DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Video: A Beauty Shoot with a P&S camera
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 26, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/12/2008 03:10:59 AM · #1
This guy uses a Canon G9 and one Alien Bee for a beauty shoot.
//www.digitalphotoshopretouching.com/video-samples/shoot1/vid1.htm

Check it out.

Message edited by author 2008-01-12 03:11:18.
 01/12/2008 03:16:12 AM · #2
I've been wanting that G9 for a while now. This doesn't help. :(
 01/12/2008 03:29:20 AM · #3
Thats pretty cool, I don't suppose anybody can link a tutorial on how he did that dodging/burning with the two Curves layers? I'd be interested in learning how to do that!
 01/12/2008 04:12:54 AM · #4
Ben, Photoshop Mama on YouTube uses curves for dodge and burn in her workflow.
//www.youtube.com/profile?user=photoshopmama

It's not really hard at all and almost no way to mess up.
 01/12/2008 05:52:46 AM · #5
That retouched image is way over the top. She looks like a Manga-character now. Nothing human left.

I like the original better.
 01/12/2008 06:20:55 AM · #6
Further proof that just like the old film days it's still 50% Photographer, 40% Light and 10% Equipment.

bazz.
 01/12/2008 06:31:11 AM · #7
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
Further proof that just like the old film days it's still 50% Photographer, 40% Light and 10% Equipment.

bazz.


Amen!
 01/12/2008 06:52:56 AM · #8
Honestly, there is NO WAY you can get similar stuff from MOST PS cameras for many reasons. Here in this clip, he spends 5 hours to make a *Beautiful* woman a computer animated character... which probably that was his goal to start with.

Nothing against PS photography, and no offense either, but all that equipment and place I wouldn't use anything more than a nice decent SLR.

Photoshop is a powerful tool but I am TOTALY for the good shot first, and use Photoshop to "CELANUP" not "CREATE"

FP

PS: My comment is NOT to all photographers, some photographer's main goal is to edit photos and have photos changed about 90 percent for artistic reasons (Sample), that's another thing... I am talking about regular portrait shots and such :)

Message edited by author 2008-01-12 06:58:06.
 01/12/2008 07:52:17 AM · #9
I don't really care for his retouched version either but remember he was shooting with a PS when he had a $30,000 camera at his disposal. Seem to me he was just showing off for the sake of showing off.

Message edited by author 2008-01-12 07:53:01.
 01/12/2008 07:55:53 AM · #10
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
Further proof that just like the old film days it's still 50% Photographer, 40% Light and 10% Equipment.

bazz.


Selling the models/subject and makeup artists a little short eh?
 01/12/2008 08:08:08 AM · #11
Originally posted by yanko:
Selling the models/subject and makeup artists a little short eh?


Aren't they all supporting the photographers vision or would you have them do their own thing ?

bazz.
 01/12/2008 11:11:22 AM · #12
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Ben, Photoshop Mama on YouTube uses curves for dodge and burn in her workflow.
//www.youtube.com/profile?user=photoshopmama

It's not really hard at all and almost no way to mess up.


I haven't found the dodge and burn part of her videos (yet), but I watched a couple of her tutorials and they are very nicely put together.

Thanks for sharing!

01/12/2008 12:59:56 PM · #13
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Ben, Photoshop Mama on YouTube uses curves for dodge and burn in her workflow.
//www.youtube.com/profile?user=photoshopmama

It's not really hard at all and almost no way to mess up.


I haven't found the dodge and burn part of her videos (yet), but I watched a couple of her tutorials and they are very nicely put together.

Thanks for sharing!


Seconded, thats a great place to know about, thanks Leroy!

eta: the quote

Message edited by author 2008-01-12 13:00:22.
 01/12/2008 01:17:41 PM · #14
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Ben, Photoshop Mama on YouTube uses curves for dodge and burn in her workflow.
//www.youtube.com/profile?user=photoshopmama

It's not really hard at all and almost no way to mess up.


I haven't found the dodge and burn part of her videos (yet), but I watched a couple of her tutorials and they are very nicely put together.

Thanks for sharing!


I know she uses a curves layer to dodge the eyes in on of the first videos. She doesn't call it dodging, but lightening the eyes is dodging. Burning is the same, you just swing the curve the other way.
 01/12/2008 01:25:06 PM · #15
BTW, I think his PP went way too far too, but hell, the original looked good. The point is, you don't have to have a 5D or more expensive camera to do studio work.

I did a studio portrait shoot once with the Nikon Coolpix 950 once with a mentor I had back then. We were both pretty impressed with the output under studio conditions.
 01/12/2008 01:37:55 PM · #16
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Ben, Photoshop Mama on YouTube uses curves for dodge and burn in her workflow.
//www.youtube.com/profile?user=photoshopmama

It's not really hard at all and almost no way to mess up.


I haven't found the dodge and burn part of her videos (yet), but I watched a couple of her tutorials and they are very nicely put together.

Thanks for sharing!


I know she uses a curves layer to dodge the eyes in on of the first videos. She doesn't call it dodging, but lightening the eyes is dodging. Burning is the same, you just swing the curve the other way.


You could add a curves adjustment layer and set its mode to 'screen' and fill the mask with black. Paint on the mask with white at chosen opacity to dodge. Add another curves adjustment layer in 'multiply' mode and do the same to burn. This has the advantage of being a completely non-destructive editing process.
 01/12/2008 01:42:26 PM · #17
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:

You could add a curves adjustment layer and set its mode to 'screen' and fill the mask with black. Paint on the mask with white at chosen opacity to dodge. Add another curves adjustment layer in 'multiply' mode and do the same to burn. This has the advantage of being a completely non-destructive editing process.


That's exactly what most PS gurus are doing. She leaves the curves layer in normal mode, but adjusts the curve itself for a desired look, which adds even more flexibility to the process.
 01/12/2008 01:45:30 PM · #18
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:

You could add a curves adjustment layer and set its mode to 'screen' and fill the mask with black. Paint on the mask with white at chosen opacity to dodge. Add another curves adjustment layer in 'multiply' mode and do the same to burn. This has the advantage of being a completely non-destructive editing process.


That's exactly what most PS gurus are doing. She leaves the curves layer in normal mode, but adjusts the curve itself for a desired look, which adds even more flexibility to the process.


I don't need more flexibility, I have enough trouble as it is. I can't do subtlety, I can only do broad brush strokes.
 01/12/2008 02:33:42 PM · #19
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
BTW, I think his PP went way too far too, but hell, the original looked good. The point is, you don't have to have a 5D or more expensive camera to do studio work.


I still think you'll want the bigger sensor of a 5D for when you expect to enlarge the image to 16x20 and larger.


01/12/2008 02:56:05 PM · #20
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
BTW, I think his PP went way too far too, but hell, the original looked good. The point is, you don't have to have a 5D or more expensive camera to do studio work.


I still think you'll want the bigger sensor of a 5D for when you expect to enlarge the image to 16x20 and larger.


For portrait prints, yes, you are correct. Magazines don't print at 16x20 though :-D
 01/14/2008 06:23:52 AM · #21
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Honestly, there is NO WAY you can get similar stuff from MOST PS cameras for many reasons. Here in this clip, he spends 5 hours to make a *Beautiful* woman a computer animated character... which probably that was his goal to start with.

Nothing against PS photography, and no offense either, but all that equipment and place I wouldn't use anything more than a nice decent SLR.

Photoshop is a powerful tool but I am TOTALY for the good shot first, and use Photoshop to "CELANUP" not "CREATE"

FP

PS: My comment is NOT to all photographers, some photographer's main goal is to edit photos and have photos changed about 90 percent for artistic reasons (Sample), that's another thing... I am talking about regular portrait shots and such :)


I wouldn't expect any more or less time involved had he used a different camera. When retouching a beauty shot, 5 hours isn't out of the norm.

Personally I don't see anything computer animated about it. Regardless though, who are we to judge and criticize?
 01/14/2008 11:19:00 AM · #22
Impressive, but I think that the G9 is perhaps not a "typical" point and shoot. I had one of the earlist versions of the Canon G cameras and it was, and the G9 continues to be, heads and tail above what most people think of when they think "point and shoot." The G9 and other cameras like it out there, really seem to fit more into a middle category. Wouldn't want to try this with my little Sony t10, for example.
 01/14/2008 11:38:56 AM · #23
I've always beleived that if you gave a bad photographer a $5000 camera he will still make bad images but if you gave a good photographer a disposable camera he will still make a good image.
 01/14/2008 12:06:37 PM · #24
my pc just crashed after opening that site ... whoohooo : (
 01/14/2008 12:10:50 PM · #25
Originally posted by iamkmaniam:
I've always beleived that if you gave a bad photographer a $5000 camera he will still make bad images but if you gave a good photographer a disposable camera he will still make a good image.


This is true, but only to a point. Good photographers gravitate to good tools for a reason, and the "right tool" will not always be the same one in every situation. For example, Ansel Adams could not have produced his work with a disposable 35mm camera. Would the images he produced with that disposable have been great images? ...perhaps. Would they have been better than the images produced by the bad/inexperienced photographer with the same equipment, undoubtedly.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 06:53:41 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 06:53:41 PM EDT.