What would you call this kind of edit? How would you do it? Would be fine to do once. Thanks!
https://www.flickr.com …/in/photostream/lightbox/![]()
Apr 01, 2016 16:18 | #1 What would you call this kind of edit? How would you do it? Would be fine to do once. Thanks! Jessi
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Bassat "I am still in my underwear." 8,075 posts Likes: 2742 Joined Oct 2015 More info | Apr 01, 2016 16:51 | #2 Permanent banHave you asked the photographer. Really interesting photo, BTW.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 01, 2016 16:55 | #3 Bassat wrote in post #17957347 Have you asked the photographer. Really interesting photo, BTW. I wrote her and hope she is willing to share. I think it is a neat edit. It is very over the top, but something different and fun. Jessi
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Apr 02, 2016 14:24 | #4 there is nothing special about the edit, just a very unique subject with great facial features and eyes. you can see the lighting used from the eyes. the dof of field is wide enough to get the face in focus but ears are out of focus. Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mike_311 Checking squirrels nuts More info Post edited over 7 years ago by mike_311. | Apr 02, 2016 14:26 | #5 i shot a similar pics of my kids. 50mm, f1.8. the pic you linked was stopped down more, probably f4 or so. Image hosted by forum (784883) © mike_311 [SHARE LINK] THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff. Image hosted by forum (784884) © mike_311 [SHARE LINK] THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff. Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DreDaze happy with myself for not saying anything stupid More info | Apr 02, 2016 16:07 | #6 i'd say there's a good amount of photoshop there as well though...the freckles are fake...it looks like she's pretty good at providing tutorials/actions for photoshop here though: Andre or Dre
LOG IN TO REPLY |
neacail Goldmember More info | Apr 02, 2016 16:25 | #7 mike_311 wrote in post #17958366 there is nothing special about the edit, just a very unique subject with great facial features and eyes. you can see the lighting used from the eyes. the dof of field is wide enough to get the face in focus but ears are out of focus. I'm having a hard time decoding the lighting. It looks like the key light is in front of the subject, and just a touch to the left, and elevated a foot or so above her (?) head. There appears to be a light used on the left side of the subject's face, as I can see highlights on the side of the face and the ear. I don't think that is the key light that is doing that. The shadows under the nose don't look right to me, based on the position of the key light. Based on the lack of shadows under the nose, I almost think a kicker was used in front of the subject. But, the shadows on the neck and along the jawline are too pronounced for a kicker/reflector to have been used. Aren't they? mamaof2 wrote in post #17957323 What would you call this kind of edit? How would you do it? Would be fine to do once. Thanks! https://www.flickr.com …/in/photostream/lightbox/ I think it is a gorgeous photograph, and a great edit. To me, it looks like there has been a lot of work on the eyes and skin. The eyes appear to have been sharpened and most likely dodged and burned to make them pop. The really smooth skin can be done using a noise removal program. "Dfine" from the "Nik Collection" (now free . . . https://www.google.com/nikcollection/products/dfine/ Shelley
LOG IN TO REPLY |
kjonnnn Goldmember 1,216 posts Likes: 148 Joined Apr 2005 Location: Chicago, Illinois More info | Apr 02, 2016 17:41 | #8 Seems simple to me. What I see is:
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Alveric Goldmember More info Post edited over 7 years ago by Alveric. (2 edits in all) | Apr 02, 2016 21:36 | #9 Permanent banIt's reminiscent of that Jill Goldberg look (ugh) that was quite the rage for a while. The lighting is just a beauty dish at the 0-45 (or a bit lower, say 0-30) position, no fill –or very minimal. There's another light(s) for the background, maybe with a gel in case the paper's not coloured already. 'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is semonsters 1090 guests, 119 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||