|
One of my favorite shots recently and one that a couple people commented on here and elsewhere. This is generally how I process all my shots as well. (RAW metadata is great, all I had to to was save a copy at each stage from the original development that Lightroom had saved) Here is the original file straight into LR.  Converted to greyscale, simply desaturated.  Crunch my blacks roughly to where I want them.  Recovery slider to get my highlights down a bit.  A little fill light, slightly more shadow detail than I plan to have by the end.  Contrast about midway up, sometimes more sometimes less, and we have our finished shot.  About 45 seconds of work, sometimes certain shots need more time, if I can't decide how I want it to look or if there is any channel mixer work needed, or local adjustments.
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2009 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
germskr posted:Gee that place in the background looks awfully familiar. how interesting, we live in the same city, this is quite a coincidence
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2009 04:04
|
|
|
^^^ Not that I have any problems with photo-manipulation or photo-illustrations but thats really not a photograph any more.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2009 16:15
|
|
|
Say Lah Vee posted:After hand-tinting a black and white photograph, duplicate the layer, set a high pass radius on it of about 15 pixels, and set the opacity at around 20-25% to enrich the colors on the finished work for a vintage look. Also, have fun with the colors...I have no idea what color clothing the people in the famous photograph below were wearing, so I just used my imagination. Skin is not one single color, the average caucasian skin has pinks, reds, purples, yellows, even green tints.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2009 03:43
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Can one of you wizards of post-processing tell me what kind of work people to do make these sorts of pictures? I am guessing they first choose a piece of artwork, figure out what kind of lighting they want for the model to have her fit in, then shoot the model on a plain background, layer her in, add some filter/masking effects, voila, finished photo? thats a painting.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2009 20:11
|
|
|
While perhaps not technically a painting in the common use of the word, it is neither a photograph. Probably there was originally a photograph of a woman that has been heavily altered, painted over, cloned, dodged, burned, comped and otherwise edited into what you see there. I can tell you with 100% certainty that the vast majority of that image has been rendered and then painted over, including parts of the woman. If you want to know how to achieve the look of that image, look past photography as it had little to do with the look.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2009 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
brad industry posted:
I prefer the term digital illustration thankyouvermuch, and yes that covers the piece I did where I photoshopped george bush's head onto a monkey eating its own poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2009 05:54
|
|
I tend to think photography is a pretty broad medium, you can't just lump poo poo you don't like in with painting.