Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How to achieve the "vogue"-style

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • megl
    replied
    Re: looking at the images

    Originally posted by dennisnob
    To be honest, you have to start with a better image if you hope to really pull something out of it in post. I am not just talking about better lighting or better photography, also better model and better makeup. You wont get the vogue look without a significant investment into the basics. This image is dark, perhaps a poor use of light, and the model is far less than stellar. The army top counts as bad styling, which honestly affects the viewers overall perception of the image. Its from a solid foundation that you can let post do its magic.
    Agreed!

    Totally OT: dennison, welcome to the forum. I saw your DIY ring flash article the other day. Great idea - I have to try it out! Thanks :-)

    /megl

    Leave a comment:


  • valentino7
    replied
    Re: How to achieve the "vogue"-style

    Nancy: can you describe what you did your version of the pic? was this mostly an increased contrast with curves layer?

    Leave a comment:


  • dennisnob
    replied
    looking at the images

    To be honest, you have to start with a better image if you hope to really pull something out of it in post. I am not just talking about better lighting or better photography, also better model and better makeup. You wont get the vogue look without a significant investment into the basics. This image is dark, perhaps a poor use of light, and the model is far less than stellar. The army top counts as bad styling, which honestly affects the viewers overall perception of the image. Its from a solid foundation that you can let post do its magic.

    dennison bertram
    Prague Photography services
    www.dennisonbertram.com

    Leave a comment:


  • snook305
    replied
    Sean2

    No those are definetly not "Vogue"ish. They are more like transvestite-ish.
    Very 80's and awful Hair and Make-up.
    That is why there is a fine line between Vogue and Cheesy..
    That site was just horrible in my mind.
    Vogue has Class.
    Just my 2 cents
    Snook

    Leave a comment:


  • CMS
    replied
    Hello!!!

    Originally posted by G Deezy
    I posted a similar post "Get the Amateur Look out!" and I think I was referring to the same question as this. I have no problems making professional shots looking better, just not the ones I take! Here is what I came up with...


    I know it is late for this thread but maybe you will be allerted!!!

    I like this picture a lot !!!! Can you describe the improvments step!!!
    I'm photographer in Bucharest and learning a little bit of PS

    Leave a comment:


  • Cassidy
    replied
    My thoughts after a little playing

    Yes the composition of the photo and the pose and clothes make a difference however this picture looks brassier than it needs as the lighting and details are so harsh. With a bit of softening of features using the blur tool and removing all the harsh highlights, I think we end up with a much more sophisticated image. I regard the vogue type shots are being a little more upmarket and tasteful with sometimes a sultry but not brassy look. Anyway, just using the blur tool, this is what I came up with. BTW personally I'd remove the nipple but have not done so here.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • NancyJ
    replied
    Is this the kind of thing you're looking for? Since the picture was already retouched this took under a minute to go from soft glamour to high fashion....
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • mister fingers
    replied
    A lot of high end fashion photographers don't know jack about photography, but they do have a good eye for composition. Sometimes they hit the lighting right, but sometimes I have to literally paint it in.

    I mean paint as in painting over with color.

    You can see some of my non-commercial work at:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/misterfingers/

    I'd love to take a crack at the army top. Do you have a higher-res version?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean2
    replied
    Hello Mr. Fingers,

    Interesting take (you have to add light and make-up? What the heck are they taking pictures of or what kind of models??)

    When you say paint, are you talking about smudging the image or painting over in color? Do you have an example or could you do something with the army top ?

    Are you implying that the Vogue mag. is equivalent to the real 'Coutre fashion'?

    Sorry for all the questions, this is an interesting thread - for me anyway


    Sean

    Leave a comment:


  • mister fingers
    replied
    Coutre fashion photography is really about desaturated images with brilliant sharpness. I do retouching for fashion rags and you wouldn't believe the crap I get and have to paint in, everything from makeup to lighting. It's a pain in the ass.

    Here's what I might consider:

    - Redo the background. The drop paper gradiated background isn't going to cut it. Either flatten it out, or send it way back in the distance.
    - Skin tones should be slightly desaturated
    - Pump the sharpness on the clothes using a merge-copied layer that has had the Highpass filter run over it in overlay blending mode. Block out the areas you don't want to be sharp with a layer mask.
    - Fix the lighting through painting and emphasising highlights. The lighting in the army top photo is far too flat.
    - I'd smooth her lightly, but retain skin texture detail through a sharpening layer as I mentioned above. Toy with the opacity to get it right. Make sure the shapening layer is on top of your smoothing.

    I'd also might pop the saturation on the clothing just slightly.

    HTH,

    Mister Fingers

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean2
    replied
    hmmm perhaps you are right Patrick. However, looking over the V ogue magazine covers, what jumps out is the following:
    1_ Classy, tasteful shots
    2_Stereotypical beauty
    3_High Fashion ( cutting edge etc..)
    4_Different looks, but looks that stand the test of time (classic)
    5_Quality shots _ airbrushed to the max
    6_The definition of Fashion and elegance
    7_ The shots are not simply pretty / stunning/ beautiful girls with or without clothes or scantily clad, but fashion plates (euphemism)
    8_ Hugo Paez has done some fantastic work with modelling hair/ dresses and other things and he has a great look to some of his fashion shots - could they adorn the cover of Vogue? I think some of them might, but many may be far too dramatic or 'out-their' for a relatively conservative, but tasteful cover.
    9_ I wish it was as simple as a bit if technical magic, but I think it is a combination of all the above.

    Hugo Paez

    http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=458084
    Still wondering,

    Sean

    ps

    let me know what you think of Mr. Paez's work and if any of those shots meet your expectations for a 'Vogue-ish' look

    Leave a comment:


  • PatrickB
    replied
    Hi Sean,

    I don't think you are right about the "model"-question. I do actually work with pro-models and makeup-artists, yet can't seem to quite get what makes the difference.

    I have seen a lot of different photo-styles in Vogue and divide them into three categories: Usual photos, with all the lights and shadow things, just like usual glamour retouch. Pictures with atmosphere like mist and other things. And the last one is the one I am looking for. Obviously shot in a studio, dark uniform background and there is that "decent" overall look. They are somewhat darker, look more flat but yet there is something drawing your attention...

    Patrick

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean2
    replied
    Hello,

    I've ben away for awhile, but just logged and had a look at this piece. I was interested in the comments by Amber, vis a vis the lighting piece, but i would venture to say it is as much the model as the lighting. The Vogue look to me, is very much the thin, stylized fashion model that has angular or planar cheeks and facial features that create the 'look' that can be found in Vogue. Admittedly this changes over time, but none-the -less the styole and models set the tone.

    Regarding the retouch, one is often looking at an amateur or good looking individual who is average sixe and perhaps form. A retouch in this case will be quite different in appearance than the svelte, workout driven glam or runway model - how could it be otherwise.

    This is not meant to be sexists, simply a statement that perhaps we are trying to compare retouching between apples and oranges instead of apples and apples.... same issue as needing the best shot under the best conditions and lighting in order to effect the most glam retouch.

    Am I all wet or do people think it is as simple as taking a normal ohoto an dmaking it vogue, without body and facial surgery combined with lighting touches???


    Sean

    I would also be interested in G Deezy's steps for attaining his retouch.

    Leave a comment:


  • megl
    replied
    Flora - that's great. The first one has a nice overly artificial kind of barbie-look which reminds me of some of the works by Glenn Feron (http://www.glennferon.com/ ).

    Did you use the method described for both the first and the last one?

    Leave a comment:


  • ourmanflint
    replied
    Hi...

    just read the thread, and that "elusive" vogue look is not I suspect something you can create on a computer, it starts off with very special lighting systems... Kino Flow and Ring flash for example, both of which give an effect virtually impossible to reproduce by manipulation... believe me I've tried!!!

    but you can go along way towards them as Flora has above....

    Otherwise Vogue I'm sure would be quite happy to do everything on com puter

    Leave a comment:

Loading...
Working...
X