How to get that "maxim/playboy" airbrushed look

[timmyquest]

My cousin saw some of my pictures and asked if i knew how to get that "maxim airbrushed look". It's something i've wondered for a while too but havnt yet attempted.

The subject isnt the greatest but i dont have many portraits ot chose from.

Here is my attempt.

Filter->render->lighting effects

Filter->blur-blur about 10 times

Upped saturation

http://www.antiwall.com/april-2004/images/4olivia.jpg

After PS'ing

http://www.antiwall.com/pics/oliviaair.jpg

[Belmondo]

Timmy:
You've got to get your models to relax a little. Apparently this young lady wasn't really 'one with the camera'.

Can't comment on your PSing techniques. I can't see that the picture is greatly improved by what you did. Suggest using your blurring in a separate layer so you can bring back teeth and eyes to original sharpness.

Anyway, you're going to have to work on it a little more before Playboy's going to buy it. :wink:

[timmyquest]

Anyway, you're going to have to work on it a little more before Playboy's going to buy it. :wink:

Hey...thats my sister

8)

[Belmondo]

Well then, you're a lucky fellow. Other than the menacing looks, I'm sure she's very sweet.

(Note: my sister is 4 years older than me, and when we were kids, my role was to make faces at her. Come to think of it, I still do.)

:? :wink:

[evilenglishman]

The biggest hurdle is lighting - you will never make that image look like a maxim cover.
There is actually very little done to those photos, apart from some slight smoothing of skin tones

[CyberDyneSystems]

Use layers and guassian blur.. the guassian blur that was included with the venerable classic plug in "Kai's Powertools3" is prefered.. but PhotoShops own works too.

[Scottes]

Isn't this type of "blur" done using soft-focus lenses and/or filters? I don't know - just guessing.

[timmyquest]

Isn't this type of "blur" done using soft-focus lenses and/or filters? I don't know - just guessing.

Yeah and tac sharp tele' lens shots are made with multi thousand dollar cameras....or a $400 progrm called photoshop ;-)

[Scottes]

Isn't this type of "blur" done using soft-focus lenses and/or filters? I don't know - just guessing.

Yeah and tac sharp tele' lens shots are made with multi thousand dollar cameras....or a $400 progrm called photoshop ;-)


Huh?

I have no idea what you are trying to say and/or imply.

[timmyquest]

Isn't this type of "blur" done using soft-focus lenses and/or filters? I don't know - just guessing.

Yeah and tac sharp tele' lens shots are made with multi thousand dollar cameras....or a $400 progrm called photoshop ;-)


Huh?

I have no idea what you are trying to say and/or imply.

Digital photography enables photographers to do so much more during post processing. Dont want to spend the money on a polorizer? ok, you can mimic the effects by adjusting levels. Graned that wont fix reflections, but it'll make greens/blues/reds more vibrant.

Dont have a $2,000 lens? Ok, a little unsharp mask will fix that, granted the image may get a little noisy, it's still sharp.

Picture full of noise? Ok, run it through neat image.

Dont have $5,000 lighting setup in your basement, ok (insert what ever your supose to do here).

I'm just saying that we cheaper folks should be able to mimic what they do with minimal difference. I may be wrong, but i've yet to find something in photography that this rule doesnt apply to.

[maderito]

Digital photography enables photographers to do so much more during post processing.

I'm just saying that we cheaper folks should be able to mimic what they do with minimal difference. I may be wrong, but i've yet to find something in photography that this rule doesnt apply to.
Timmy,

I take your point and understand its basis but disagree.

To subscribe to the view that most image taking problems can be corrected in post processing propagates poor photographic habits. Post processing should be used primarily to enhance creative expression, not to mask technical limitations or incompetence.

You can crop, sharpen, balance colors, adjust tonality, and reduce noise on any image. But a crappy image that yields acceptable results only after heavy post processing is, by definition, degraded in image quality. The degree of degradation may only show up under critical examination, but it is there.

IMO one goal in shooting should be to minimize the need for post processing manipulation of basic image properties. Get the composition and lighting right and properly adjust camera equipment parameters to the task. Working from the foundation of a good image, you then have full creative freedom to modify the image within the bounds of your own judgement about artistic expression.

Post processing is a very good thing that can lead to very bad habits. We disagree not in substance but in emphasis.

Do you ever say anything that is not controversial?? :D

[dragan]

The biggest hurdle is lighting - you will never make that image look like a maxim cover.
There is actually very little done to those photos, apart from some slight smoothing of skin tones

SLIGHT??? These women in Maxim don't recognize themselve anymore :-)

They slim them down, mask every little wrinkle, brighten the eyes (sometimes even repaint them completly) etc. etc.

Wouldnt call that slight changes.

[evilenglishman]

SLIGHT??? These women in Maxim don't recognize themselve anymore :-)

They slim them down, mask every little wrinkle, brighten the eyes (sometimes even repaint them completly) etc. etc.

Wouldnt call that slight changes.

I would say its slight, every thing you list is an hours work at the most.
If those women don't regognise themselves then someone messed up as they tend to use celebrities.
As I said the majority of that look comes down to the lighting

[timmyquest]

Digital photography enables photographers to do so much more during post processing.

I'm just saying that we cheaper folks should be able to mimic what they do with minimal difference. I may be wrong, but i've yet to find something in photography that this rule doesnt apply to.
Timmy,

I take your point and understand its basis but disagree.

To subscribe to the view that most image taking problems can be corrected in post processing propagates poor photographic habits. Post processing should be used primarily to enhance creative expression, not to mask technical limitations or incompetence.

You can crop, sharpen, balance colors, adjust tonality, and reduce noise on any image. But a crappy image that yields acceptable results only after heavy post processing is, by definition, degraded in image quality. The degree of degradation may only show up under critical examination, but it is there.

IMO one goal in shooting should be to minimize the need for post processing manipulation of basic image properties. Get the composition and lighting right and properly adjust camera equipment parameters to the task. Working from the foundation of a good image, you then have full creative freedom to modify the image within the bounds of your own judgement about artistic expression.

Post processing is a very good thing that can lead to very bad habits. We disagree not in substance but in emphasis.

Do you ever say anything that is not controversial?? :D

I'm not in any disagreement with you here. I personally dont go out thinking "i'll worry less about how now because i can do more later". The truth is the more you have to do in PS the less of a photo it's going to be generally. Underexposed photo? Lighten it up...but we all know the negative effects that has on a photo. But wouldnt you agree that PS allows more then the standard dark room?


Anyways we're getting off topic. My cousin took a crack at it...aparently he already knew how and was just asking if i did because he emailed me this. Not too shabby...

http://www.antiwall.com/oliviaair1.jpg

[evilenglishman]

Personally I think you have to be very careful when working on images and I think that image is over-worked.
It has gotten to a stage where it is beginning to look plastic and too artifical.

If the point is to create some kind of warm/soft/smooth maxim/FHM/Playboy type image then the point has been missed entirely.

http://www.fhm.com/site/girls/img/beyonceknowles/large/7.jpg
http://www.fhm.com/site/girls/img/RachelStevens/large/6.jpg
http://www.fhm.com/site/girls/img/hollyvallance/large/2.jpg

http://www.maximonline.com/girls/paris_hilton_2/gm_l3.jpg
http://www.maximonline.com/girls/denise_richards/gm_l4.jpg
http://www.maximonline.com/girls/swimsuit_2004/gm_l1.jpg

As I said before, its 90% good lighting.

[ilya]

As I said before, its 90% good lighting.

Its funny that the most important aspect to creating good photography gets talked about the least.