I would go into the raw image and brighten her face, hair, and dress. Maybe pop up the colors in lightroom and then take the image into photoshop and layover a filter. It depends on the mood you are trying to set. I shoot a lot of editorials for magazines and such usually there are a series of images telling a story. With just one image it's pretty tough to tell you exactly what to do with it.
Editorial implies a story, if it's not there its not there. Sorry but post processing isn't going to do that and I don't think that is exactly what you are looking for here...
So do you have some samples of what you are thinking of?
i have a series of pix from this shoot that i can turn in into editorial...this is not the only one, but i was trying to get an idea what you guys would do to this picture to make it more editorial looking...
Eni Photography wrote: i have a series of pix from this shoot that i can turn in into editorial...this is not the only one, but i was trying to get an idea what you guys would do to this picture to make it more editorial looking...
This specific image may need a background replacement to try to get a look like the one above. That image from Vogue is very contrasty too, do you have a raw for this image? If so a lot of that overlaying and contrast can be done in lightroom.
Eni Photography wrote: i was trying to get an idea what you guys would do to this picture to make it more editorial looking...
Tone it, tint it, saturate, desaturate, add a gradient or three, maybe some fake lens flare, a bit of solarization, bump up the blue, bump up the red, drag down the green.....
At the end of the day it's your picture so unless you send it out to a retoucher you will have to decide what to do with it. The editorial you referenced uses a very different colour palette and lighting style than your image so it's kind of hard to see how you'd get a similar look even if you had an action that duplicates the PS steps precisely.
You can make editorial touch very easy if you change background and add editorial color grading.
The trick is to change background , to cut your model together with fence and put on a new editorial background.
These steps will give you powerful editorial touch.
Regards!
I think that photograph is too flat to add a background to without it looking strange, i'd personally probably end up adding a misty/white effect to the background.
your portfolio seems quite decent with your toning so i guess you know how to change the colours but for that photo, as you can't go back and reshoot with better lighting, i think a lot of d/b to contour the face more as it's very flat looking would help, a few gradiants/overlays of warmer tones, then go from there with making certain parts more vibrant, liquify will also make it look much better.
ST Retouch wrote: You can make editorial touch very easy if you change background and add editorial color grading.
The trick is to change background , to cut your model together with fence and put on a new editorial background.
These steps will give you powerful editorial touch.
Regards!
Background changing isn't usually a very respected thing to do in the real editorial scene... Using good locations is.
In order to know how to do "that editorial feel" (if there is such thing), is to know where to look at in order to learn. Forums are rarely the place. Magazines is where you want to look for the good stuff. Instead of buying all the magazines, you can check blogs like www.fashiongonerogue.com ... a must for any retoucher.
FLEXmanta wrote: Background changing isn't usually a very respected thing to do in the real editorial scene... Using good locations is.
In order to know how to do "that editorial feel" (if there is such thing), is to know where to look at in order to learn. Forums are rarely the place. Magazines is where you want to look for the good stuff. Instead of buying all the magazines, you can check blogs like www.fashiongonerogue.com ... a must for any retoucher.
Eni Photogrpaphy just asked what to do with her file to make editorial touch.
She has nice port and she kindly asked for any help on forum.
I just gave her my advice( my 0,2 cents advise) , and I really think the only way for this file is to change background and play with color grading, lighting effects, bokeh effects , lens flare effects or something like this to get editorial touch.
Background changing is usually a very respected thing to do in the real editorial scene ( if we don't have real original great and expensive location for the background).
If you didn't know that , I am really sorry.
A lot of fashion companies( small, medium and big ones) around the world order these kind of retouching (editorial retouching with background changing) , because they want to cut their costs.
Shooting on different location for one catalog or something like this , is really, really very expensive ( if they have to shoot from beautiful Norway up to beautiful Greek island for editorial locations).
They have to pay a lot of money for photographers,assistants, models, air tickets, hotels , accommodation, pay for locations etc .
Instead of that everything can be done in studio for just one working day over professional solid background and later background changing and making editorial retouching.
And finally these kind of shooting and retouching is much more technically correct and they get much more better files and quality then they can get on the real location, which is very important later for print .
On that way ,which is the most important , they have at the same time and Lookbook campaign , from the same shooting, some files will be used for editorial retouching, some files will be used for Lookbook campaign.
That's the way how professionals work in real business( real professional photographers, productions and retouching agencies), when they have a lot of files for campaigns and production, and deadlines.
On that way they can make up to 200 high fashion files just for 3-5 days(including shooting and post production , editorial and lookbook campaign - ready for print).
Maybe you can understand now how real business work outside of this great forum.
And finally if you( not "you" personally) can not help to other members on forum with their questions, it is not professional to use forum for self promotion and playing around with lessons about business (like couple of "best high end retouchers on forum " with 3 and 1/2 files in their portfolio ).
I suppose that if they work in high end industry, they don't have time even to read posts , or "high end industry business" is to write thousands and thousands of posts on forum and spending time on forum .
Maybe we have new definition of high end industry business --- writing thousands of posts on forum.
I have never been unprofessional and I threat all members here on this great forum on the same way.
I don't want to be misunderstood with my post , but every time when I find time to visit forum all I can see is the same guys with lessons about "high end industry" and the only thing what they do is to tease other members and make self promotions with 3 and 1/2 files in their port.
It is a long way to become real tiger in job ( tens of thousands retouched files, employees , making an agency, invest in working stations, offices, equipment, cameras and lenses for production and shooting , etc, etc)
You ( not "you" personally ) will never became tiger by teasing other members on forum and playing around "big game " from your dinning room in front of your small lap top.
That's why I really appreciate Peano retoucher , I have never seen from him any wrong word , any teasing , any bad comment.
He is very helpful , great person and he always, always try to help.
Try to be like him, it is not really difficult.
Best Regards to all!
FLEXmanta wrote: Background changing isn't usually a very respected thing to do in the real editorial scene... Using good locations is.
In order to know how to do "that editorial feel" (if there is such thing), is to know where to look at in order to learn. Forums are rarely the place. Magazines is where you want to look for the good stuff. Instead of buying all the magazines, you can check blogs like www.fashiongonerogue.com ... a must for any retoucher.
+1
The retouch shouldn't make your image. That should have been done in the shooting stage. Model, makeup, styling, location etc.
ST Retouch wrote: Eni Photogrpaphy just asked what to do with her file to make editorial touch.
She has nice port and she kindly asked for any help on forum.
I just gave her my advice( my 0,2 cents advise) , and I really think the only way for this file is to change background and play with color grading, lighting effects, bokeh effects , lens flare effects or something like this to get editorial touch.
Background changing is usually a very respected thing to do in the real editorial scene ( if we don't have real original great and expensive location for the background).
If you didn't know that , I am really sorry.
A lot of fashion companies( small, medium and big ones) around the world order these kind of retouching (editorial retouching with background changing) , because they want to cut their costs.
Shooting on different location for one catalog or something like this , is really, really very expensive ( if they have to shoot from beautiful Norway up to beautiful Greek island for editorial locations).
They have to pay a lot of money for photographers,assistants, models, air tickets, hotels , accommodation, pay for locations etc .
Instead of that everything can be done in studio for just one working day over professional solid background and later background changing and making editorial retouching.
And finally these kind of shooting and retouching is much more technically correct and they get much more better files and quality then they can get on the real location, which is very important later for print .
On that way ,which is the most important , they have at the same time and Lookbook campaign , from the same shooting, some files will be used for editorial retouching, some files will be used for Lookbook campaign.
That's the way how professionals work in real business( real professional photographers, productions and retouching agencies), when they have a lot of files for campaigns and production, and deadlines.
On that way they can make up to 200 high fashion files just for 3-5 days(including shooting and post production , editorial and lookbook campaign - ready for print).
Maybe you can understand now how real business work outside of this great forum.
And finally if you( not "you" personally) can not help to other members on forum with their questions, it is not professional to use forum for self promotion and playing around with lessons about business (like couple of "best high end retouchers on forum " with 3 and 1/2 files in their portfolio ).
I suppose that if they work in high end industry, they don't have time even to read posts , or "high end industry business" is to write thousands and thousands of posts on forum and spending time on forum .
Maybe we have new definition of high end industry business --- writing thousands of posts on forum.
I have never been unprofessional and I threat all members here on this great forum on the same way.
I don't want to be misunderstood with my post , but every time when I find time to visit forum all I can see is the same guys with lessons about "high end industry" and the only thing what they do is to tease other members and make self promotions with 3 and 1/2 files in their port.
It is a long way to become real tiger in job ( tens of thousands retouched files, employees , making an agency, invest in working stations, offices, equipment, cameras and lenses for production and shooting , etc, etc)
You ( not "you" personally ) will never became tiger by teasing other members on forum and playing around "big game " from your dinning room in front of your small lap top.
That's why I really appreciate Piano retoucher , I have never seen from him any wrong word , any teasing , any bad comment.
He is very helpful , great person and he always, always try to help.
Try to be like him, it is not really difficult.
Best Regards to all!
I understand what you are trying to say, but I believe you are in an industry very far from what today is considered acceptable in editorial. I do know how the industry works outside of this forum, in fact, I don't even know how it does inside of it.
Behind this browser window I'm retouching Hugo Boss' campaign. Sucks that one has to say that to gain credibility. I do think I have the amount of experience required to say that in editorials, background changing is really not the way to go. That kind of cost saving might be a thing in the catalog/lookbook scene (and I still doubt it), but not in the editorial. I have a hard time imagining a preproduction meeting touching the subject of background changes for a serious campaign/editorial. In editorial everything goes and you work with what you got and in advertising, if needed, everyone travels. If there's no location, there must be a studio, right? Ever seen David Sims or Mert&Markus changing backgrounds? Doubt it.
Background changes, bitchin HDRI, compositing and all those things belong to other very respectful genres of retouching, like advertising and movie posters and even artistic retouching. In fashion photography, most of those things are often the product of not knowing what fashion photography really is. You can't be a fashion retoucher if you are not into fashion photography and can't tell the difference between genres.
In fashion (either editorial or advertising), you do a little cleaning and then you do A LOT OF COLOR!, that's it. No secrets, no photoshop tricks, just color, color and more color.
I can't stress this enough: 30 minutes a day of www.fashiongonerogue.com should be enough to answer most of the questions of people wanting to know what fashion photography really is and isn't today.
I understand what you are trying to say, but I believe you are in an industry very far from what today is considered acceptable in editorial. I do know how the industry works outside of this forum, in fact, I don't even know how it does inside of it.
Behind this browser window I'm retouching Hugo Boss' campaign. Sucks that one has to say that to gain credibility. I do think I have the amount of experience required to say that in editorials, background changing is really not the way to go. That kind of cost saving might be a thing in the catalog/lookbook scene, but not in the editorial. In editorial everything goes and you work with what you got and in advertising, if needed, everyone travels. If there's no location, there must be a studio, right? Ever seen David Sims or Mert&Markus changing backgrounds? Doubt it.
There's nothing wrong with digital art, compositing, background changing and many other concepts that make impactful images, but in fashion photography, most of those things become stains in someone's portfolio.
In fashion (either editorial or advertising), you do a little cleaning and then you do A LOT OF COLOR!, that's it. No secrets, no photoshop tricks, just color, color and more color.
Behind this browser maybe I did just for last year with my team and partners over 2500 high fashion editorial files for clients ( full production, including shooting, compositing ,editorial retouching and marketing) .
I don't count thousands and thousands of lookbook files and other types of files .
But I will never say my main client base and for whom I work , simply this is not important for forum and this thread and question about file above.
Simply forum is not a place for self promotions and stories about I do retouching for this or that client, it is very funny for someone to use forum for these threads, and is very funny for someone who read this posts.
I really appreciate each photographer's or retoucher's work here on this great Modelmayhem( even if they are done on amateur level) .
They made their files with love and passion, simply they like photography, and I like this a lot.
Some of them are successful on this or that way , some of theme are beginners (but maybe one day , they will become real tigers )
And I am very professional and I don't have rights ( and I don't want to make this) to tease other members on forum like couple of members do, and to give lessons .
Everyone know what is the best for him/her.
If I can help with my advise , I would be very happy , but I don't want to play around with lessons like others do( in style I am the best I know what is fashion retouching)
And when real professionals visit their ports , only they can see 3 files in their port from their "high end industry carrier " , but on virtual forum they are the best .
Again I don't want to be misunderstood I don't speak about anyone personally .
Sorry ,your thread about editorial retouching and compositing in editorial retouching is really wrong, you are very far away.
The main thing in high end fashion retouching and photography for serious clients is editorial retouching with background changing.
This is the most complexed job and serious clients look for this kind of shooting and retouching a lot.
And one thing more, real professionals even when they shoot on location, they always shoot series with model on location, and other series with only backgrounds from that locations ( in case that something go wrong with settings and lighting on location) .
Then in post production you can use separately model and background locations to make composite work.
If we pass these days through industry we can see tons of snap shots covered by color grading ( color grading is the main thing to cover big mistakes which photographers make with shooting, wrong ISO settings, wrong aperture settings etc.)
Off course color grading is also and fashion effects and when is used on high professional files we have great effects , but when is used on snap shots , it looks very amateur.
You have to pass through many fashion companies around the world , to see what they make with their files , to pass through retoucher's ports , photo production's ports and retouching agencies to see what they make , and then you will see what is real editorial and fashion retouching with background changing.
The best files ever in high fashion industry are done in composite work, just maybe you did not realize that.
Because some scenes you have to shoot separately if you don't want amateur noise effects on files( and if you don't want to use colors, colors and colors to cover amateur's mistakes with noise),
For example high end fashion nigh scenes , first of all you have to capture background nigh scene with ISO 100 and without lighting.
If you don't know for this shoot you need special settings and you need at least 20-30 seconds (shutter speed) to capture this background if you want to get perfect background file without noise and bad levels.
If you shoot model with the same capture in these 20-30 seconds model will have movements and she will look blurry and out of focus on file.
Ask any photographer ( even an amateur) and you will get answer that this is impossible.
So if we want to capture night scene first we have to capture background and then to capture only model with normal shutter speed , and then finally composite work to make real high fashion nigh scene.
I can tell you a thousands of stories and examples about these kind of production and retouching.
I just gave you one simple story about shooting high end fashion nigh scene.
Editorial fashion photography and retouching is not only to take model to desert , or on the beach, or some fashion garden and later cover all these things with color grading.
There are more complexed things than you can even imagine in real high end fashion production.
For these things you have to be professional fashion photographer with over 10 years of really high professional experience and with hundreds of thousands files in your pocket and tens of thousands retouched files in your pocket.
Maybe you will meet these complexed retouching jobs in the future and then you will know what I am talking right now about high end fashion production.
For these kind of retouching you have to be so experienced just to realize from where to start( I don't want even to speak about how professional you have to be to make professional hair cutting with full hair color decontamination, professional cutting of transparent fabrics/clothes which are the most complexed jobs in retouching)
Then you will realize what I said above, that the best high fashion files ever are done in composite work.
And that's the rules if we speak about real high fashion photography.
If we speak about tons of snap shots covered with color grading which we can see these days in "industry", yes, they need only colors, colors, and colors to cover all amateur mistakes from photographers and retouchers.
Real high fashion photography is something else and needs high professional compositing work.
Regards!
ST Retouch wrote: The main thing in high end fashion retouching and photography for serious clients is editorial retouching with background changing.
Real high fashion photography is something else and needs high professional compositing work.
Regards!
Simply not true. Fashion retouching is, technically, the easiest of all genres. Artistically it could be one of the most complex.
I do advertising, and I know what is to use 30 images for a single canvas. That just simply is not so in fashion.
Do you really look at a Numeró editorial and go: oooooh, this is not fashion because it's just a properly lit image of a beautiful model with sublime styling... but there's no technical stuff, therefore it is not high end fashion.
Fashion is, Fashion TV, Vogue (some), Numeró, Daria Werbowy, Maryna Linchuk, Ferragamo, Ryan Burns... Not photoshop magic, or selection techniques and all of that photoshop woowoo that internet teaching pages want people to believe. Fashion is simply NOT THAT! I've worked with people who had no idea about techincal stuff, but that with a couple curves would do tones that would make your head explode.
Images in this google search encompass today's high end fashion.
http://bit.ly/L1K8ZK
No complex compositing there. I think you are confusing advertising with fashion, or perhaps you work with very sloppy producers.
PS: Nowhere on MM you will find the list of people I work for. I'm not here for work, i just like forums. If I dropped the fact that im doing the Hugo Boss' campaign was only for you to calibrate who you are talking with. Some 5 years ago, if someone came to me with a piece of knowledge, with that person having reached a point of his career to be doing that level of a client, I'd immediately value whatever he'd be saying. If you interpret it as a way to promote myself, you should know promoting my self on an internet forum would affect 0,01% of my career, hence has no interest for me. Hope that makes clear that I have no intentions of impressing anyone here. Our online portfolios are really not a thing to look at. Most of the people that work with in the production house I work in don't even have a website, and they do a couple Vogues every month. Not more than a month ago one went and worked with friggin Mario Testino for crying out loud!! You google this retoucher's name and will find nada, as in this level of work, most of the jobs we get are not the result of our online presence.
Bottom line: Fashion is not about technical stuff. Fashion is not a place for photoshop magicians (although you need to know your stuff). In fashion photography there's only room for fashion and no room nerdy techy stuff. That's advertising territory. This is in topic because the finest editorials today, are in a fashion context.
George Ruge wrote: Editing does not equal editorial. Editorial is shot with the intent of telling a story, it's not about the look but about the meaning.
Fashion editorials really don't have eventual or temporal continuity. The only continuity you will find in fashion today is a pattern of elements such as color, type of acting, type of styling... or even a complete unrelatedness of such items.
Today, high end editorials are all about the looks. But not exclusively the looks provided by retouching, but the combination of all the factors that encompass a look. Photogaphers base their careers on a style, and that's the style they sell. David sims will almost exclusively work in pastels and b&w. The models he casts are very identifiable. The acting is also very caracteristic. That's what he does when he does editorial. And when he does advertising he will try to do the same thing, with the only limit being the amount of freedom the client is willing to allow.
Flexmanta,
We speak about 2 different things and levels , you speak about simple fashion files and simple retouching , I speak about high fashion files and very complexed high end fashion retouching.
And please be professional my customers are not sloppy customers.
Do you really mean that you have right to call my customers sloppy?
I have also here on great MM great customers and friends which produce fashion files for serious fashion companies and for licensing , you want to call and these members sloppy members?
All I can see from you is sarcasm and when members from MM read your post and sarcasm about sloppy customers, what they will think about you?
I wish you all the best, try to improve your skills and knowledge about real industry, and what is real industry and where is real industry, before any lessons which you want to give to others, try to learn something new in job, and first of all try to improve your communication skills , do not tease other members , do not call them sloppy , or with other bad names.
And high industry is not what you mean, high industry is not producing couple of files for some covers twice per year.
High industry ( with incomes ) are somewhere else, just to know.
For the fist time visit great istockphoto.com and find there couple of real high industry players with top high end fashion and beauty files , how many hundreds of thousands or millions files they sold there and how many incomes per year they have.
Probably, you have never heard of them , but this is high industry incomes and real high industry players.
And this is just small example of real high industry, just to know where you have to look for real high industry players and to know what is real high industry.
This is my last post on this thread
Wishing you the best,
Robert LC
Posts: 944
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
ST Retouch wrote: And high industry is not what you mean, high industry is not producing couple of files for some covers twice per year.
High industry ( with incomes ) are somewhere else, just to know.
For the fist time visit great istockphoto.com and find there couple of real high industry players with top high end fashion and beauty files , how many hundreds of thousands or millions files they sold there and how many incomes per year they have...
Sounds like you confuse high volume with high end.
You also dont see complex compositing in microstock for 2 reasons; not cost beneficial and it's too specific. For microstock you want fairly generic images which will sell in high volumes.
Robert LC
Posts: 944
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
ST Retouch wrote: Flexmanta,
We speak about 2 different things and levels , you speak about simple fashion files and simple retouching , I speak about high fashion files and very complexed high end fashion retouching.
Anna Kirikova
Posts: 40
Saint Petersburg, Saint Petersburg, Russia
Have I understood everything right? There is a person thinking that istockphoto is a place where high fashion professionals work and where people earn money?... OMG...
I wish this didn't come across as bragging. But he just told someone who is retouching a Hugo Boss campaign to learn about the industry. What can I do.
All I can say is, trust me, changing the background of that image will not give it a sophisticated editorial look. That image has a lot of potential, A LOT!, because ,excluding the models acting and the styling, many street shot, natural light editorial photos look EXACTLY like that before they become this:
Guys I jst needed sm guidence in color and toning. Thats all, if u can help it would be appreciated, if not jst keep comments to urself!! Thank u to everyone else who tried to give me some guidence.
Guys I jst needed sm guidence in color and toning. Thats all, if u can help it would be appreciated, if not jst keep comments to urself!! Thank u to everyone else who tried to give me some guidence.
Eni Photography wrote: Guys I jst needed sm guidence in color and toning. Thats all, if u can help it would be appreciated, if not jst keep comments to urself!! Thank u to everyone else who tried to give me some guidence.
You got the advice...some people just went about it differently. Fact is, you are way off on this image being an "editorial". Lot's of issues with it notwithstanding the bad exposure, busy background etc. It's the internet..can't ask questions if you don't want to hear answers.
J M
Posts: 359
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
ST Retouch wrote:
I'll email all that too Steven Meisel and Pascal, teach them a thing or two.
There's no need to argue, it's obvious you two have different clientele.
OP maybe post the rest of the story? but I feel like a 1960s americana vibe going, nice pastel greens possibly? Bit more contrast through curves and carving. Post of the rest of the story as it'll better suit it if they all follow a common style.
And Flex has good advice, look at his work on fashiongonerogue and the Loreal advertisements, beautiful.
Daniel Ecoff
Posts: 410
SHERMAN OAKS, California, US
ST Retouch wrote: Flexmanta,
We speak about 2 different things and levels , you speak about simple fashion files and simple retouching , I speak about high fashion files and very complexed high end fashion retouching.
And please be professional my customers are not sloppy customers.
Do you really mean that you have right to call my customers sloppy?
I have also here on great MM great customers and friends which produce fashion files for serious fashion companies and for licensing , you want to call and these members sloppy members?
All I can see from you is sarcasm and when members from MM read your post and sarcasm about sloppy customers, what they will think about you?
I wish you all the best, try to improve your skills and knowledge about real industry, and what is real industry and where is real industry, before any lessons which you want to give to others, try to learn something new in job, and first of all try to improve your communication skills , do not tease other members , do not call them sloppy , or with other bad names.
And high industry is not what you mean, high industry is not producing couple of files for some covers twice per year.
High industry ( with incomes ) are somewhere else, just to know.
For the fist time visit great istockphoto.com and find there couple of real high industry players with top high end fashion and beauty files , how many hundreds of thousands or millions files they sold there and how many incomes per year they have.
Probably, you have never heard of them , but this is high industry incomes and real high industry players.
And this is just small example of real high industry, just to know where you have to look for real high industry players and to know what is real high industry.
This is my last post on this thread
Wishing you the best,
Best regards to all!
And you my friend should try and improve on your English and Grammar.
ST Retouch wrote: Behind this browser maybe I did just for last year with my team and partners over 2500 high fashion editorial files for clients ( full production, including shooting, compositing ,editorial retouching and marketing) .
I don't count thousands and thousands of lookbook files and other types of files .
But I will never say my main client base and for whom I work , simply this is not important for forum and this thread and question about file above.
Simply forum is not a place for self promotions and stories about I do retouching for this or that client, it is very funny for someone to use forum for these threads, and is very funny for someone who read this posts.
Actually it is important to know clientele because it helps to establish the persons credibility as well as the reliability of their claims and/or advice. The internet is known as the information super highway for a reason, its very easy to get a lot of information, both good and bad. In fact, I would argue that there's more bad information than there is good. So people have to try and figure out what information has merit and which doesn't. While most people only have good intentions, not every one will give good advice and there's enough people around that like to blow their own horn and will regularly spew bad or misleading information just to make themselves look good.
I could just as easily make the claim that I've done thousands and thousands of "high end" fashion editorials or worked for any genra of client for that matter, but without the credits to back that up, my claims have no merit. And I'm sorry to say but between you and FLEXmanta, one of you has substantially more credit than the other...
Gran Via 536
Posts: 275
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
FLEXmanta wrote: In fashion (either editorial or advertising), you do a little cleaning and then you do A LOT OF COLOR!, that's it. No secrets, no photoshop tricks, just color, color and more color.
In you opinion, is it more important to have true color representation of the clothes, or a perceptual more agreeable color representation?
For example, if I shot film and cross processed it, the results would could look amazing, but the clothes´ colors would not be truely represented. Is it better to have a clean 100 percent true negative and do any color effects in retouching?
Due to what I imaging being a NOW slightly over saturated image, go into your HSL adjustment dropdown. In Saturation, start dropping your orange and maybe red until her skin tones come back to more of a human tone. This will also mute her hair, but I'm not done yet.
Once the skin tones are where you want them, use your brush tool and set it for saturation. Brush in the hair and adjust sliders to your liking.
Hope this helped in the event you use LR.
Aside from the bush tool, this can all be done in Camera Raw as well. The brushing would them be done in PS.
huw jenkins wrote: In you opinion, is it more important to have true color representation of the clothes, or a perceptual more agreeable color representation?
For example, if I shot film and cross processed it, the results would could look amazing, but the clothes´ colors would not be truely represented. Is it better to have a clean 100 percent true negative and do any color effects in retouching?
You shoot film? Respect.
Some of the stuff we do we also shoot on film and scan negatives on our Imacon scanner.
In fashion photography for editorials and most campaigns you can really throw all reality away. In fact, when I scan negatives, I later have to invert, contrast and correct the orange cast of the paper in photoshop. While I do that, I intentionally introduce more color funkyness by either overshooting or even leaving the developing process half done. In fashion we're not only allowed to do that, we're encouraged to.
Catalogs, still live sets and look-books are a whole different story and color might need to be realistically represented. Fortunately, I am lucky enough to have reached a position in which I do the campaign, and not the catalog. Far more enjoyable.
To your question goes my recommendation, which is nothing more than how we do it:
-We scan negatives (portra 160) on a Hasselblad/Imacon scanner.
-The image comes 16bit native, totally orange and inverted.
-In photoshop, we invert and then, with levels, correct the resulting cyan cast.
-With that, you can see the image is tightly packed right in no more than 1/4 of the histogram.
-With levels also, we contrast channel by channel to properly spread all the information across the histogram.
-While you are at that last step, don't be too precise. Lack of precision during this stage is what provides the magic of film digital processing.
After the negative has been properly digitally developed, you retouch as needed, making sure the same process can be applied to all images in the series. (so yes, I'd do the cross process and all those efects in photoshop, unless you need a very specific feel or use expired films intentionally)
Here, Jesus Alonso's work. He's the director of DigitalArtStudio in Madrid, where I work. Check out both fashion1 and fashion2. You'll know what was film and what digital.
selection techniques and all of that photoshop woowoo that internet teaching pages want people to believe. Fashion is simply NOT THAT! I've worked with people who had no idea about techincal stuff, but that with a couple curves would do tones that would make your head explode.
| 
| 
| edu