Gregory Storm wrote:

How do you know how much or how little to retouch?

When most MM members will think it looks great you went too far.

Kent Johnson Photograph wrote:
I am surprised no one has said it yet..

Medium or large format. I don't care how many pixels they stuff on a little receptor you will never get the tonal subtlety and clarity with a small camera. resolution, maybe but that is only one part of the equation.

If you are not going to use medium or large format cameras I would try and find a style of beauty photography that does not require the utmost finesse.

Thats outright wrong,  now with 14bit capable cameras you can get the tonal range, and the format will make no difference.

Robert Beynard wrote:

Thats outright wrong,  now with 14bit capable cameras you can get the tonal range, and the format will make no difference.

I will wait and see about that. What you can measure and what you get are sometimes strangely different.

For the record though I think every picture the OP posted would have been shot on medium to large format equipment.

My best results (possibly) with 10mp digital SLR.


or large, http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2315/152 … 01fb_b.jpg


or large, http://farm1.static.flickr.com/190/5020 … 3c5b_o.jpg


or large http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1198/121 … 84f8_o.jpg

I should reprocess them all, my PS skills are improving!

just a note, pre photoshop, these type of images were created daily without it?
best, saverio

sure they where...but they did it the hard way...with a real airbrush...and all the things mentioned above...

Michael Borders Photo wrote:
just a note, pre photoshop, these type of images were created daily without it?
best, saverio
sure they where...but they did it the hard way...with a real airbrush...and all the things mentioned above...

And they were far more picky and selective with the word model,  supermodels were few and far between and had to keep up with their skin, and body now we have far more models and the standards have substantially gone down at all the top ten agencies, yes there are great models around but not all of the ones and not everyone choosen for an ad is perfect that day. 

Real negative/transparency and print  airbruing was an art, shame its being lost today.

Kent Johnson Photograph wrote:
I am surprised no one has said it yet..

Medium or large format. I don't care how many pixels they stuff on a little receptor you will never get the tonal subtlety and clarity with a small camera. resolution, maybe but that is only one part of the equation.

If you are not going to use medium or large format cameras I would try and find a style of beauty photography that does not require the utmost finesse.

Actualy, medium or large format is not needed at all and in fact is chosen solely on the size output required - the larger the print the larger the file/negative needed to produce the output. Beautiful beauty images can be created with a simple run of the mill camera even a point and shoot, provided all the other factors are met like model, makeup, lighting and retouching.

Here are some shots captured with a Nikon D70 for example:








Vitaly Druchinin

Ronald N Tan wrote:


So true! [RE: Retouching!]

just exactly what are you guys doing with retouching?  i usually use the clone and healing tool but it doesnt look anything like the magazines ...

DeLandWayne Photography wrote:
if your not in to photoshop check this out ?

http://www.portraitprofessional.com/

has anyone actually tried this?  just curious

Vitaly Druchinin wrote:
Actualy, medium or large format is not needed at all and in fact is chosen solely on the size output required - the larger the print the larger the file/negative needed to produce the output. Beautiful beauty images can be created with a simple run of the mill camera even a point and shoot, provided all the other factors are met like model, makeup, lighting and retouching.


Vitaly Druchinin

Gee thanks, all those years wasted...

Why are some people so patronizing in their replies? Quite franky I don't thing you understood my point.

Kent Johnson Photograph wrote:
Gee thanks, all those years wasted...

Why are some people so patronizing in their replies? Quite franky I don't thing you understood my point.

I did understand. What I was trying to say is that the look to those images can be had with a plain old run of the mill camera. The only time the camera resolution/bit depth/negative size come in play is when you want larger output size. So, 8 bit depth is fine.

I just don't want the photographers reading this thread to be discouraged that they can't produce images like these unless they had that medium/large format camera, because they can.

Vitaly Druchinin

Vitaly Druchinin wrote:

Gee thanks, all those years wasted...

Why are some people so patronizing in their replies? Quite franky I don't thing you understood my point.

I did understand. What I was trying to say is that the look to those images can be had with a plain old run of the mill camera. The only time the camera resolution/bit depth/negative size come in play is when you want larger output size. So, 8 bit depth is fine.

I just don't want the photographers reading this thread to be discouraged that they can't produce images like these unless they had that medium/large format camera, because they can.

Vitaly Druchinin

Vitaly Druchinin wrote:

I did understand. What I was trying to say is that the look to those images can be had with a plain old run of the mill camera. The only time the camera resolution/bit depth/negative size come in play is when you want larger output size. So, 8 bit depth is fine.

I just don't want the photographers reading this thread to be discouraged that they can't produce images like these unless they had that medium/large format camera, because they can.

Vitaly Druchinin

I think you are completely wrong.

When you land a shoot like the ones shown by the OP and shoot it with a DSLR...

Let me know, because I want to see it.

I am not saying you can't do good or even great work with a DSLR but the stuff the OP is referring to. No Way.

If you think you can return the same result from a DSLR as you can from a Blad or similar and a 20mp+ back you are deluded at best.

Don't tell people they can achieve something they can't they will just get frustrated. If they want 'that' result they have to go and get it and there is only one way. The rest is just lies or delusion or some people are blind and can't see the difference!

Vitaly Druchinin wrote:

Actualy, medium or large format is not needed at all and in fact is chosen solely on the size output required - the larger the print the larger the file/negative needed to produce the output. Beautiful beauty images can be created with a simple run of the mill camera even a point and shoot, provided all the other factors are met like model, makeup, lighting and retouching.

Here are some shots captured with a Nikon D70 for example:








Vitaly Druchinin

BTW these shots don't in any way begin to approach the type of image the OP is referring to.

Kent Johnson Photograph wrote:
If you think you can return the same result from a DSLR as you can from a Blad or similar and a 20mp+ back you are deluded at best.

If you think that the camera is part of what makes these shots the way they are I feel sorry for you, and canons are now 21.6MP, where as Miesel has used everything down to a Kodak Proback with only 16MP in a square format back than to do major adds, so in reality actual usable format from the chip was more like 11,  its not the camera that makes a difference its the rest of the work around it that makes the image, a DSLR can do just fine, a point and shoot cannot, but any decent slr dslr can do it and will look the same up to a limit of print/resolution requirement, but for a single page or double page spread in a magazine a 16MP or even 13MP image woudl be fine and hold up just as well if all other things were the same, (Model, lighting, MU, hair, post work)

BYS wrote:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=218173
tb

You lost me there?  Whats the connection?

Robert Beynard wrote:

You lost me there?  Whats the connection?

fucking rules
but if you can't feel that
not much i can do
tb

BYS wrote:

fucking rules
but if you can't feel that
not much i can do
tb

I get the point of that thread just not the connection to anything in this one.

Gregory Storm wrote:

How do you know how much or how little to retouch?

When they look plastic....2 much  people have pores

Gregory Storm wrote:
Stephen Eastwood,

He is on here and shares info all the time. Why ask the fools here (my self included) when you can ask him......

Kent Johnson Photograph wrote:
Ok have fun.

Look I am all for fuck the equipment but we are talking about the pictures the OP posted. If your shots you posted are examples that it can be done... Well I rest my case.

Go and take a look at page 1 top of the page, all the shots and come back here and say

"you can shoot that with a DSLR"

If you do you're just blind.

I looked again, and I dont see anything of that quality posted here, so I am agreeing that the above statement has merit - IMHO

Henri3 wrote:
Certainly you know Bruce Talbots work. Doesn't get much better than this...but I love the sample illustrations above. Sean Argenta and a few others here excell at it.

I've begun a beauty project as well,to learn about it,  and finding suitable (non caucasian) models in my area is a real challenge.  I have 3-5 candidates that'll suffice for this. And I may soon hit the colleges for undiscovered beauty prospects.

I was going to list Sean in my examples.  The first time I saw one of his Paul Mitchell shots I was impressed.  His behind the scenes videos are interesting.  As a matter of fact I think he did some kind of beauty photography course in Las Vegas a while back.

Gregory
www.gregorystorm.com

Vitaly Druchinin wrote:
There is no hard rule to how to light beauty other than making it look beautiful Most shots are lit with a beauty dish or similar small semi-hard directional light source. You can learn alot on how the lights were setup just by studying the catch lights in the images.

Then, cast the best skinned models you can find.

Hire the best MUA you can find that has similar work in her portfolio as you are trying to produce.

Hire a pro retoucher who understands lighting and facial structure. One that doesn't blur and can retain natural looking skin with pores visible.

Study your finished results againsts industry's see what's different, what can be improved. Then go and shoot again and again and again.

Vitaly Druchinin

Sweet.  That's what I've been doing.  Take a look at the catch light in this image.  Pretty easy to figure out what Michael Thompson was using here.



Good advice Vitaly and good to know that other photographers have the same approach to figuring out shots.  I think what I have learned the most from my first beauty tests shoots is casting and team.  Once the casting and makeup and hair team are right, my job is much easier.  I still need to figure out how much to photoshop, but I have a lot of examples to compare to.

Here are a few images from the first beauty tests I've done.  I was going for clean beauty in the first two.  On the next test I'm going to make a few changes.







Gregory
www.gregorystorm.com

Gregory Storm wrote:
Sweet.  That's what I've been doing.  Take a look at the catch light in this image.  Pretty easy to figure out what Michael Thompson was using here.



Good advice Vitaly and good to know that other photographers have the same approach to figuring out shots.  I think what I have learned the most from my first beauty tests shoots is casting and team.  Once the casting and makeup and hair team are right, my job is much easier.  I still need to figure out how much to photoshop, but I have a lot of examples to compare to.

Here are a few images from the first beauty tests I've done.  I was going for clean beauty in the first two.  On the next test I'm going to make a few changes.







Gregory
www.gregorystorm.com

Gregory, I am working with Stephen on some dvds, as a producer, you can drop him an email, he will let you know you do not need a medium format for this, you do need skill, a good crew, and talent, but a decent dlsr will be able to do it for you, ask him you are wasting your time here with all the nonsense. 

Robert

Robert Beynard wrote:

Gregory, I am working with Stephen on some dvds, as a producer, you can drop him an email, he will let you know you do not need a medium format for this, you do need skill, a good crew, and talent, but a decent dlsr will be able to do it for you, ask him you are wasting your time here with all the nonsense. 

Robert

Additionally, a medium format digital back is actually TOO sharp.  No one wants to see pores and facial hair, which a MF back will give you.

Bobby Mozumder wrote:

Additionally, a medium format digital back is actually TOO sharp.  No one wants to see pores and facial hair, which a MF back will give you.

Sorry, that is not true. There is a hugh market for such really sharp beauty pictures from digital MF backs,... and I am so unhappy that I do not have such a back.

Gregory Storm wrote:

Sweet.  That's what I've been doing.  Take a look at the catch light in this image.  Pretty easy to figure out what Michael Thompson was using here.



Good advice Vitaly and good to know that other photographers have the same approach to figuring out shots.  I think what I have learned the most from my first beauty tests shoots is casting and team.  Once the casting and makeup and hair team are right, my job is much easier.  I still need to figure out how much to photoshop, but I have a lot of examples to compare to.

Here are a few images from the first beauty tests I've done.  I was going for clean beauty in the first two.  On the next test I'm going to make a few changes.







Gregory
www.gregorystorm.com

gregory -- are these finished images?  you've gone through the retouch already?  or are these off the camera?

Henri3 wrote:
Certainly you know Bruce Talbots work. Doesn't get much better than this...but I love the sample illustrations above. Sean Argenta and a few others here excell at it.

I've begun a beauty project as well,to learn about it,  and finding suitable (non caucasian) models in my area is a real challenge.  I have 3-5 candidates that'll suffice for this. And I may soon hit the colleges for undiscovered beauty prospects.

Thank you Henri.  Here's my contribution with a range of skin colors and lighting conditions.

Octodome overhead, reflector under chin, two small softboxes behind for separation, and one gridded spot on black seamless.



Medium softbox high and tight to model. Backlight from bounce off white wall.



Open shade, available light only. (Currently running in New Beauty Magazine)




bt