Portrait Effects

[glamourfish]

I am sure many of you are familiar with Mitch Jenkins...what a brilliant photographer. I've been trying to achieve an effect similar to this for months now - but haven't come close yet.....anybody have any idea where to start? First I thought it might be HDR, but i really don't think so after experimenting.
http://www.mitchjenkins.com/101.htm
Suggestions?

[sean_mcr]

It's not HDR and its little to do with PS

It's basically the finest lighting, gear, hair and make-up artists along with art directors and locations that money can buy not to mention a very competent photographer.

[glamourfish]

And what about Anndra (on pbase)? ... have you seen his portraits....absolutely amazing & I know he takes pictures of random people on the streets. This guy's a legend. Wish I was half as good as him!
http://www.pbase.com/lysdexia/root
I mean I don't want to ask him his secrets....it just doesn't feel right

[sean_mcr]

That much pp is not to my taste (subject matter is cool) and i've seen that style of pp many times before http://www.chromasia.com/galleries/portraiture.php . It's different to my eye then jenkins. But i'm not actually a fan of the studio/celebrity shot look either and Jenkins work has the classic pro celeb shooter look that i can't connect with. That is of course a matter of taste

I am much more into the kind of work of Anndra then jenkins. Not the PP but the subject matter.

I don't like obvious signs of photoshop personally. The less footprint it leaves the better i like it.


The real important look of a photograph is in its content.

I'm also not sure if its a good idea to fall in to the trap of trying to recreate somebody else's look as you'll lose your individuality.

[glamourfish]

I know exactly what you are saying. The idea of too much photoshop does feel "wrong" - but at the same time isn't it part of the development of photography?? I guess this is a whole debate in it's-self
I think I'm more curious about how the look/feel is achieved than wanting to re-create somebody else's style. Curiosity & wantint to "know how to" always gets the better of me.
I think that somtimes that which inspires you from others can help you develop a style of your own. Don't we all learn from great artists...?

[ivinghoe]

deleted

[sean_mcr]

I know exactly what you are saying. The idea of too much photoshop does feel "wrong" - but at the same time isn't it part of the development of photography?? I guess this is a whole debate in it's-self
I think I'm more curious about how the look/feel is achieved than wanting to re-create somebody else's style. Curiosity & wantint to "know how to" always gets the better of me.
I think that somtimes that which inspires you from others can help you develop a style of your own. Don't we all learn from great artists...?

I just see photoshop as a dark room. I'm not anti photoshop, but personally speaking i'm in in to the truth & beauty of photography. A good photograph both in technique and content needs little interference, it basically speaks for itself.

Naturally we should be inspired by art, but the art that is created in camera, is by far and away the hardest part to learn

I'm well versed in PS and could show you how to pp that way if you wish.

Keep shooting

[glamourfish]

Sean, I know what you mean about rather wanting to keep PS as a darkroom so to speak. I totally agree with you that photography starts loosing it's essence if you manipulate an image too much. When i first started doing digital photography I almost didn't want to touch the images in photoshop. In fact at first I wanted to believe that these kind of images were captured as they are in the camera. But eventually it felt to me like i was being left behind & seemed as though part of the whole digital photography thing was to use photoshop....and the sky's the limit. But I never want to turn my pictures into something that looks like watercolours for example. To me then you might as well not do photography. I think i want to find a happy medium some where in between, without loosing the photo along the way, but rather enhancing it.
If you could show me how to achieve that look/feel in PS I'd really appreciate it. I think at this stage I just want to know how it's done

[simplephotography]

It's done through a whole lot of Photoshop. You just have to experiment a lot and find what works for you. I once asked someone I know here how he did it, and he sort of created a semi-automatic workflow to do it. But it's hard, and you need to work into the details of your photo.

Look at these, I love them, although they may be too sharp for the taste of some of you.

http://www.pbase.com/lens/people__my__favourite_photography

[sean_mcr]

It has to be said that mitch jenkins may not even have to do his own pp. Guys like mitch have a strong team working along side them. From set designers to lighting technicians, hair and make-up artists. There are many many things that go in to that end result, photoshop just being one of them

[madlights]

In my mind there are certain types of shots that are made more powerful...or artistically stronger with photoshop and certain types of shots that aren't (except maybe for basic processing) I think any dogmatic approach to anything at all is limiting...although it risks the thing that all artists are told to do "develop a $tyle" but a style could be an artist saying "the hell with style" I'll do what I feel suits the issue...which risks great failures but maybe some success...and keeps the mind challenged with experimentation.

[rwallace]

It's interesting to me that some photographers will spend a lot of time in PS working out the lines and the blemishes from their portraits because this is a perfectly acceptable methodology that was done with an airbrush for many years. But if a person uses PS to enhance blemishes, wrinkles and lines - that is too much photo shop. It's just too weird and it isn't true photography.
Who will tell their model, "No, I won't remove your zit because it goes against my principles of true photography"? Is then enhancing the zit untrue photography any more than removing it?
I'm sure you're all aware of Andrzej Dragan.
http://andrzejdragan.com/
Many photographers have ripped on him for "over doing it", for years. I remember one person telling him that his work was the equivalent of a Hallmark photo.
I'm sure he laughs all the way to the bank.
Photography is evolving in many directions. Follow your own path and don't be deterred by critics. Expect them and dare to be different.
Good luck in your search for the right look for you, in your photos.
r

[thatcherphotography]

It's not HDR and its little to do with PS

It's basically the finest lighting, gear, hair and make-up artists along with art directors and locations that money can buy not to mention a very competent photographer.

True! Very true.

[brickfielder]

A lot of the look is down to lighting. Its quite strong , direct on to reduce shadow and there looks to be evidence of some reflectors used. The quality of the light makes me think of kino flo.

[akjack]

and pro models...look at the body on the girl with the scanty fur coat ! I bet he isn't a mamber of PPA LOL