edgar_njari

Hi

 

Check out this link:

http://www.amydresser.com/retouch.html

 

It is a bit different flavoured than examples from your links, but it's the same basic method, so you might like her retouching technique. You can see before/after versions on that site, so that you may get some perspective on how much of the effect is due to make-up and lighting and how much of it is retouching. Notice how most of these images already look quite surreal even without any modifications.

 

There is little to no information on high-end retouching on the internet, most of it is trade sicrets. The only retouching info you'll find on-line (and in most books) is some basic stuff like removing stuff, cloning, smoothing out skin etc. which is pretty much trivial stuff.

 

What you seem to be after is done by retouchers comming from illustration background, which means they are also good at painting, airbrushing etc.

 

Also, this is not a global effect, not something you can just apply to the whole image.

 

I've been interested in this kind of thing for some time now, purely from the amateur side, and I've learned a couple of tricks, though I had to find it out for myself with experimenting, because nobody is willing to give away their trade sicrets, and you don't find this kind of stuff in internet tutorials. Though this kind of stuff really doesn't work on every image. It's only a way of enhancing what is already in the image, so you have to start with good lighting and athmosphere.

 

Also, If I may ask, what type of photography are you doing? Do you use lighting?

Some of the stuff from these links is simply the lighting, but some are retouched indeed.

 

Can you be a bit more specific? We can't really answer for all of these links, show us specific images

 

and what would be even more helpfull is if you could post your own image that you wish to make it look like that

Machines like Frontier often blow up the contrast and clip highlights with print film and do the same thing with slide film only much worse.

So using a film like Velvia would be such a waste.

First of all they won't be able to scan it right, and their software will make it even worse.

To get any kind of acceptable prints from slide film even from dedicated scanners, you'd have to do some photoshop work to pull out some shadow detail, adjust for color casts etc.

Consider that their machines don't do that, and their scanners are much worse than dedicated ones.

So your prints will not look like your slides. More like bad slide dupes.

 

By all means, you should have the scans on your computer before you print them. If you absolutley can't get a decent scanning service, even bringing the minilab scans home before printing them will help.

And how are you printing?

Ok what do you think of this?

 

This one has cooled down shadows..

I see it now, but it's very subtle, personally I wouldn't change anything.

 

Cyan and red are oposite colors, so both casts are caused by very subtle "bumps" in the red curve.

If this bothers you, you'd have to locate those tones on the curve and tweak the curve by slightly increasing the red gamma around that area of the brightness range (a very localised adjustment) but limit it around that range only so you don't screw up the crossover of the remaining part of the range.

 

Why increase? Because the darker part is a bit redish while the brighter part is cyanish, which means you have more red in shadows then neutrality would demand and less red in that part of midtones than neutrality would demant, which means the local gamma of red has a "bump", being slightly less steep than the rest of the red curve, which would need to be corrected.

 

But really I can barely see it

I really can't see any shifts on this small image, but no color film has perfect crossover characteristics.

Ektachrome goes blue, Portra 160VC goes brown, Kodachrome goes all over the place. They all have their unique charm

 

But again, I can't see anything on this small image, so I could be wrong, you could be having an issue there..

 

Could you post a crop of the problematic region?

At what size do you plan to print?

Jack what would be the purpuse of a generic film type since it would go through same processing as any "film type"?

If you are scanning a neg, and you see a viewable image in the preview, then the software is using some kind of "film type" to process the scan, otherwise you'd just see it as you see a negative with your own eyes, so you might as well use the film type that best suits your film.

It's all just image modifications, like the ones you can do in photoshop. These film profiles are nice if you are doing a lot of automated scanning, but what is more important than aproximating the look of an emulsion is aproximating what you want it to look yourself, so in the end photoshop is the ultimate tool for that.

 

The image as it comes out from the CCD is a slightly washed out flat positive scan, everything is scanned as a slide, then the software inverts the image, adjusts the curve and color balance.

If you want to have complete control over this process, you have to start from the raw positive scan, otherwise the software will do its own adjustments.

 

For negatives, this is goon when you want less contrast than automatic software would give you because reducing contrast with curves introduces artefacts, and this way you can start from a compleatly flat negative, but if you are ok with the contrast the software is outputing, then really you can use that your starting point and skip the basics (mask, inverting etc.)

I think you'll love MF. But don't forget about 35mm either.

Great joy comes from mixing formats

 

I've never had so much fun with 35mm before I switched to MF.

I am no longer burdening myself by trying to push 35mm to the limits I just use it for what it is.

MF does with ease what 35mm almost can't do at all in terms of getting sharp images with that sophisticated smooth look. Really, it comes right out of the box, at least in my experience.

There is no pressure with MF, you can even use faster film, and relaxe in terms of getting sharp and fine grained images.

I use 35mm when I want smaller images, or a grainy texture.

 

 

Those who want really high-quality images and use 135 usually spend a lot of money building their 35mm system.

For less money, one can today build a MF system that will even in its entry-level edition beat anything comming from a state of the art 35mm system.

So I really find no reason why someone seeking high-quality should stick with 35mm only, specially today with all those DSLR's around and all.

Like I said, one argument from 35mm is its special grainy texture and all that, so it has great place as a kind of a specialty format.

But trying to squese smooth landscapes from 35mm is just not worth it.

I don't get why someone would find it boring.

The scenes maybe don't show much, but the colors, the tones, the lighting makes it worth staring at

Did you set the ISO right?

 

If you are used to DX coding of 35mm, maybe you forgot to change it to 400

 

 

Though this looks like more than just 2 stops of overexosure to me

If I had a camera with removable backs, I'd prefer 220, but because I like to change films a lot, even 12 frames is too much for me with a TLR.

During a day I find a whole bunch of situation where I want to use a specific film. Sometimes, when shooting outside, stuff like nature, I see this sight, and I just have a specific idea what film I want to use it because it just feels a lot like that film, and then I still have half a roll inside, so I have to skip it and shoot something else then go back to that when I finish the roll, then put the new film inside, shoot a couple of frames, and again I'm stuck with that film inside for a couple of more shots.

 

With 35mm it's no problem, because I tend to shoot with more freedom and I spend 36 frames in a second, but with MF i won't shoot unless I think it's perfect, and I want every frame to be something I will use and something unique (otherwise I don't even bother with MF).

 

With 35mm, it's just a roll of film for me, but the large frames of 120 feel like a gallery to me, and I hate wasting them, they just have to feel like a gallery when I look at the developed film, I'd rather have a blank frame then one that I won't use. I know it's crazy.

I'd be even crazier if I used 4x5

If there was a film format that alowed, say, 6 frames for 6x6, I'd use that instead of 120.

Or even better if they made 6x6 in little sheets, that would be best for me.

There should be no problem finding it in England and Russia.

 

As a matter of fact, you should find any pro film in any "free"-world country in the world if you stick to the captial.

At least I assume.

 

Though I find it strange that you couldn't find it in Italy, you must have found a REALLY bad store, or you caught them on a bad day.

If you are visiting countreys on your way, you can stop by in Zagreb for some Astia. If you are going by plane directly to Asia, you might want to find another store where you live, I'm sure someone has it,

but NO it's not the same film, though I'd rather use Provia if I were to go on such a trip.

Over here in Croatia all E6 processing is around $5. I process in a pro Q-lab for that price.

There are two Q-labs where I live, and both do it at that price.

Either I'm missing something, or someone is getting ripped in US, because obviosuly you can run dip and dunk pro lab passing all Q-lab standards for $5 per roll using original Kodak chemicals and running test strips on time.

Could you be more specific? Post some examples of what you are trying to emulate.

 

Also, this could work without the blown out highlights.

If you mean those old super-saturated, compressed postcards from 70's, then would this be what you are looking for?<div></div>

Regina, check out the first image in my portfolio. Would that get you closer?

did you use shadow/highlights tool?

200K is indeed visible if you have a direct chance to compare. I can see a clear difference between a 3400K bulb and a 3200K bulb when I turn on one light after the other, though you can't tell which is which if you don't have such a clear reference.

"Isn't that sentence an Oxymoron?"

 

Indeed. Either you have enhanced saturation, or realistic (accurate) colors. If they are more saturated then they are in nature, then they aren't accurate.

"My Kiev 6C isn't too far ahead of a disposable, with its horrible mirror slap, either!"

 

At least you have visible flaws to complain about, I'm happy with mine, yet I'm forced to agree with everyone how bat it is in discussions

My Seagull GC-109 is a disposable camera, or so people say, who am I to know