First Attempt at Greenberg Effect?

[clockworx]

Hi,

Right this is my first post so "Hello" all.

I have really taken a shine to the Jill Greenberg effect and after some tutorials and a lot of restarting later I got to this.

I have used photoshop for around 5 years and started focusing on retouching about 2 months ago so critique points would be great...

[secretagents]

No, that's obviously nothing to see with the Jill Greenberg look, is it?

I have attached a 2 minutes version of your pic which I am almost certain is far closer to this look than yours.

IMO this JB style mostly relies on 1)local contrast enhancement, 2)on curve adjustment on the L channel as to "compress" the midtones.

There is an entire thread on the Greenberg look anyway.

[flexmanta]

Damn... again. How on earth do you want to make a photo look like one of his, if you are missing 90% of what his photography is all about: Lighting!

[p3r10]

They seem to believe in quick fixes + the advantage of photoshop (multiple ways of doing the same adjustment).

Flexmanta you are so right when it comes to the knowledge of photography....lighting is a key element, followed by colour theory (most forget this process when it comes to editing). Pity these don't apply to the above "stock" photos....trying to replicate a look simply in photoshop from something you don't know how it was photographed...yes you can assume but it just makes it look worse.

[clockworx]

Lol... I guess my lack of photographic knowledge has hit a few cords. I do understand that without the pin light at the rear and ring lights used in her actual shoot it is going to lack but tbh who has the access to that standard of equipment in there own home.

I guess some people are quick to snipe rather than educate aren't they flexmanta!

[TimeActor]

Sorry clockworx but flexmanta ist right. Your picture and the work of secretagents has nothing to do with the Greenberg Style.

But don´t be bad. The only key ist the lightsetting.
My Pictures are a little bit different as Greenberg because i like much more contrast and sharpness as Jill.
It is not a problem for me to get the pictures smooth like jill!

Here are my pictures: http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/1305255

regards
Martin

[clockworx]

Hello TimeActor,

Firstly those pics your linked are awesome, that effects is what I was looking for and my reference to "Greenberg" was a sign that I am new to photography and photographers.

I am not disputing flexmanta but merely opinting out his blunt writing style.

If you have any tutorials and pointer TimeActor that would be much appreciated mate.

Regards

Gareth

[TimeActor]

Hi Gareth,
many thanks
Anyone has a beginning in Photography and Retouching. There is no reason to lough for! Generally spoken.
You must learning step by step like i or anyone else do.
That could be a long hard time.
In the last year i work in my business to earn Money for my familiy and in the nights (every night! and tiredly eyes) i´ve learning much in many many hours.
Without hard work there is no chance to get high quality pictures!!!

The first step you must learning to work with your camera perfectly. Then you should learning about picture composition and colours (color circle!)
After that you must learn about light - color temperature and so on.
So don´t be afraid you should learning this ;-)!

Then you must! learn about the basics with photoshop to understand the programm. When you have understand photoshop you can go and experiment with.

There is no faster way! I´m sorry.

After all i´ll teach you how to do.

Regards
Martin

[flexmanta]

In fact, i'm sure that if you saw one of Greenberg's photos before retouch, it would already look like a Greenberg photo.

You guys should try and get a decent DSLR, a couple lights and a way to trigger them remotely. You cannot imagine how much better you will retouch once you learn the basics of photography and lighting.

Just to improve, i got myself a job as an assistant at a very important studio here in my country. You should try yourself, because it looks like, if you are so excited about JG's work, chances are you like photography too. Forget about academies and photography courses. Learn on site, and who knows, you might land at a job as an assistant for a photographer who needs retouch.

[TimeActor]

Originally Posted by flexmanta

In fact, i'm sure that if you saw one of Greenberg's photos before retouch, it would already look like a Greenberg photo.

thats right!

[clockworx]

Well cheers guys... at the moment I am limping along with my Fuji S602Zoom but have looking to invest in a SonyA230 and then ill get lights shortly after.

As for working as an assistant flexmanta, your a lucky guy.

Regards

Gareth

[flexmanta]

Sony? If this is going to be your first DSLR, buy canon or nikon. Your first DSLR will only introduce you to photography, and with the camera in your hands it's like you learn new stuff automatically. You don't want to regret not having bought an industry standard camera without a common lens mount and hot-shoes that you can combine with 3rd party accessories.

The first body you buy has to be a cheap one, but one that allows you to invest in new lenses that will work with your next body. I would buy a second hand 5D (you just can't go wrong with a 5d), or if you don't want to spend that much, a 500D/400D, but these have aps-c sensors that will modify your optics. Once you learn a little, you will hate having a cropped sensor (like i do with my 50D).

[secretagents]

Before going to sleep yesterday I made an half hour attempt at doing some "Greenberg" postpro on another pic I picked from another thread, using the method I spoke about above.

I think the "Greenberg effect" is quite there even though the pic is absolutely not suited for a 100% "Greenberg emulation". Not very polished work though so don't look at it too closely. Not to be analyzed by purists, only a small exercise

In my opinion the effect lies more in the postpro work than in the photography. Of course if you have both, the better.

[dmeadows]

I've always agreed with the photographers, although reading this has made me think on it a little. What you do have with Photoshop is the ability to change any pixel in an image to any luminosity value you can think of. Does this mean that the lighting of an image can be completely backwards engineered? Well yeah, it pretty much does. If you had the patience, you could paint a Greenberg image by reference pixel by pixel.

Although the above is a ridiculous idea that'd take months, the Photoshop toolset is entirely capable of emulating any physical lighting setup you can think of. There is no magic sequence, not in CS4 at least (maybe we'll figure it out when a future version makes it a feature and we look back with fresh eyes), but a user can conceivably sit down with CS4 and turn a flat lit image into something resembling any one of the popular Greenberg/Dragan/Hill effects so many seek to emulate, even if it means doing it pixel by pixel. The very fact that it's a possibility means that I'm sure someone is working on the math behind it. Imagine the Lighting Effects dialog by CS7 or 8 and remember what we can do now that we didn't have in Photoshop 7. It's possible, it'll happen. Just not yet, and not in this thread

[flexmanta]

To turn a flat lit image into a Greenberg image in photoshop you need to be Michelangelo.

[dmeadows]

Originally Posted by flexmanta

To turn a flat lit image into a Greenberg image in photoshop you need to be Michelangelo.

But still possible, someone will speed up the process and it'll be available as a plugin with little sliders. Five years later there'll be a website that'll do it for you, it'll be all over facebook as an app for teenagers to transform their photos, and we'll all remember when we were useful

[TimeActor]

go on and dream further!
There where a plugin that can create a hard work style like Dave Hill, Jill Greenberg and so on...hahaha good joke ;-)

Come Back to earth. i mean this not bad!
You can create much in photoshop but nothing at all!

The Look like DH, JG isn´t possible without the right light setting!

[flexmanta]

Am I the only one who uses no plugins?!

[TimeActor]

no you´re not.
i ´m using only the original ps filters and nothing seperate!
i think that is the only way to get an personal style in your pics.

[flexmanta]

Just say the name of ONE plugin that can do something that you can't do with photoshop right out of the box (apart from the image extractors).

[TimeActor]

the question goes to our joung friend "dmeadows! ;-)

[secretagents]

Seriously this discussion is getting ridiculous. Everybody here uses plugins /effects even Flexmanta as he's mentioned repeatedly the use of the high pass filter for this or that.

Third party plugins are extra tools, and incorporating them judiciously in the processing of an image certainly does not mean one's pics are going to have a less personal style for that much.

[flexmanta]

high pass is not a 3rd party plugin, and it's a filter that i don't use anymore cause it can't handle pure white or black.

3rd party plugins do things that you should know how to do without using plugins just for the sake of understanding all the tools provided with photoshop. I prefer to create curves, masks and selective adjustments than just moving a slider or using a preset, cause i want to know what im doing to my pixels. And to speed up the process, we already have actions.

[TimeActor]

i agree with flexmanta.
any 3rd party plug in uses the algorythm of photoshop. look at onone software and the nik filters. the only plug in i know is the lucis filter...that plugin has its own algorythm.
in this case i prefer what i can do with the filters out of the box.

[secretagents]

Don't play on words with saying the high pass is not a plugin, I know it is not a separate 8bf file but it is an effect nevertheless. Now you say you don't use it anymore so how are you going to do to retexture a skin without it should you need to? Pixel by pixel with the brush?

And FWIW there are plenty of plugins that let you know exactly what you doing to your pixels just like the built-in tools in PS.

There are plugins that do things you CANNOT do with PS only or that are more capable and/or convenient than the built-in tools. Ask me which ones and I'll give you some examples.

And using plugins does not necessarily mean not knowing how PS works or how to use its tools. This is a ridiculous generalization.

What's wrong with having more tools in the toolbox than just those PS provides? I am just not getting it.

[dmeadows]

The only plugins I use are high pass and gaussian blur to separate frequencies, everything else is done with adjustment layers, including curves for pixel D+B. I know what I'm doing, I think you might have mistaken what I'm saying here. You can't do a professional job with 3rd party plugins, and I do not want to see it happen. My worry is that it will.

Imagine what Portraiture will do in ten-fifteen years. Imagine even what Photoshop itself will do, CS5's content-aware healing already looks impressive. My point is that something that is technically possible now (and would take months) will eventually take the click of a button. It's inevitable.

[TimeActor]

@secretagents,
you know that you can create exactly the same effect without the highpass filter?!
to use the hp is a faster way ;-)

[TimeActor]

Originally Posted by dmeadows

My point is that something that is technically possible now (and would take months) will eventually take the click of a button. It's inevitable.

ok, but who wants to look at pictures with a one click plugin in the future?
those pics are dead - the only personality is the shot.

when this where possible in the future the good artists will create another style!

[secretagents]

Time Actor in the example I have posted above, the skin has this satined aspect you'll find in the greenberg pics and that is sorely missing from yours . Obtaining that satinated aspect was actually the only part of the processing for which I did not use third party plugins

As for what you say about the high pass I am not quite understanding what you exactly refer to. Do you mean that the high pass effect can be achieved by other means (starting with gaussian which is also an effect btw) or do you mean someting else?

[flexmanta]

Secret agent, why the question? I didn't say i don't use high passes, i just said that i do not use the filter named high pass to do it, because it's not accurate, the filter itself. Maybe they'll fix it in the future...

Dmeadows, saying that a plugin will put light where there is none (turning flat lit images into JG style images), is like saying that a plugin will be able to draw your face from scratch without it having ever seen you before.

When i say that i don't use plugins i meant that i do not need any filter that didn't come with my photoshop. When you are considering not working as a freelancer anymore, and want to get a full time retoucher job, you just have to know PS, and work as if no 3rd party plugins ever existed. The day your boss asks you to fix some skin and you say, "uuuuuh, i can't do it without portraiture", that's the day they fire you.