NSFW How to edit an image like this

circa_1892 said:
hi

I am looking to create images like the attached - is this mainly done in post or is some of it done in pre-production? I am guessing heavy makeup/bright coloured clothes etc are exaggerated in photoshop?

#http://chasseurmagazine.com/2015/03/24/the-photography-of-nadia-lee-cohen/#
Click to expand...

Both, I reckon.

They all show meticulous attention to detail, styling, make-up and composition, combined (in most cases) with careful use of hard lighting.

There seems to be varying amount of photoshoppery; some of the images have had rather a lot, others less so. Some of the images are composites and it certainly looks as though she's either dropped in replacement skies or bracketed in a few of the images. I'd be surprised if there wasn't quite a lot of local adjustments of colour and brightness. They've all had their saturation boosted and some kind of film-style toning applied.

Unfortunately I'm not skilled enough to decompose them into a set of instructions to follow; you may find that VSCO has something which gets you close.
 
As above... Make up, styling, and lighting is what's making these shots. The processing is just exaggerating what's already there.

Good photography needs good photography... not processing. I'm not saying the processing is not important in those shots, but they had to be SHOT like that in order for the processing to be effective. You can't just make any shot look like that in post production. The more I look at those shots, the more I realise that there's actually very little "processing" going on there. There's clearly a great deal of retouching, but they're not the same thing. I just see colour and contrast adjustments... nothing really beyond that. It's all lighting and make up, great exposure control and being creative with subject matter. Photography in other words. A few are obviously digital composites too... but again, the skill there is still lighting oriented. You've got to shoot for composite images to maintain lighting match between components of the final image.

If you're a beginner... just forget about post processing for a while, and work on your lighting, and (assuming you shoot fashion or do stylised portraiture) styling, make up etc . All those shots are lit... even the location ones. These days, too many beginners jump straight to processing as the answer and often end up as weak photographers as a result.
 
Last edited:
Those pictures start from great ideas and design. Having a clear aim helps steer the whole process. Including accepting or rejecting any results.
 
Might be worth mentioning NSFW!!!!!! Massive mound of ginger pubic hair covering my 32 inch monitor :eek:
 
Love those images. Although not clever eneough to acheive them I did come to the same conclusion when veiwing them to the replies given by them that know :) Which is worrying really as I feel I am becoming like so many peeps on the net "assuming here" meaning ( I have read enough of the same sort of articles that I can repeat stuff without any real life experiance of actualy creating such photos/images).



Gaz
 
By and large, glamour photography has a heavy emphasis on skin retouching in addition to all the pre-production. A good hair&makeup artist makes this job significantly easier and of course will always be present on pro shoots - makes the largest difference out of any preproduction options if I'm honest.

A quick google will reveal a tonne of tutorials for skin work and toning, pay special attention to the Phlearn ones as he's actually pretty good - there are a lot of terrible videos. If anyone suggests using Highpass or Gaussian blur on the skin in their videos, steer clear.

Obviously if your light is flat or your concept dull, the image will suck. However the "Out Of Camera" shots and the finished products are typically quite a long distance apart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top