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

Kent Johnson Photograph wrote:
Its got very little to do with pixel counts and I agree that DSLR's can be scary sharp.

Medium & Large format cameras have a completely different look and feel to their output to small cameras. They always have, and while medium and large format backs may have fallen behind as the much larger DSLR market marched steadily ahead; the days of falling behind are clearly over. Medium and Large format is back with its own unique characteristics and it has always been those unique characteristics that have made those formats the preferred choice for beauty work and high end fashion.

Thankx for that statement!

Kent Johnson Photograph wrote:
Its got very little to do with pixel counts and I agree that DSLR's can be scary sharp.

Medium & Large format cameras have a completely different look and feel to their output to small cameras. They always have, and while medium and large format backs may have fallen behind as the much larger DSLR market marched steadily ahead; the days of falling behind are clearly over. Medium and Large format is back with its own unique characteristics and it has always been those unique characteristics that have made those formats the preferred choice for beauty work and high end fashion.

I have had this discussion with stephen before and he has argued that there is a difference only not what most think,  its a perspective difference, to frame the same shot you have to use a lens of significantly different optical characteristics which changes the perception of the image, its most apparent when he shoyuld be a few shots shot with a 300mm lens on a FF35 and than a very close framing of the same shot with a 4x5 and 1000mm lens, you could not get close enough with the 300 really, the 4x5 and 1000mm was literally 5 feet and it was not a full super tight shot, so you have a difference there thats true.

But that does not negate the fact that the images can be produced from smaller film and smaller chip digital, its more lighting, MU/H, Model, and skilled photographer and retoucher that is needed.  Format will not be limited.  VS was often shot on the original 1ds by russel james, and that was a 11mp ff digital.

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

Vitaly

Post that again in all of the D3/1Ds Mk III Masturbation threads.

I dare you..

Great work

GG

Robert Beynard wrote:

I have had this discussion with stephen before and he has argued that there is a difference only not what most think,  its a perspective difference, to frame the same shot you have to use a lens of significantly different optical characteristics which changes the perception of the image, its most apparent when he shoyuld be a few shots shot with a 300mm lens on a FF35 and than a very close framing of the same shot with a 4x5 and 1000mm lens, you could not get close enough with the 300 really, the 4x5 and 1000mm was literally 5 feet and it was not a full super tight shot, so you have a difference there thats true.

But that does not negate the fact that the images can be produced from smaller film and smaller chip digital, its more lighting, MU/H, Model, and skilled photographer and retoucher that is needed.  Format will not be limited.  VS was often shot on the original 1ds by russel james, and that was a 11mp ff digital.

So in the end we appear to agree...

I like Stephen's work but he is just one photographer (with his own way of working) by the way. Albeit a very very good one...

Sean Armenta wrote:
i don't know what the best way to shoot beauty is.  i don't mind sharing what i do when i shoot beauty.  so i hope this is of some help.

i shoot with a 5D.  if i'm on a job that has the budget for it, i will rent a phase back/H1 or H2.  i never felt the need to go with a 1ds body.  if i need a huge file, i would much rather go with a phase anyway.  the difference between 13mp and 16 or 17mp is not worth it for me.  but i did want a full frame body.  i have never had problems with size output issues.  i've seen my work blown up beyond 30 x 40 -- i've seen a poster almost 10ft on the long end of two of my shots with the 5D and it looked great.  one of my clients will be doing a poster on their store windows this holiday shot with the 5 and i look forward to seeing that.  i don't plan on upgrading to the mkIII -- i am waiting for the 5D replacement.

here is a fairly recent beauty test i did, using the 5D and the 180 macro L 3.5

first link is to the raw shot, and the second is to the final retouch.  i uploaded it to 1/2 size, but it's still like 300kb or more, plus it's a crop of the full frame, no resize or interpolation.

http://seanarmenta.com/samples/armenta_071109_raw.jpg

http://seanarmenta.com/samples/armenta_071109.jpg

this is what i consider a basic beauty retouch -- if for a campaign or editorial, i will go more 'polished' with it using dodge and burn et al.  if there is budget, i will outsource to a pro retoucher because they would do a better job than i anyhow.

lighting -- beauty dish/grid/diffusion for key, two heads behind her for edgelight.

shot into capture one and processed in capture one

retouch -- healing brush, clone, curves, eyes and teeth...eyelashes were enhanced.  i didn't even bother with the strays because the look of the final image didn't call for it.  i finished the retouch in maybe an hour, hour and a half.

i shot this test for a makeup artist for her book -- here is the full shot:  https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=4884675

i will never use a softbox as a key to shoot beauty.  i don't like using softboxes at all for key lighting on people.  90% of the time i use open indirect lighting sources -- beauty dish or silver umbrella.  i use both up front as well.  sometimes it will be a ringflash.  but that's it.  the quality of light when it comes to soft vs hard is dependent on the final look you are trying to achieve.  not everything is shot with soft light.  in fact, it's a combination of both. 

my lens choice for beauty is the 180, but i have shot beauty with the 85.  in fact i just shot some yesterday with kinos.  looked great.  kinos are great for beauty because you can position them super close and have a really nice falloff.  i will never shoot beauty with a zoom lens.

makeup and hair are key for beauty.  i love retouching but i HATE fixing mistakes and i HATE cloning out strays.  i am hard on my artists and stylists for this -- ask any one of them.  the most important skill i look for in a makeup artist is blending.  i also need to see if they can pull of a basic clean look, which is ironically a difficult look to do properly. 

models -- i could care less if they had pristine skin or not.  i am looking for the right look.  if a girl had the right look for the job, i would not pass her up simply because she had less than perfect skin.  that is silly to me -- that's what retouch is for.  which is not to say i am not picky about the girls i shoot beauty with -- i just won't let skin quality come between the right look.

btw -- someone mentioned pre-photoshop what did they do?   there were retouching programs/systems prior to photoshop - the only thing that photoshop did was bring it to the mainstream and to the desktop.

how much is too much retouch?  for me it's when the skin has no more texture and when it just looks muddy.  but this is personal preference i suppose.

QFT.

I shoot beauty much the same way.  Umbrella's, ring flash etc.  Never a softbox.  Hair and make up being the key. 

Love your stuff man.  But you know this Seantra Magnus.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
All of Katrinne Eismann's books are fantastic. Welcome to Oz by Vincent Versace is also fantastic (though I'm not smart, patient or talented enough to incorporate his processes).

I'll second Katrinne's books! I learned more from her two books then I did from the other 6 PS books I bought!

Sean Armenta wrote:
i don't know what the best way to shoot beauty is.  i don't mind sharing what i do when i shoot beauty.  so i hope this is of some help.

i shoot with a 5D.  if i'm on a job that has the budget for it, i will rent a phase back/H1 or H2.  i never felt the need to go with a 1ds body.  if i need a huge file, i would much rather go with a phase anyway.  the difference between 13mp and 16 or 17mp is not worth it for me.  but i did want a full frame body.  i have never had problems with size output issues.  i've seen my work blown up beyond 30 x 40 -- i've seen a poster almost 10ft on the long end of two of my shots with the 5D and it looked great.  one of my clients will be doing a poster on their store windows this holiday shot with the 5 and i look forward to seeing that.  i don't plan on upgrading to the mkIII -- i am waiting for the 5D replacement.

here is a fairly recent beauty test i did, using the 5D and the 180 macro L 3.5

first link is to the raw shot, and the second is to the final retouch.  i uploaded it to 1/2 size, but it's still like 300kb or more, plus it's a crop of the full frame, no resize or interpolation.

http://seanarmenta.com/samples/armenta_071109_raw.jpg

http://seanarmenta.com/samples/armenta_071109.jpg

this is what i consider a basic beauty retouch -- if for a campaign or editorial, i will go more 'polished' with it using dodge and burn et al.  if there is budget, i will outsource to a pro retoucher because they would do a better job than i anyhow.

lighting -- beauty dish/grid/diffusion for key, two heads behind her for edgelight.

shot into capture one and processed in capture one

retouch -- healing brush, clone, curves, eyes and teeth...eyelashes were enhanced.  i didn't even bother with the strays because the look of the final image didn't call for it.  i finished the retouch in maybe an hour, hour and a half.

i shot this test for a makeup artist for her book -- here is the full shot:  https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=4884675

i will never use a softbox as a key to shoot beauty.  i don't like using softboxes at all for key lighting on people.  90% of the time i use open indirect lighting sources -- beauty dish or silver umbrella.  i use both up front as well.  sometimes it will be a ringflash.  but that's it.  the quality of light when it comes to soft vs hard is dependent on the final look you are trying to achieve.  not everything is shot with soft light.  in fact, it's a combination of both. 

my lens choice for beauty is the 180, but i have shot beauty with the 85.  in fact i just shot some yesterday with kinos.  looked great.  kinos are great for beauty because you can position them super close and have a really nice falloff.  i will never shoot beauty with a zoom lens.

makeup and hair are key for beauty.  i love retouching but i HATE fixing mistakes and i HATE cloning out strays.  i am hard on my artists and stylists for this -- ask any one of them.  the most important skill i look for in a makeup artist is blending.  i also need to see if they can pull of a basic clean look, which is ironically a difficult look to do properly. 

models -- i could care less if they had pristine skin or not.  i am looking for the right look.  if a girl had the right look for the job, i would not pass her up simply because she had less than perfect skin.  that is silly to me -- that's what retouch is for.  which is not to say i am not picky about the girls i shoot beauty with -- i just won't let skin quality come between the right look.

btw -- someone mentioned pre-photoshop what did they do?   there were retouching programs/systems prior to photoshop - the only thing that photoshop did was bring it to the mainstream and to the desktop.

how much is too much retouch?  for me it's when the skin has no more texture and when it just looks muddy.  but this is personal preference i suppose.

Robert Beynard wrote:

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

Ha ha ha! I almost spit my coffee all over the key board!

Sean Armenta wrote:
i don't know what the best way to shoot beauty is.  i don't mind sharing what i do when i shoot beauty.  so i hope this is of some help.

i shoot with a 5D.  if i'm on a job that has the budget for it, i will rent a phase back/H1 or H2.  i never felt the need to go with a 1ds body.  if i need a huge file, i would much rather go with a phase anyway.  the difference between 13mp and 16 or 17mp is not worth it for me.  but i did want a full frame body.  i have never had problems with size output issues.  i've seen my work blown up beyond 30 x 40 -- i've seen a poster almost 10ft on the long end of two of my shots with the 5D and it looked great.  one of my clients will be doing a poster on their store windows this holiday shot with the 5 and i look forward to seeing that.  i don't plan on upgrading to the mkIII -- i am waiting for the 5D replacement.

here is a fairly recent beauty test i did, using the 5D and the 180 macro L 3.5

first link is to the raw shot, and the second is to the final retouch.  i uploaded it to 1/2 size, but it's still like 300kb or more, plus it's a crop of the full frame, no resize or interpolation.

http://seanarmenta.com/samples/armenta_071109_raw.jpg

http://seanarmenta.com/samples/armenta_071109.jpg

this is what i consider a basic beauty retouch -- if for a campaign or editorial, i will go more 'polished' with it using dodge and burn et al.  if there is budget, i will outsource to a pro retoucher because they would do a better job than i anyhow.

lighting -- beauty dish/grid/diffusion for key, two heads behind her for edgelight.

shot into capture one and processed in capture one

retouch -- healing brush, clone, curves, eyes and teeth...eyelashes were enhanced.  i didn't even bother with the strays because the look of the final image didn't call for it.  i finished the retouch in maybe an hour, hour and a half.

i shot this test for a makeup artist for her book -- here is the full shot:  https://modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=4884675

i will never use a softbox as a key to shoot beauty.  i don't like using softboxes at all for key lighting on people.  90% of the time i use open indirect lighting sources -- beauty dish or silver umbrella.  i use both up front as well.  sometimes it will be a ringflash.  but that's it.  the quality of light when it comes to soft vs hard is dependent on the final look you are trying to achieve.  not everything is shot with soft light.  in fact, it's a combination of both. 

my lens choice for beauty is the 180, but i have shot beauty with the 85.  in fact i just shot some yesterday with kinos.  looked great.  kinos are great for beauty because you can position them super close and have a really nice falloff.  i will never shoot beauty with a zoom lens.

makeup and hair are key for beauty.  i love retouching but i HATE fixing mistakes and i HATE cloning out strays.  i am hard on my artists and stylists for this -- ask any one of them.  the most important skill i look for in a makeup artist is blending.  i also need to see if they can pull of a basic clean look, which is ironically a difficult look to do properly. 

models -- i could care less if they had pristine skin or not.  i am looking for the right look.  if a girl had the right look for the job, i would not pass her up simply because she had less than perfect skin.  that is silly to me -- that's what retouch is for.  which is not to say i am not picky about the girls i shoot beauty with -- i just won't let skin quality come between the right look.

btw -- someone mentioned pre-photoshop what did they do?   there were retouching programs/systems prior to photoshop - the only thing that photoshop did was bring it to the mainstream and to the desktop.

how much is too much retouch?  for me it's when the skin has no more texture and when it just looks muddy.  but this is personal preference i suppose.

Thanks for posting before and after like that! Your work is beautiful!

Bruce Talbot wrote:

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

Awesome work (as always).

Thanks for the information.

Novusdamus wrote:
I shoot beauty much the same way...

Bruce Talbot wrote:
I've begun a beauty...
bt

Sean Armenta wrote:
i don't know what the best way to shoot beauty is....

IMHO, these are the best three responses yet. 

Thanks guys for taking the time to respond to the thread!

Bruce Talbot wrote:

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

Black models seem to love what I do for them, but this stuff makes me wanna sell my gear and take up another vocation, as it's just so rich with color & damn near everything.....
I suspect Bruce made a contract with the devil, to be this good...where do I sign?

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 have seen vitalli's images posted at one of the larger seattle camera stores at about 18x24 or so and they look fantastic, i think that you should really look at his website before you say the things that you are saying, he is very talented and his work resembles the op's reference as close as anything that i have seen here. look at his linked website

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

Hi Sean.  Ha!  Well I guess that answers my question of did I retouch them enough. :-)  These are "finished" images from my first beauty tests.  I did do some post work but not that much.  I wasn't sure how far to go.

Gregory
www.gregorystorm.com

Bruce Talbot wrote:

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

BT - Good post and images.  How much of those three images was post work?  Do you do your own post work or do you send out?

Gregory
www.gregorystorm.com

Gregory Storm wrote:
BT - Good post and images.  How much of those three images was post work?  Do you do your own post work or do you send out?

Gregory
www.gregorystorm.com

Thanks. Yes I do my own retouching. 

As Chip mentioned above, choosing the right "girl" will vastly affect where the image can evolve and how much work it will take to get there. Her look and ability to impart emotion into the image sets the visual foundation you'll need to build upon. Once she's selected, knowing why her likeness will be seen, by whom, and to what effect, will guide you to a destination. Those are all pre-shoot decisions, yet I'll envision a finished image before picking up a camera.

Below I've posted the untouched jpg preview along with a finished raw capture to answer your post work question. It's great skin, clean lighting (in this case soft) and very little make up (upper lashes, a hint of mascara and gloss on lips) that produces a great shot to start with. Post work consumed about an hour before the file was finished, ready for publication.



bt

LADY SWEET FACE wrote:
*waves at BT*

When do you hang up your cape for the evening?

How do 'lil lady.

It's usually an hour or two before breakfast  > > > >  NYC time.

bt

Bruce Talbot wrote:
How do 'lil lady.

It's usually an hour or two before breakfast  > > > >  NYC time.

bt

lol!! You're crazy! Who am I to say anything, it's 2am lol!

GDS Photos wrote:
Bruce, where did you get that filter?  Was it the one advertised extensively on this site?  I love the way you worked that shot.  Simple, clean and beautiful.

Filter?  What is filter?  I know not this filter thou speaks of. 

bt

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

I'm playing around with my new hensel strobes, having lots of fun, and I would love to mount them overhead, but I currently don't have any means to get them in that position. What kind of stand or contraption do you use Bruce?

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

Coby Photography wrote:
I'm playing around with my new hensel strobes, having lots of fun, and I would love to mount them overhead, but I currently don't have any means to get them in that position. What kind of stand or contraption do you use Bruce?

For that shot it's a 12' Bogen/Manfrotto Stand w/wheels and a Bogen/Manfrotto 9' Heavy Duty Boom Arm. Additional weight was added to base of stand.  Note: I don't extend the stand or boom beyond 75% of it's available reach.

bt

Kent Johnson Photograph wrote:
Its got very little to do with pixel counts and I agree that DSLR's can be scary sharp.

Medium & Large format cameras have a completely different look and feel to their output to small cameras. They always have, and while medium and large format backs may have fallen behind as the much larger DSLR market marched steadily ahead; the days of falling behind are clearly over. Medium and Large format is back with its own unique characteristics and it has always been those unique characteristics that have made those formats the preferred choice for beauty work and high end fashion.

I think MF does have that look and feel you're talking about..

I also think a skilled photographer/editor can do amazing things with a high end DSLR.

By the time a photographer is willing and or able to drop 10-30 grand on a camera, they are a usually working pro who has a wealth of information and the ability to use the digital back to its true potential.

The reason some Americas Next Top Model shoots aren't always all that is because some of those photographers are using the Hasselblad for the first time and are out of their element.

Even Tyra walked out with the Hassy and then switched to a Canon for the actual shoot in the last episode.

Yes I watch it.

Frank

Bruce Talbot wrote:

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

Bruce,

When using the 2 small soft boxes from behind how do you minimize the fine facial hair when back lighting?

thanks,
Frank