E-6 film if you asked me for a film type look.. Or even 4x5.
Or atleast I would have done it on Kodacrome myself if I wanted those puchy contrasty colors.
Also he is using a lot of gradient filters most likely.
Snook
Snook

Quantum3Studio · #19 07-30-2009, 05:37 PM

Of course, Snook. He has lot of talent, specially the way he mixes traditional stuff with digital stuff. I thought you were saying his work is pure camera and light set up, which is, of course, more than the post processing applied to the pictures. I would say 85-87% of his work is made in the traditional way, but it can be done all in PS too. However, something which cannot be edited is the framing and the composition. Well, with some photomontage you have an absolutely new composition, but obviously, this is not the case.

kingka · #20 07-31-2009, 08:21 AM

how do you guys know that nothing was retouched? the images that are retouched the best are the ones that are less obviously retouched... I'm pretty sure there has been some post-pro on those images..

Tareq · #21 07-31-2009, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingka

how do you guys know that nothing was retouched? the images that are retouched the best are the ones that are less obviously retouched... I'm pretty sure there has been some post-pro on those images..

Exactly, the most great retouch to be so natural look will definitely hard to tell if there is any retouch, so then all will say it is just lights and nothing with retouch or very minimal, but to be honest, i can guarantee that if the lighting is done great and the make-up is done perfectly, then photoshop or retouch process can be reduce to about 10%, i did shoot my wife once and some kids and that time i was using almost all my lights[i have 5 total] except one and different modifiers and the results really unbelievable and so amazing, even i feel i don't need any photoshop, but i used photoshop just for little punchy or some effects i am after, thats all.

Godmother · #22 07-31-2009, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingka

how do you guys know that nothing was retouched? the images that are retouched the best are the ones that are less obviously retouched... I'm pretty sure there has been some post-pro on those images..

I agree... There's post pro on those images...but "the look" is not done by retouching - it's good photography not just good photoshop

LostHighway · #23 07-31-2009, 01:41 PM

Quantum, thanks for the advices man.
i'll try to change some settings on camera on the future, could be very useful.

about lights, i made this with one external flash + umbrella:

http://i26.tinypic.com/2q0m0eb.jpg

it's only a little bit retouched on colors and reflections.

if i think the possibility to have 2 amazing soft boxes and reflectors and assistants and a studio and all the stuff...is evident the image would be soooo much better.

so yeah...with a nice lightning and equipment, retouching is not so necessary.

Quantum3Studio · #24 07-31-2009, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LostHighway

Quantum, thanks for the advices man.
i'll try to change some settings on camera on the future, could be very useful.

about lights, i made this with one external flash + umbrella:

http://i26.tinypic.com/2q0m0eb.jpg

it's only a little bit retouched on colors and reflections.

if i think the possibility to have 2 amazing soft boxes and reflectors and assistants and a studio and all the stuff...is evident the image would be soooo much better.

so yeah...with a nice lightning and equipment, retouching is not so necessary.

Try those settings, specially the one Neutral. ISO 500. WB = 10000 ºK. Sharpening 1. Contrast +3. Brightness +1. Saturation (the lowest possible) and play with WB in order to handle the toning. You can also play with saturation instead kelvins to "un-tone" a bit the image. For example, 10000 ºK may tone too yellowish (dependiong on the light temperature), so you can desaturate by: 1) Desaturation 2) lowering the ºK. Each step gives different results. I usually preffer a low ºK number and desaturating to give an special feel of selective desaturation to the photo.

Glad you find it useful!

HelloPiccadilly · #25 08-04-2009, 12:52 AM

let's demystify this process!!
where I can find info about gels for strobes? I've never seen that. How to use them?

snook305 · #26 08-04-2009, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HelloPiccadilly

let's demystify this process!!
where I can find info about gels for strobes? I've never seen that. How to use them?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ects_Kit_.html

Snook

HelloPiccadilly · #27 08-05-2009, 01:45 AM

let's start)
e.g. this image: http://brunodayan.com/pics/fas1/fas1_13.jpg
what do u think about lighting?
we can see long exposure, and usual lamps...so my choice is that there weren't strobes
Is it fake bokeh? so how we can add that in PS?

2nd one:
http://brunodayan.com/pics/fas1/fas1_11.jpg

smtng obscure for me..
I guess there is only natural light from window and fake bokeh..with some kinds of confetti (maybe confetti is also fake) )

Quantum3Studio · #28 08-05-2009, 03:00 AM

The first picture I think the girl at the left is mounted after shooting the one in the coach. I think that because the shadow of the girl on the coach. She has 2 shadows, one is hard and the other quite soft. The hard one seems the origin is in those lamps and the softshadow comes from a softbox which should be placed somehow the same place where is the standing girl. It seems the softre shadows could be on top of the scene, but the blur on the shadows says it was a softbox 45º from the front of her. The second girl has another shadow going to the background. Weirdely, the girl on the couch is not casting that shadow.

I personally think the washed area on the head of the girl at the right was added later in the post, same the gama adjustment. And the bokeh is done in PS. the DoF of the bokeh and the DoF in the scene don't match.

the second picture:

There are 2 lights, the obvious one and one on the top. Looking the shadows that her legs cast to the floor means there is a light on top of her. In both pictures are secondary light/s with gel/s and the gama was in PS. I think the ambien colorization was done in PS as well.

That's what I think.

HelloPiccadilly · #29 08-05-2009, 04:02 AM

thx, nice observation!
now I'm training with some plastic bags to make effect like with gels.
But I need smtng like tube for strobe )

Quantum3Studio · #30 08-05-2009, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HelloPiccadilly

thx, nice observation!
now I'm training with some plastic bags to make effect like with gels.
But I need smtng like tube for strobe )

Haha... That sounds like a sarcasm towards the first photo XD Because the models! haha Plastic bags... Will add that to my MSN =D

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hello, litle lost in the site:)	ozi	Salon	13	01-25-2009 12:19 PM
What Happened To The July Cover Of Vogue?	jagerman	Non-RetouchPRO Resources	3	07-17-2008 03:00 PM
Could any one please take a look at this?	Upke	Photo Retouching	23	11-03-2004 05:37 AM