Simen Platou wrote:
... how this look is achieved?

A beauty dish in a paramount illumination configuration...
single source, no fill...
and a talented high end commercial make-up artist....

ArtistryImage wrote:

A beauty dish in a paramount illumination configuration...
single source, no fill...
and a talented high end commercial make-up artist....

and a lot of retouching

Simen Platou wrote:
Hey guys,

Just stumbled upon these beauty shots: http://www.behance.net/gallery/Vanessa-Cruz/5433029
They look really "digital", and I find them intriguing.
Does anyone have any idea how this look is achieved?

Thanks!

You can usually tell what type of light modifier being used by looking into the eyes.  Beauty Dish and a good retoucher.

A-M-P wrote:
The Retoucher that did these used to have a modelmayhem. Can't remember his name but this is the photographer

http://www.yuliagorbachenko.com/

Cristian Girotto

Connie_G wrote:
Cristian Girotto

I found it his name is Gabriele Monte
http://gabrielem89.4ormat.com/vanessa-cruz
Well hmm why are there two retouchers with the same exact work on their websites hmmmmm


OK nevermind same photos but different retouching

But anyhow comparing them you can see that the ones by Christian to achieve that look was mostly retouching as he changed most of the lighting in post.

FLEXmanta wrote:
It's a mixture of portrait professional, portraiture and Lucis.

Why do you think so?

Marieljn wrote:

Why do you think so?

sarcasm

Angie_ Hair_ and Makeup wrote:
sarcasm

No I'm sorry I never thought my question came out a sarcastic tone (I was curious), I don't intend to be, never. I was just asking maybe he could explain a bit more why he came up to such conclusion. In fact I love it every time he posts in the forum because he really give great advice and information which I respect.

Marieljn wrote:
No I'm sorry I never thought my question came out a sarcastic tone (I was curious), I don't intend to be, never. I was just asking maybe he could explain a bit more why he came up to such conclusion. In fact I love it every time he posts in the forum because he really give great advice and information which I respect.

His answer was sarcasm its what I meant. He gave you plugin answers. Him saying portrait professional was obviously sarcasm.

A-M-P wrote:
His answer was sarcasm its what I meant. He gave you plugin answers. Him saying portrait professional was obviously sarcasm.

Oh, I see... that was also the reason why it made me ask him.lol

Laura Bello wrote:
These are always the images I wish I could see a before and after of cause I can't imagine that this is just simply retouching, I mean I know my photos would never look like that no matter how much they were edited. The photographer musta pulled off some amazing shooting to get that killer lighting/crispness.

No need. This is just good ol' retouching. But a whoooooole lot of it.

You'll get to a point where you won't need to see the originals. The originals are all the same and you get used to them as you gain experience. Not only you get used to the originals, but can almost trace a map in your head for deconstructing just about any retouched image. It's been a long time since someone came up with something that was really mind-blowing, and that's a good thing, cause I think that the industry needed some stability.

I you are looking for truly mindblowing stuff, look at advertising in magazines like Luerzer's Archive. That's where all the non-fashion high-end advertising photoshop magic is (and creativity and CGI and copy...).

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Don't think it's a beauty dish.

Retoucher Cristian; http://www.cristiangirotto.com/

Look at the catch lights. It's pretty clear what they show.

Simen Platou wrote:
Hey guys,

Just stumbled upon these beauty shots: http://www.behance.net/gallery/Vanessa-Cruz/5433029
They look really "digital", and I find them intriguing.
Does anyone have any idea how this look is achieved?

Thanks!

I think that beyond all the usual fundamentals, what's different about these is that the contrast is set lower than usual, both overall and in the midtones, but with a lot of sharpening. The lower contrast makes the extra sharpening less blatant.

MC Photo wrote:
Look at the catch lights. It's pretty clear what they show.

And why not a octa or a soft box broli or even a dish with a piece of ND in the middle.

Laura Bello wrote:
These are always the images I wish I could see a before and after of cause I can't imagine that this is just simply retouching, I mean I know my photos would never look like that no matter how much they were edited. The photographer musta pulled off some amazing shooting to get that killer lighting/crispness.

I agree and would add that I'd love to know the equipment used. When I see this level of detail I think medium or large format film and drum scans.

Laura Bello wrote:
These are always the images I wish I could see a before and after of cause I can't imagine that this is just simply retouching, I mean I know my photos would never look like that no matter how much they were edited. The photographer musta pulled off some amazing shooting to get that killer lighting/crispness.

Hahaha, you think so? I can shoot a crisp shot with my eyes closed. I'm not a great retoucher but I have friends that are. We had a discussion on these types of images. There are always a bunch of different opinions. What I enjoy most is when someone takes an image that is very similar and show you how they came to their conclusion. The one I seen that was the closest, if I'm not mistaking, had some serious smoothing in frequency separation. I can't remember what the hell it was called but after separating the frequencies he made a copy of the low layer and smoothed that layer. I wish I could remember more. I know there was a lot of sharping to the texture. The final part was a lot of dodge and Burn, sculpting or painting with light and color adjustments. Sorry, I can't remember much of the order or the names but the final image was very close if not exactly like the retouchers style.

Peano wrote:

Your highly respected here. I know you don't want to make any comments that seem as if it's a critic on the work but I'm asking you, out of respect for your knowledge. Can you please put some of the nonsense of these edits only being dodged and burn to rest. Some of the information that is giving is just why new artist or artist that just want to get better are getting so confused. I'm not by any means a good retoucher but I know I can see some blurring, softening, smoothing or whatever it's called in the shadow to light area. Can you please break this down for us?

Faze1 photography wrote:
please put some of the nonsense of these edits only being dodged and burn to rest.

Nobody says it's ONLY D&B but mostly it

Faze1 photography wrote:
Some of the information that is giving is just why new artist or artist that just want to get better are getting so confused.

No.

Learning D&B is essential for a retoucher, any shortcut you want to learn in this forum or youtube is the very thing that keeps new people out of the market for longer. Confused, as you might say.

Masking - Clone/heal - D&B - Color adjustments
Blending modes

ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW

Faze1 photography wrote:
if I'm not mistaking, had some serious smoothing in frequency separation. I can't remember what the hell it was called but after separating the frequencies he made a copy of the low layer and smoothed that layer. I wish I could remember more.

Bandpass /bandstop - http://sean-blog.twicebakedphoto.com/20 … trade.html  (WARNING HE IS GEEKY) 

Dumbed down: Copy low - Blur it over - mask it out - paint back in.

That COULD have been used in this image, or it could JUST be D&B

Faze1 photography wrote:
I know there was a lot of sharping to the texture. The final part was a lot of dodge and Burn, sculpting or painting with light and color adjustments. Sorry, I can't remember much of the order or the names

There are no names... you pretty much shape with light and correct parts of the image with color adjustments.

Faze1 photography wrote:
Can you please break this down for us?

Does learning to read notes makes you Mozart?

If you can't reverse engineer, do you think you will be able to forward engineer it?

People seems to be very concerned about how do you get this look and very little concerned about what is needed to be able to create this look and even less about why is it a good or bad idea to do so in the first place.

It's interesting how people rarely if ever ask on this forum; what do I need to learn to retouch on this level, but instead they focus all their attention into how do I get this look. It's fundamentally a wrong question to ask.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Learning D&B is essential for a retoucher, any shortcut you want to learn in this forum or youtube is the very thing that keeps new people out of the market for longer. Confused, as you might say.

Masking - Clone/heal - D&B - Color adjustments
Blending modes

ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW

+1

Tools you would really need to MASTER are limited to around 6 or 7, maybe even less. But much like a painter that uses few brushes and a lot of imagination and hand eye coordination so must a retoucher, not only learn but master just a handful of tools. Problem is many don't MATER them and have limited imagination, mix that with self doubt and wrong kind of questions and the result is no doubt confusion.

Paint by numbers is what you get when you buy imitation of art in China Shop (no pun intended), art is not sold in such shops for a reason. So unless you want to easily replaceable don't focus on painting by numbers, don't ask How do I get this look. Don't look for manual. Instead nurture creativity and practice to the point of mastery and than practice some more. Oh, and don't forget that this will not be enough unless the right kind of people know about it. Look under Marketing for more information.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Nobody says it's ONLY D&B but mostly it

There are a few above us (without pointing the finger) that wants us to believe that it is. This why it's important to have such people such as yourself around.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Learning D&B is essential for a retoucher, any shortcut you want to learn in this forum or youtube is the very thing that keeps new people out of the market for longer. Confused, as you might say.

Masking - Clone/heal - D&B - Color adjustments
Blending modes

ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW

This is very true! I get it. It is just why I don't call myself a great retoucher. You have made it very clear there is a lot of things to practice. I have limited time so I expect to have limited progress/results. I get it.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Bandpass /bandstop - http://sean-blog.twicebakedphoto.com/20 … trade.html  (WARNING HE IS GEEKY) 

Dumbed down: Copy low - Blur it over - mask it out - paint back in.

That COULD have been used in this image, or it could JUST be D&B

There are no names... you pretty much shape with light and correct parts of the image with color adjustments.

Thank you so much for this information is very valuable too not only me but I'm sure many of the ones that are scared to ask a question. Most don't know the right question to ask or are afraid of being crucified for asking the wrong questions. I really do appreciate you. Thank you.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

And why not a octa or a soft box broli or even a dish with a piece of ND in the middle.

Is that what you see?

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
Does learning to read notes makes you Mozart?

Mozart learned voraciously from others, and developed a brilliance and maturity of style that encompassed the light and graceful along with the dark and passionate. Quoted from just a quick research. Now if before the age of five years old, had he been mislead he might not have ever been seen as such a talented person. Just my opinion.

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
If you can't reverse engineer, do you think you will be able to forward engineer it?

With all due respect, sir. How would you go about reverse engineer if your asking simple question but being mislead? Assuming most that are asking the question are just starting out. I don't think they will know how to do such a process when they don't know what they are looking at/for. Not even having a clue of how it may have been done is a deadened start. Sometimes learning how to do something wrong and correct (Natalia/Krunoslav-Stifter Dvds) will send a warning signal. All I'm asking is that retouchers that are respected for their knowledge, who can make a difference, interject. I'm not asking anyone to write a book or tell them a process is wrong or right. Just simple answers will give new retouchers that push to get back focused and look at what's directly in-front of them (Little steps. Not short cuts.), not around the corner. All of this I know becomes complicated without having subjective opinions. It just gets frustrating when you come to the forums and see things I know aren't all facts. If I can see it than I know the great retoucher are sitting back shaking their heads thinking ''that's not it'' but won't say anything. 

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
People seems to be very concerned about how do you get this look and very little concerned about what is needed to be able to create this look and even less about why is it a good or bad idea to do so in the first place.

It's interesting how people rarely if ever ask on this forum; what do I need to learn to retouch on this level, but instead they focus all their attention into how do I get this look. It's fundamentally a wrong question to ask.

What's interesting is that your bothered by the fact they don't know the right questions to ask. It's funny because I remember cutting layers for this young lady while attending Paul Mitchell the school. I was at about a thousand or so hours. I could cut round layers with my eyes closed. One of the students walked up and asked,''what am I doing?'' and I looked at her crazy. Later I thought about it and realize I skipped a few steps. I knew that I could because I know the basic fundaments of cutting layers and what this lady want as an end result. The student really didn't have a clue because she had never seen what I was doing before. She just knew it was faster and came out just the way the Paul Mitchell systems teaches you. I went back and apologized because my first thoughts was not pleasant. I assumed because she was at the same school she would understand. I watched a lot of technical dvds while in school. That gave me a greater knowledge then most in my school. She was very structured and stuck to the Paul Mitchell rules. I figured them out, how they work and got good enough to bypass a few and mix what I learned into my cuts. Your frustrations remind me of that moment. Expecting others to get it right away. Knowing what to ask because they are looking right at it. You, sir are very talented and your mind works a little different. When I watched your youtube video it put my mind into another way of thinking. That's a rare talent. Your passion and drive to be great at what you do may even be different. This still all comes down to giving back when it comes to the forums. So, again all I was asking is to get some information here that wasn't so misleading. Sometimes we forget what's so simple to us is mind blowing to others. Thank you for replying to me. I appreciate it. One of the best feeling in the world even if it's not what you would like to hear.

Faze1 photography wrote:
Mozart learned voraciously from others, and developed a brilliance and maturity of style that encompassed the light and graceful along with the dark and passionate. Quoted from just a quick research. Now if before the age of five years old, had he been mislead he might not have ever been seen as such a talented person. Just my opinion.

It was a rhetorical question.

Faze1 photography wrote:
With all due respect, sir. How would you go about reverse engineer if your asking simple question but being mislead? Assuming most that are asking the question are just starting out. I don't think they will know how to do such a process when they don't know what they are looking at/for. Not even having a clue of how it may have been done is a deadened start. Sometimes learning how to do something wrong and correct (Natalia/Krunoslav-Stifter Dvds) will send a warning signal.

The skill and passion to reverse engineer a process is a way to learn beyond following simple steps. If you want to stay competitive in the long run you have to innovate one way or the other and that requires more than simply following step by step approach that someone else wrote. It requires more autonomy, more independent thinking. And it is crucial if you want to make it. It's hardest to do so when you are just starting out and that is where it's most crucial that you develop it or you will have a hard time moving off the ground sort of speak.

Faze1 photography wrote:
All I'm asking is that retouchers that are respected for their knowledge, who can make a difference, interject. I'm not asking anyone to write a book or tell them a process is wrong or right. Just simple answers will give new retouchers that push to get back focused and look at what's directly in-front of them (Little steps. Not short cuts.), not around the corner. All of this I know becomes complicated without having subjective opinions. It just gets frustrating when you come to the forums and see things I know aren't all facts. If I can see it than I know the great retoucher are sitting back shaking their heads thinking ''that's not it'' but won't say anything.

It's not conspiracy, sorry to disappoint. It's also not always accurate simply because this is such a platform. It's a forum, a place to voice your opinion and obviously everyone has their own.

Faze1 photography wrote:
What's interesting is that your bothered by the fact they don't know the right questions to ask.

It's funny because I remember cutting layers for this young lady while attending Paul Mitchell the school. I was at about a thousand or so hours. I could cut round layers with my eyes closed. One of the students walked up and asked,''what am I doing?'' and I looked at her crazy. Later I thought about it and realize I skipped a few steps. I knew that I could because I know the basic fundaments of cutting layers and what this lady want as an end result. The student really didn't have a clue because she had never seen what I was doing before. She just knew it was faster and came out just the way the Paul Mitchell systems teaches you. I went back and apologized because my first thoughts was not pleasant. I assumed because she was at the same school she would understand. I watched a lot of technical dvds while in school. That gave me a greater knowledge then most in my school. She was very structured and stuck to the Paul Mitchell rules. I figured them out, how they work and got good enough to bypass a few and mix what I learned into my cuts. Your frustrations remind me of that moment. Expecting others to get it right away. Knowing what to ask because they are looking right at it. You, sir are very talented and your mind works a little different. When I watched your youtube video it put my mind into another way of thinking. That's a rare talent. Your passion and drive to be great at what you do may even be different. This still all comes down to giving back when it comes to the forums. So, again all I was asking is to get some information here that wasn't so misleading. Sometimes we forget what's so simple to us is mind blowing to others. Thank you for replying to me. I appreciate it. One of the best feeling in the world even if it's not what you would like to hear.

I'm not really sure how to answer you. This is such a platform that you can't take all the answers for granted. Part of the learning on forums involves developing a sense of comparing and analyzing what is said to come up with what makes sense to you and than compare that with your own experiences. Forums can offer useful information but there are a lot of contradicting and as you pointed out misleading information and or wrong information. If you can't filter all that than forums can in fact be misleading place, but that is part of the deal if you learn from such a platform.

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
It's interesting how people rarely if ever ask on this forum; what do I need to learn to retouch on this level, but instead they focus all their attention into how do I get this look. It's fundamentally a wrong question to ask.

I don't agree. I don't see anything wrong (let alone fundamentally wrong) in asking how to get a particular effect. To learn to retouch at a higher level, it is necessary for people to learn how to get various effects using tools like curves. Mind that I said necessary, not sufficient.

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
It's interesting how people rarely if ever ask on this forum; what do I need to learn to retouch on this level, but instead they focus all their attention into how do I get this look. It's fundamentally a wrong question to ask.

Peano wrote:
I don't agree. I don't see anything wrong (let alone fundamentally wrong) in asking how to get a particular effect. To learn to retouch at a higher level, it is necessary for people to learn how to get various effects using tools like curves. Mind that I said necessary, not sufficient.

The process of learning this very large group of functions is too much to expect of anyone. One technique, or effect at a time ! I also think it is good to have your own vision, or goals, and figure out how to best use the tools available to accomplish those goals. I would say that getting an understanding of how all the tools work would be a good first step.
-Don

Peano wrote:
Mind that I said necessary, not sufficient.

My point exactly. I have been on this forums for a long time and I can't remember seeing much people succeeding who kept asking how do I get this look... questions. And there seems to be new thread started sometimes twice a day. And if you look closer you will notice that unfortunately those kind of questions seems to be linked to their level of sucess.

Peano wrote:
To learn to retouch at a higher level, it is necessary for people to learn how to get various effects using tools like curves. Mind that I said necessary, not sufficient.

To learn to retouch at a higher level How do I get... must be preceded by Why should I? Principle based learning vs. Technique based learning. You are always there to provide the technique and unless they understand the principle behind what you did, than they will always be dependent on who ever showed them the technique. Namely you. Off course for full sucess you need both principle (why does it work) and the technique (how dose it work) to enforce that principle, otherwise its just a theory. But order of questions makes a lot of difference.