Peter Hurley Style Post Processing???

[Planet]

Hi everyone.

I am specifically interested in your thoughts on Peter Hurley's RETOUCHING techniques only.

(I know his lighting and other methods have been discussed in other threads - even a thread on this forum that he commented on. However, I would hope to keep THIS thread specifically on his retouching methods.)

If you were looking specifically at the post-processing methods, what would you say that he (or his post processor) is doing here:

https://peterhurley.com/sites/default/files/styles/big/public/photos/2015/02/37/katrina%C2%A9peterhurley.jpg

https://peterhurley.com/sites/default/files/styles/big/public/photos/2015/02/37/kearran%c2%a9peterhurley.jpg

https://peterhurley.com/sites/default/files/styles/big/public/photos/2015/02/37/marcia%c2%a9peterhurley.jpg

My guess is that the post-processing emphasizes dodging and burning primarily, with your normal amount of blemish removal, some eye-whitening, and then minimal (if any) overall skin softening.

Am I missing something in the post-processing?

Thanks in advance.

[klev]

Re: Peter Hurley Style Post Processing???

Assuming you set it up correctly (most people get this part wrong or let their ego get in the way)

Color correct skin. Select background and whiten. You will generally end up with flare if you light it that brightly, especially in a small studio. Refer to the first point. Touch up lashes and eyebrows as necessary. Adjust eyes as necessary to get the right look to the highlights and irises, making them look focused. They don't appear to have that much shading done in post. Just make sure you control the lighting. It's such a common mistake, and it will make the post work much more difficult.

[Planet]

Re: Peter Hurley Style Post Processing???

Thanks so much, Klev.

would you agree that there seems to be a lot of D&B done on the images?

I know he spends a lot of time getting the light right, but I don't think the light falloff can be that stark on the face without things like the rear shoulder becoming really dark.

[klev]

Re: Peter Hurley Style Post Processing???

I've seen a lot of raw files, and to me the falloff isn't that dramatic in a lot of places. Much of that can be accomplished with flags. Note my comment about the brightness level. As for burn and dodge, I see signs of a lot of it from a smoothing perspective. It's too heavy for my taste, as it makes some of the faces look a bit amorphous. Some of the outlines with sharp portions support my hypothesis that they did a knockout on the backgrounds in post (could have done a better job with the edges). If you just want something simple like a deeper tone to the temple and forehead going back, you can pretty much softly mask off that area then bring it down slightly in brightness. Apart from that some of the bright faced look is makeup. The makeup is a bit heavy, which gives it that "masked" look.

Ultimately this isn't that mysterious. The biggest reason I see screwed up images shot against a white cove is that people get both flare and too much backlight on the subject.

[Planet]

Re: Peter Hurley Style Post Processing???

Thanks again, Klev:

Yeah, I think you got it sorted out.

I remember he said something like he had tried 40 different makeup artists before settling on his current one (might have been facetious, but you get the point that he had tried more than a few different makeup artists). So I am guessing that you are right he primarily favors heavy makeup.

And also I do remember him saying something about being a stickler on the backgrounds and getting them so they were JUST BARELY white. So I guess you are right about that as well; keeping the backgrounds controlled is key.

Thanks again. Much appreciated.

[klev]

Re: Peter Hurley Style Post Processing???

Thanks again, Klev:

Yeah, I think you got it sorted out.

I remember he said something like he had tried 40 different makeup artists before settling on his current one (might have been facetious, but you get the point that he had tried more than a few different makeup artists). So I am guessing that you are right he primarily favors heavy makeup.

And also I do remember him saying something about being a stickler on the backgrounds and getting them so they were JUST BARELY white. So I guess you are right about that as well; keeping the backgrounds controlled is key.

Thanks again. Much appreciated.

No problem, and the comments that you added are certainly feasible. In your position I might not start with just barely white. It depends on the size of your workspace really. If you want it to be white, it should be as bright as possible without kicking significant light back onto the model or affecting the clarity of the image by creating stray light in the direction of the lens.

You can get a quality image for most reproduction purposes from practically any dslr at this point. I'm thinking in terms of your subject matter, not cars or detailed jewelry. It's just stuff like flare destroys that.

He may very well be serious about makeup artists. I'm not sure. I know that I think some of the smoothing work on the faces looks a little heavy handed, and I'm not as much of a fan of such a bright base. That's just me.

Let's consider what you should actually take away from it, and I hope you return to post the eventual results, once they're to your liking. Having thought about it since my last post, I think to sell it, you need to nail the lighting as I mentioned. You need to ensure that you don't have any overly bright portions of skin and clothing that just make the subject feel flat or melt into the background. You need to ensure that retouching on the eyes really pops as seen here by the sharp outline on the very large catchlights (likely huge lighting and close to the subject) and obviously detailed eyelashes and eyebrows. The outer border of the irises might also have a little work. You use that part to ensure that the subject appears focused rather than glassy eyed as necessary (whether they were or not).

I think if you can get those things down, you should be able to sell a similar look.

[Tulack]

Re: Peter Hurley Style Post Processing???

I know he spends a lot of time getting the light right,

He doesn't spend any time on lighting. It's a hard setup. You can not adjust it. You can move chair closer to the setup though. He shoot tethered, all the processing goes while transferred from camera to computer. No time here too. Basic pimples removal. Five minutes per image the whole post processing. No color correction, no retouching. You can see the skin is all patchy.

https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/t31.0-8/11698805_10155767757985153_7072417014874364112_o.jpg

https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11705192_10155767752390153_4927168791660861010_n.jpg?oh=4ba6045d58e7daf32b1f592737812224&oe=561FC37D

[Aladdin]

Re: Peter Hurley Style Post Processing???

All I see is good photography, make up and "underdone" post work, intentionally. it is the KISS concept.

KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid!

[Tulack]

Re: Peter Hurley Style Post Processing???

KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid!

True. Agencies don't like retouched headshots.

[klev]

Re: Peter Hurley Style Post Processing???

True. Agencies don't like retouched headshots.

Blah, there's definitely some, but part of it might be the retouching on the eyes. It makes the contrast look relatively low over certain structures in the face. They look a bit lightened under the eyes as well, and the high contrast version you posted suggests they removed neck folds.