How to Process like this???

Does anyone know how this is accomplished? I have searched but cannot find anything. I would love to use this process.
thanks

http://500px.com/photo​/50438246

Looks like they have boosted the clarity, split toned and added a texture (and then some…)

If you have Lightroom, there are some default vintage looks you could try out in the presets?

I remember last year sometime her work was posted up on RetouchPro and people over there were trying to deconstruct it. It looks like a combination of good lighting, dodging and burning, selective sharpening, and selective toning/color toning. Without and original it's hard to say with any certainty, but either way they are exceptional.

Taking a step further back, consider the set and the costume and the model...

Lots of visualization went into making the final image. In general, you need to sort of sketch the idea out in your mind (on paper, or however you work) and then use that concept as a guide to making the scene, the photo, the edit, the look, the emotion and feel etc.

kirk

Totally Rad's "Dirty Pictures" will get you 95% of the way there on this "look".

thanks for all of the responses....more work to do!

Crank up clarity, oversharpen the hell out of it, make the skin look plastic, throw a bunch of grain in and desaturate.

Basically make it look generally as horrible as possible.

Numenorean wrote in post #16644741
Crank up clarity, oversharpen the hell out of it, make the skin look plastic, throw a bunch of grain in and desaturate.

Basically make it look generally as horrible as possible.

WTF?

Why don't you take a look through her photostream at 500px. Horrible is certainly not a word I would use to describe it.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #16644789
WTF?

Why don't you take a look through her photostream at 500px. Horrible is certainly not a word I would use to describe it.

Because I'm discussing the photo that was linked. I'm not bothering to look at anything else. The one that was linked is horrible.

Numenorean wrote in post #16644809
Because I'm discussing the photo that was linked. I'm not bothering to look at anything else. The one that was linked is horrible.

Well, I disagree, but that's me I guess.

Numenorean wrote in post #16644741
Crank up clarity, oversharpen the hell out of it, make the skin look plastic, throw a bunch of grain in and desaturate.

Basically make it look generally as horrible as possible.

This is not even close to what's being done.

First off, there is no "clarity" being used here. That shows how much you know about clarity. Second, the artist sharped the focal point of the image - the subject's eyes/face. The entire image is not "oversharpened". If anything, MUCH of the image has been treated exactly the opposite. Third of all, I see absolutely no grain or desaturation. Do you even know what those are? What I DO see is complimentary split-toning and overlaying of textures.

Check your attitude at the door. Otherwise, you may make yourself look a little clueless, immature and jealous.

amonline wrote in post #16645311
This is not even close to what's being done.

First off, there is no "clarity" being used here. That shows how much you know about clarity. Second, the artist sharped the focal point of the image - the subject's eyes/face. The entire image is not "oversharpened". If anything, MUCH of the image has been treated exactly the opposite. Third of all, I see absolutely no grain or desaturation. Do you even know what those are? What I DO see is complimentary split-toning and overlaying of textures.

Check your attitude at the door. Otherwise, you may make yourself look a little clueless, immature and jealous.

Where did I say the entire image was oversharpened? Obviously it's just the focal point which is horribly oversharpened.

Overprocessed crap is what it is, however they ended up doing it. I'm not going to try to reverse engineer a turd.

Numenorean wrote in post #16645316
Where did I say the entire image was oversharpened? Obviously it's just the focal point which is horribly oversharpened.

Overprocessed crap is what it is, however they ended up doing it. I'm not going to try to reverse engineer a turd.

Who pissed in your Wheaties today? Or are you always this pleasant?

I'll throw down another vote on the side of exceptional - a very different processing look. I like it a lot.

... and yet one more vote. But mine is not simply "exceptional" but "beyond exceptional." Ya' ever notice the loudest and angriest critics of others' work never have the guts to publish open links to their own?