|
nonanone posted:Too much magenta in the face (at least on my work monitor) and the hair highlights are still really green. Better than your first try though! Also you need some lines in the face so that it looks realistic. You want to choose lines that would be there because she's crinkling her face. Keep trying again and again, eventually it will look better every time. Thank you for the specifics. We're a really red family (she's olive-toned with slightly red cheeks, and I am super fair with bright red cheeks), so I forget that it's not normal. I reduced the opacity on the spot fixes around her eyes so she has some smile wrinkles again, I did a bunch of mask adjustments to her hair to get rid of the green, but now I think it's too purple (which it was in the first place, so I took it too far green when trying to fix THAT). 
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
Honestly, the original photo looks a lot better in terms of how it renders her skin tones. Even in the latest version she still looks unnaturally pale and magenta.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 09:44
|
|
|
convert it to black and white!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 11:41
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:convert it to black and white! This is the only reasonable suggestion. The color is loving horrendous as shot. Phanatic posted:Except when new cameras come out with new RAW formats and you need to upgrade to CS12 for it to be able to read them. I will be buried with my Mark 3.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 13:46
|
|
|
I like random challenges like this, so I tried quickly fixing the colour of that shot I only spent like 5 minutes on it though, so I didn't really worry about the background or the hair so much as the skin tone. The background is pretty blown out, I just wanted to see if I could get her skin looking ok.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
It's passable but it still would just be more flattering in black and white.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
One thing I've always wondered: How do people get this kind of look & feel to a photo? How much of it is the original photo and how much is retouching? It kind of feels like an illustration, almost, not a photo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:One thing I've always wondered: Clarity sliders to the right. Those types of pictures are almost entirely retouching, lots of compositing & dodging and burning, bracketing, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I like random challenges like this, so I tried quickly fixing the colour of that shot Thanks. Turns out she already submitted the original photo, so this is just practice. What did you do to adjust this one?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
Valdara posted:Thanks. Turns out she already submitted the original photo, so this is just practice. What did you do to adjust this one? I just messed around with a few levels & curves layers until it got to a point where I liked it. I wish I could give you more specific instructions, but I really just do it by feel until I think it's working.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:One thing I've always wondered: Haha, my friend is the photographer who did this: http://deanbradshaw.com.au/Diageo-Stark-Raving This was shot in the studio against a bluescreen, everything else is compositing and crazy retouching. He got his start by retouching Tim Tadder's work. Here's a behind the scenes video I did for this shoot: https://vimeo.com/46667864
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
Haha wow, small world. I'll take a look! I do some graphic design work where I'd love to be able to do retouching like this, but I am not sure the source photos are good enough / my skills are up to the task. triplexpac fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Nov 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
Yeah there was definitely a lot of production around this - these images are used as labels for wine bottles, so there was already a ton of design that went into the shoot before a single frame was snapped on that Phase One. Fun fact, this shoot happened before the D800e was released. Now that my friend owns one, he never rents anything medium format.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
the digi op doing the comps on the fly was super impressive. Whenever I assist post heavy photographers there's always an awkward "it'll look totally different finished" conversation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
That was Dean himself doing the comps on site - I'm sure the digi op could've handled it, but he was mostly there to make sure that Capture One was functioning and that there weren't any software/hardware issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Haha, my friend is the photographer who did this: http://deanbradshaw.com.au/Diageo-Stark-Raving Not that I don't appreciate the final images, I think they look awesome, but that is a hell of a lot of staff for some some wine label photos. Wouldn't it have been significantly cheaper to just commission an artist to paint a couple of images instead?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
The brand is basically targeted at hipsters who aren't wine savvy and the label is meant to grab your attention. I mean look at those labels, they would stick out like a sore thumb in any grocer's wine section. http://www.starkravingwines.com/wine
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
I think what you're trying to say is "Goon-targeted."
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
"Excuse me, which aisle are your steampunk vintages in? Namaste."
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Fun fact, this shoot happened before the D800e was released. Now that my friend owns one, he never rents anything medium format. I find that surprising, judging by his portfolio he shoots mostly fashion and the lack of a low pass filter on a D800e makes for horrible moire' issues. Perhaps you can remove some of it when outputting raws (I haven't played with one yet) but it seems like a big gamble that you will be able to remove all of it. I've had to dodge and burn moire' out of an image before and it is not fun. Paragon8 posted:the digi op doing the comps on the fly was super impressive. Whenever I assist post heavy photographers there's always an awkward "it'll look totally different finished" conversation. I digi tech for a lot of our post intensive jobs, even create concepts on the fly with art directors while the shoot is going on. It can be extremely stressful to work things up as fast as you while trying to be creative and having a group of people standing behind you watching and directing. I never though that I could get completely exhausted from working at a computer before I became a retoucher.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 07:02
|
|
|
raggedphoto posted:
Tell me about it, the last shoot I was on the client had like six people from two different teams so they were fighting over the concepts and crowded around the screen while I had to basically communicate with hand signals to see if the lighting was ok.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 11:12
|
|
|
I've been playing around with Lightroom, it's great. I wish I would have done this sooner. Makes some stuff that I was doing in Photoshop soooo much easier. Are there any good places I should be looking for tutorials? I've generally just been poking around http://photo.tutsplus.com/
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
I haven't tried this, but if anyone is on a real tight budget and wants to avoid wonky  Lightroom/Apeture installs, give http://www.darktable.org/features/ a whirl and see if it works for you.<edit> note there's currently no windows binaries, so you'll need to get busy with linux if you're not a mac user 
NoneMoreNegative fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Nov 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I've been playing around with Lightroom, it's great. I wish I would have done this sooner. Makes some stuff that I was doing in Photoshop soooo much easier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:Martin Evening's book is solid and probably worth the $29. What a compelling title! haha. I'll give it a look, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I've been playing around with Lightroom, it's great. I wish I would have done this sooner. Makes some stuff that I was doing in Photoshop soooo much easier. Good video tutorials from Adobe's Julianne Kost: http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
Jesus that link is solid gold.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
1st AD posted:The brand is basically targeted at hipsters who aren't wine savvy and the label is meant to grab your attention. I like the photos and the processing work a lot, but this is probably the dumbest marketing strategy ever. There are already wines for hipsters who aren't wine savvy. They're called Franzia or whatever else will get you the most hosed up for the least amount of money. Standing out for the sake of standing out does not necessarily mean your product is going to be more desirable and it could actually have the obvious effect. The reason there aren't a million products targeted at "hipsters" is because they're not a real demographic. It's basically just middle class white people between 15 and 30 who consider themselves individualists. The few companies that they seem to appreciate on any collective level are ones with incredibly transparent and bullshit anti-corporate attitudes (see Apple, American Apparel, Tom's Shoes, things like that). If your friends wanted to target hipsters they should have mocked the pretentiousness of wine and called it "Just Good Cheap Wine" or something self-aware like that, not whatever cosplay steampunk poo poo they went with. About the only people I can see noticing the label and being enticed by it are people stopping to grab some wine to carry around in a deerskin flask at the ren faire or picking up some drinks for their D&D game later. I can't see this group carrying an entire business. Still, sweet photos and thanks for sharing the video.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 05:53
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I like the photos and the processing work a lot, but this is probably the dumbest marketing strategy ever. There are already wines for hipsters who aren't wine savvy. They're called Franzia or whatever else will get you the most hosed up for the least amount of money. Standing out for the sake of standing out does not necessarily mean your product is going to be more desirable and it could actually have the obvious effect. To clarify, the whole campaign was conceived of by an ad agency. And I only call it wine for hipsters because that's what it is, but they used meaningless buzzwords like "for the mad scientists among us" (i.e. "middle class white people who consider themselves individualists).
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
Goddamit. Went up into a tall building to take pictures of some other tall buildings, but the observation deck isn't open, it's all glassed-in. And even sticking my lens directly up against that glass, I got this kind of thing:  Other than resizing that's right out of the camera. Can anything be done about that flaring? I took some shots at higher exposure to do exposure-blending with, and in those it's even more apparent and turns bright purple, no idea why I didn't see it in the viewfinder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
Rubber lens hood mostly fixes this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
Would a polariser help there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
The problem with those is that tempered-glass (which most high-rise windows are made of) combines rather badly with polarizers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
 Is there any magic with content-aware fill or something like that to help me get rid of the bars I was shooting through at a pet adoption fair? The vertical one is the only one that really bugs me in that shot. I suppose I could do stuff manually, but I'm wondering if there are suggested shortcuts. I dumped them all here if you're curious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:
Most people who want to adopt kitties are not professional photographers. I didn't even notice it until you said something, so while it might be glaringly obvious to you, and now I can't unsee it either, someone browsing a website looking for a new kitty will be struck by how cute the kitties are more than anything else. That being said, I have no idea how to get rid of them in post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 07:30
|
|
|
Just dodge it out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 07:33
|
|
|
To tell you the truth I wouldn't have noticed the vertical one if it wasn't for the horizontal one, so I guess the easy answer is either crop it out or just ignore it since it's not a big deal. Your other option is to fiddle with a curves layer and a gradient mask until it looks good, which, now that you've noticed the flaw, will be never.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 07:38
|
|
|
The vertical one is the only one worth spending time on getting rid of. Just dodge it out, like mentioned earlier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 09:48
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:
This looks like it's a couple dramatic posting techniques away from being the album cover for a CD of popular songs recreated using various cat meows. What I am saying is please do this. (the cover not the album)
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:
Images are super sharp and bokeh is nice, what's your setup? Canon 50mm?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 23:28
|
|
