Plastic fantastic or is there more ?

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

On alot of fora you will find people who nag about plastic faces.
Although I completly agree that on some photos the work on the faces are really really BAD and the models look more like barbie than a real world model.
There also has to be some information on the how and why.
When I work on my photos I always shop with prints on A2 format in mind (or larger), in other words the pictures are to be published large.
When you take care of your light placement the light will hit the skin in a diffuse matter and lighten up the pores and problem areas, I know that with 100% correct exposure and 100% correct lightuse you can get a shopped skin effect straight out of the camera.
In photoshop my work is mostly not more than 4-10 minutes per photo on the skin, which mainly consist on working on blemishes and problem areas under the eyes.
Because you make the pictures much smaller for internet ALOT of information is lost and the picture is made softer than it actually is.
The last few years I have seen myself that by climbing MP's on my camera the internet version loose more and more detail.
So for the fun and to make people think about this internetsoftening here some examples, to show that a picture which LOOK overshopped in practice (1:1) has more than enough detail and is no Barbie.
The internet version

1:1 crop

another one

1:1 crop

open for discussion of course.
MvrGr.
Frank

[Alter_ego]

You make a valid point about reproduction sizes Frank and they are good pics, but I would not have said that any of your web sized pics shown here were plastic or overdone.

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Believe me there are more than plenty who do claim there is no structure what so ever in my shots
It's always dead silent when I post a crop

[oldugly]

Of course there is silence. What the heck is there to say but Wow!

[Forrest]

You're capturing fantastic amounts of detail. That's probably why your photos don't look like Barbies. I know you didn't ask, but I really don't like the second photo. The close up is just amazing, but still, the whole photo has an almost morbid quality.

[jfrancho]

Processing for the web has really become a different animal for me. Since I usually print medium to medium large (around 10x15 in.), most of my effort has been toward that result, and processing for the web is an after thought. I think it's a mistake to take the web for granted, and my catalog work has really gotten me to rethink the whole strategy. Granted, skin is a lot different than glazed pottery, but the idea is the same, you want to portray the smooth skin of the glaze, but still show the underlying texture of the clay.

Frank, I've often marveled at your judicial use of lighting and processing for your models. The difference in getting it right in the camera is definitely part of your unmistakable style. If you look at your work as a whole, there is quite a bit of variation of just this one aspect, and that tells me there is intent in the way you set up the shot. Basically, it looks too good to be just some simple noise reduction.

[kgphoto]

Frank,

Could you detail the tools you used to create images number 1, please? By this i mean camera/format, lights , settings, etc.

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

5D 70-200f2.8 IS L
And one striplight as a mainlight, and one kicker for the hair.

[kgphoto]

Thank you.

Your image here looks much "crispier" and sharper as far as resolution than most of the work I have seen on most of the forums I have looked at. Do you attribute this to anything in particular, like always using a tripod, or specific Post Processing or anything?

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

I shoot from hand, but I do take care of my postprocessing.
I take alot of time to make sure the sharpening is just good, without halo's.

[YosemiteJunkie]

Frank, I don't think I've ever seen any of your images that look plastic. I have to admit that ever since I first ran across your work on POTN you've been one of my mentors so to speak. I watch what you do and pay attention when you tell how it was done. Unfortuantly I am not near the wizard on PS that I'd like to be to be able to have anything near the quality that you do in your work.

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Come with the Camelmeeting to Amsterdam and I will show you

[swampthing1117]

Care to share what your post processing steps are? I'm getting close to be able to make my images pop like that but i'm missing something.

I've been accused of having a plastic look at web sizes too, but if you get close all the pore detail is there. It's just a matter of size of the pic. I personally use imagenomic's portraiture, fantastic pluging. I tried that kodak airbrush program but that one gave plastic look almost all the time. Portraiture is much more versatile.

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

The trick is to always blend it with the original layer.

[riha]

those are some great shots, only thing i directly saw were the strange "moiré" on her lips in the first full size crop. It might be the sharpening that causes that,but in print and smaller versions it is not visible.

Just something i reacted on.


Other than that, great shots.

[TLV]

Originally Posted by J.A.F. Doorhof

The trick is to always blend it with the original layer.

Could you be more precise please Frank when you have the time ? There are so many way's to blend and are we talking selective sharpening or skin healing?

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Blending with opacity just let the structure back in.

[TLV]

Thanks Frank - that is how I do it as well.