Tulack wrote:
She's a photographer, not a fact she retouching her images. Could be different retoucher for every image.
retoucher can make a big difference.

All the information leads to she doing her own work including CG

Also it says she used to rely a lot more in photoshop than she does now

Tulack wrote:
She's a photographer, not a fact she retouching her images. Could be different retoucher for every image.
retoucher can make a big difference.

Why are you posting Annie Leibovitz images to illustrate a point about Chen Man?  I am confused...

Grin Without a Cat wrote:

Why are you posting Annie Leibovitz images to illustrate a point about Chen Man?  I am confused...

My question too.

Beth Furumasu wrote:
I was thinking the same thing. What does Annie Leibovitz have to do with this thread.

I don't think Chen man has any crazy secrets. In regards to the "3d effect" I just think she has wonderfully refined lighting skills and is knowledgeable and selective about her dodging and burning techniques.

Start with makeup. She loves good make up and it shows. Don't overlook how the pre production can greatly aid the finished product. And she knows how to light man. Even the photos shes done with more natural light are still wonderfully lit. Shadows and highlights create depth. And she (or her retoucher I don't know) is good at continuing and accentuating them in Post.

I know that wasn't super specific and it seems simple. But it isn't the techniques that are the difficult part, it is the execution that sets one image apart from another. I can't really speak on that since I haven't seen the raw. but my guess is that she started with a well lit photo to begin with.

Yep. Start with a good image. Then, make it better. That's pretty obviously what's going on here, to me.

Grin Without a Cat wrote:
Why are you posting Annie Leibovitz images to illustrate a point about Chen Man?  I am confused...

Why are you talking about Annie Leibovitz? I was talking about retoucher. It doesn't matter Leibovitz or Chen Man. They both can use the same retoucher, and all this wonderful colors has nothing to do with both of them.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Wondering the same as the above poster

Answering the same as to the above poster.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
My question too.

My answer to you too.

Beth Furumasu wrote:
I was thinking the same thing.

You have something brown on your nose.

Loki Studio wrote:
Chen Man has many different styles and only a few involve heavy retouching. Mostly its just great talent in front and behind the camera.

Exactly my point. Many different styles means no style and she definitely has one. Means it's many different retouchers. Magazines doesn't hire photographers to do hair, makeup, photograph, edit and retouch image.

Tulack wrote:

You have something brown on your nose.

And you're consistently rude and unhelpful.

Tulack wrote:

Why are you talking about Annie Leibovitz? I was talking about retoucher. It doesn't matter Leibovitz or Chen Man. They both can use the same retoucher, and all this wonderful colors has nothing to do with both of them.

If you think it doesn't matter who shoots what or that the color is some magical post production trickery you may want to pursue a new hobby

Tulack wrote:
... Many different styles means no style and she definitely has one.

I was wondering about that too....especially because i got so many styles too :p ....

a feel, or recurring emotion, or rytm, or view is a style too....not a technical style, but a more narrative...

Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com

Tulack wrote:

Exactly my point. Many different styles means no style and she definitely has one. Means it's many different retouchers. Magazines doesn't hire photographers to do hair, makeup, photograph, edit and retouch image.

She has been evolving.

Her latest work has a style inspite being directed by clients.

She says she retouched herself.

You don't believe her? I have no reasons to doubt her.

Also, the quality doesn't come from the retoucher.

AJScalzitti wrote:
If you think it doesn't matter who shoots what or that the color is some magical post production trickery you may want to pursue a new hobby

With high end composite advertising work everything is top post production, special composite work with matte painting and CGI .
Magical colors are also post production.

There are no magical files straight from camera and almost any photographer with average knowledge of photography can shoot file with 2 soft boxes over studio solid background  and to prepare that file for composite work.

2 soft boxes , tripod, ISO 100, f8 or f9 , 1/125or 1/160  , white or gray solid background  and just press the button.
The only difference later is which top retouchers or retouching agencies work on files.

Behind all "these successful " photographers are top retouchers which are responsible for miracles, because they have budget  to pay top retouchers which make that level of photography.

It is the same and with film/video industry, all movies are over green screen studio background and later everything is post production and video composite work with matte painting and amazing colors.

Best
ST

ST Retouch wrote:
With high end composite advertising work everything is top post production, special composite work with matte painting and CGI .
Magical colors are also post production.

There are no magical files straight from camera and almost any photographer with average knowledge of photography can shoot file with 2 soft boxes over studio solid background  and to prepare that file for composite work.

2 soft boxes , tripod, ISO 100, f8 or f9 , 1/125or 1/160  , white or gray solid background  and just press the button.
The only difference later is which top retouchers or retouching agencies work on files.

Behind all "these successful " photographers are top retouchers which are responsible for miracles, because they have budget  to pay top retouchers which make that level of photography.

It is the same and with film/video industry, all movies are over green screen studio background and later everything is post production and video composite work with matte painting and amazing colors.

Best
ST

such a pessimist ...pity you don't believe it's possible to deliver a good base miracle....you diminish photographers to soft-box-robots....btw soft boxes are just for fillers :p

Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com

Herman van Gestel wrote:
such a pessimist ...pity you don't believe it's possible to deliver a good base miracle....you diminish photographers to soft-box-robots....btw soft boxes are just for fillers :p

Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com

I am professional photographer so I know what I speak, and yes soft boxes are for composite work , because later in composite work retouchers play with shadows and higlights and make scenery.
Soft boxes are standards for preparing files for composite work.
When you prepare file in studio for composite work you shoot basic files , you don't play with lighting, shadows or similar .

Best
ST

ST Retouch wrote:

I am professional photographer so I know what I speak, and yes soft boxes are for composite work , because later in composite work retouchers play with shadows and higlights and make scenery.
Soft boxes are standards for preparing files for composite work .

Best
ST

so you want to give every whack with a camera the feeling they are top notch photographers as long as they use softboxes :p...that's sad...

Tulack wrote:

Exactly my point. Many different styles means no style and she definitely has one. Means it's many different retouchers. Magazines doesn't hire photographers to do hair, makeup, photograph, edit and retouch image.

You jump to the conclusion that Chen Man uses external retouchers when there is no information to support that. In fact, every article and interview I see with Chen Man clearly states she does her own retouching:

http://www.artphotoexpo.com/photographer.php?id=39

http://www.productionparadise.com/membe … n-man.html

http://www.creativehunt.com/shanghai/ar … hotography

http://www.timeoutshanghai.com/features … n-Man.html

http://online.thatsmags.com/post/profil … otographer

http://www.whiterabbitcollection.org/ar … %E6%9B%BC/

Herman van Gestel wrote:

so you want to give every whack with a camera the feeling they are top notch photographers as long as they use softboxes :p...that's sad...

Yes, sad.

That's exactly how I read it.

Have you noticed it's always: if I can't do it with a camera and light it can't be done?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Yes, sad.

That's exactly how I read it.

Have you noticed it's always: if I can't do it with a camera and light it can't be done?

yep...apparently their own limits is the truth...

Herman van Gestel wrote:

so you want to give every whack with a camera the feeling they are top notch photographers as long as they use softboxes :p...that's sad...

Finally the secret formula... I am going to get me a softbox right now and become the best photographer ever.

And as a bonus I have a new motto... "If I can't do it then it can't be done"

Beth Furumasu wrote:
most of her works are not composites so why are you talking about composites st retouch? This is a different type of shooting style all together.

That's all he talks about

The only business is composite and CG work

Beth Furumasu wrote:
most of her works are not composites so why are you talking about composites st retouch? This is a different type of shooting style all together.

I didn't speak about her work I can see there are no composites .
Her work is very nice with very nice retouching .
I just wrote that post production is main thing for great results, for amazing colors, balance, effects  etc, no matter if is composite image or real location.
I gave example with advertising level of work and with film production to explain some things - there are no amazing results straight from camera.
For serious work each file needs serious retouching to achieve these great results.

Best
ST

Herman van Gestel wrote:
Sorry, but specifically this image i can't see somethíng outstanding regarding postproduction...this seems just like a reasonable production...

I'm i missing something?

Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com

You have right about that image.
That image from OP post is simple model shoot over solid studio background  without  retouching or just couple of clone/healing brush tool with maybe couple of D&B steps and with  just darker curves .

Herman van Gestel wrote:
I even doubt if it was actually a white bg, i don't even see a bounce in the to-be expected-shiny parts of the goo...except if the proportions of white in the background would be less than .5 stop....but it would be still affecting shiny parts...the separation of the hair is not very well... (could be because of too much compression, but still)

Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com

Yes I see, but results on hair are maybe because she has mud or chocolate ( whatever is it)   on hair and on body .
I would agree with you and say that this is  shoot over some medium/darker gray background  , I can feel studio lighting on file and later original studio background is replaced with new lighter background  .

Also it is possible and that shot was over white background , model was 1-2 meters in front of the white background and that setting was 1/160 with f13, f14  maybe more with 2 soft boxes and no lighting behind model so that's the reason why they are not some highlights on skin edges or any expected-shiny parts.

It can be both
Best

ST Retouch wrote:

Yes I see, but results on hair are maybe because she has mud or chocolate ( whatever is it)   on hair and on body .
I would agree with you and say that this is  shoot over some medium/darker gray background  , I can feel studio lighting on file and later original studio background is replaced with new lighter background  .

Also it is possible and that shot was over white background , model was 1-2 meters in front of the white background and that setting was 1/160 with f13, f14  maybe more with 2 soft boxes and no lighting behind model so that's the reason why they are not some highlights on skin edges or any expected-shiny parts.

It can be both
Best

depends on the distance of the lamp in front in front in relationship to the background...but still white needs to be 0 or more stops lighter to become white...from 2 stops onwards difference it starts to reflect on the skin....

..only highly reflective surfaces would be still reflecting it, so looking at the "reflection" of the goo the background must be indeed a dark colour.

...that was quite some masking then