How do I get that look like in mens magazines?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Greg, Sep 1, 2004.

  1. Greg

    Greg Guest

    I don't want that heavy airbrushed look but just a nice smooth goldedn
    skin look you see in Maxim, FHM, and other mags.

    Is it mainly filters on the lens or is it photoshoped?
     
    Greg, Sep 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Greg

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Greg <> wrote:

    > I don't want that heavy airbrushed look but just a nice smooth goldedn
    > skin look you see in Maxim, FHM, and other mags.
    >
    > Is it mainly filters on the lens or is it photoshoped?


    It's mainly lighting.

    --
    Jeremy |
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 1, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Greg

    ed Guest

    "Jeremy Nixon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Greg <> wrote:
    >
    > > I don't want that heavy airbrushed look but just a nice smooth goldedn
    > > skin look you see in Maxim, FHM, and other mags.
    > >
    > > Is it mainly filters on the lens or is it photoshoped?

    >
    > It's mainly lighting.


    Look it up, it's called Porn lighting
     
    ed, Sep 1, 2004
    #3
  4. Greg

    YoYo Guest

    Lighting and Lenses

    "Greg" <>
    wrote in message
    news:...
    > I don't want that heavy airbrushed

    look but just a nice smooth goldedn
    > skin look you see in Maxim, FHM, and

    other mags.
    >
    > Is it mainly filters on the lens or is

    it photoshoped?
     
    YoYo, Sep 1, 2004
    #4
  5. Greg

    imagejunkie Guest

    Quick and dirty approximation -- copy the image; paste that copy back on top
    of the original image as a new layer; select "soft light" as the layer blend
    mode; adjust the new layer's transparency down to 40% or so (whatever gives
    the best blending with the underlying original image); merge all layers;
    save in desired format (be sure to save to a new file name to preserve the
    original image for the future).

    If you like, you can also add a small amount of gaussian blur to the
    overlaying image layer before adjusting the transparency of that layer.
    This will soften the end result but still allows most of the underlying
    image's sharpness to come through the semi-transparent overlay image layer.
     
    imagejunkie, Sep 1, 2004
    #5
  6. Greg

    Bowser Guest

    Lighting, gear, and makeup.

    "Greg" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I don't want that heavy airbrushed look but just a nice smooth goldedn
    > skin look you see in Maxim, FHM, and other mags.
    >
    > Is it mainly filters on the lens or is it photoshoped?
     
    Bowser, Sep 1, 2004
    #6
  7. "Bowser" <> wrote in news:lwmZc.8$aG1.2@bos-
    service2.ext.ray.com:

    > Lighting, gear, and makeup.


    And good looking girls to start with.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Sep 1, 2004
    #7
  8. Greg

    Alan Browne Guest

    Greg wrote:

    > I don't want that heavy airbrushed look but just a nice smooth goldedn
    > skin look you see in Maxim, FHM, and other mags.
    >
    > Is it mainly filters on the lens or is it photoshoped?



    Lighting (softboxes, 'brellas, reflectors, difused natual light,
    color gels to 'warm' things up).

    Makeup is just as important to hide blemsihes, coordinate colors
    with clothing and setting.

    Hair dressing is important too and adds glamourous punch.



    --
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 1, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <6OnZc.130297$>,
    says...
    > Makeup is just as important to hide blemsihes, coordinate colors
    > with clothing and setting.


    I think the industry term is "slopping it on." ;)
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
     
    Brian C. Baird, Sep 1, 2004
    #9
  10. Greg

    Tom Nelson Guest

    This is how Penthouse magazine does it.
    1. With the image in an active layer, hold down the CMD and OPT keys
    (PC: CTRL-ALT) and press the tilde (~) key. That creates as selection
    based on 50% luminosity.
    2. Do a copy and paste (CMD-J; PC:CTRL-J). That will create a new layer
    with the 50% data in it.
    3. Select that layer and adjust levels to increase the brightness
    slightly.
    4. Select the blur>Gaussian blur tool and set the radius to 6.0 Reduce
    the opacity of the blurred layer to around 43%
    5. Now use the erase tool at 100% with a feathered brush (soft edges)
    to erase the focus points around the eyes, lips, hairline, etc.
    6. Flatten the layers and use the curves tool to improve the richness
    of the color tones.

    The result is that hot spots (white areas) will have a halo effect and
    the skin tones will be smoothed.

    Tom Nelson
    Tom Nelson Photography

    In article <>, Greg
    <> wrote:

    > I don't want that heavy airbrushed look but just a nice smooth goldedn
    > skin look you see in Maxim, FHM, and other mags.
    >
    > Is it mainly filters on the lens or is it photoshoped?
     
    Tom Nelson, Sep 2, 2004
    #10
  11. Nooooo...

    No lighting tricks, no filters, no editing the photos.

    The ladies really are that smooth and shiny - its not a trick. You just need
    to photograph the right ladies!



    "ed" <> wrote in message
    news:SiiZc.62$...
    > "Jeremy Nixon" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Greg <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > I don't want that heavy airbrushed look but just a nice smooth goldedn
    > > > skin look you see in Maxim, FHM, and other mags.
    > > >
    > > > Is it mainly filters on the lens or is it photoshoped?

    > >
    > > It's mainly lighting.

    >
    > Look it up, it's called Porn lighting
    >
    >
     
    Gareth Tuckwell, Sep 2, 2004
    #11
  12. Tom Nelson <> wrote in message news:<010920042313207189%>...
    > This is how Penthouse magazine does it.


    Sounds interesting.

    > 1. With the image in an active layer, hold down the CMD and OPT keys
    > (PC: CTRL-ALT) and press the tilde (~) key. That creates as selection
    > based on 50% luminosity.


    Any way to do this in Photoshop 6 without using the ~ key?
    On a non-US keyboard like mine the ~ is a Alt-Gr combination and
    can't be combined with other shortcuts...
     
    bbc@myway@com, Sep 2, 2004
    #12
  13. Greg

    Bowser Guest

    "Roland Karlsson" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9557C6B724365klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
    > "Bowser" <> wrote in news:lwmZc.8$aG1.2@bos-
    > service2.ext.ray.com:
    >
    >> Lighting, gear, and makeup.

    >
    > And good looking girls to start with.


    Details, details...

    Truthfully, some of them aren't good looking at all. The makeup artists and
    photographers do them a world of good with lighting, angles, hair, tons of
    makeup, etc. However, it never hurts to start with good stock.

    ;-)

    >
    >
    > /Roland
     
    Bowser, Sep 2, 2004
    #13
  14. "Bowser" <> wrote in
    news:x7IZc.19$:

    > Truthfully, some of them aren't good looking at all. The makeup
    > artists and photographers do them a world of good with lighting,
    > angles, hair, tons of makeup, etc. However, it never hurts to start
    > with good stock.
    >


    I remember something I read in a book by Ansel Adams.
    He wrote that he was surprised over all those books
    that showed how you could save a bad negative. Why not
    make good negatives instead? I assume that you can
    make wonders with makeup, but why bother if the original
    is not good looking to start with?


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Sep 2, 2004
    #14
  15. Greg

    Archibald Guest

    On 2 Sep 2004 18:35:17 GMT, Roland Karlsson
    <> wrote:

    >"Bowser" <> wrote in
    >news:x7IZc.19$:
    >
    >> Truthfully, some of them aren't good looking at all. The makeup
    >> artists and photographers do them a world of good with lighting,
    >> angles, hair, tons of makeup, etc. However, it never hurts to start
    >> with good stock.
    >>

    >
    >I remember something I read in a book by Ansel Adams.
    >He wrote that he was surprised over all those books
    >that showed how you could save a bad negative. Why not
    >make good negatives instead? I assume that you can
    >make wonders with makeup, but why bother if the original
    >is not good looking to start with?


    Besides, wouldn't a photographer rather work with a good looking babe
    than some makeup-covered tart?
     
    Archibald, Sep 2, 2004
    #15
  16. Greg

    Charlie Self Guest

    Archibald asks:

    >>> Truthfully, some of them aren't good looking at all. The makeup
    >>> artists and photographers do them a world of good with lighting,
    >>> angles, hair, tons of makeup, etc. However, it never hurts to start
    >>> with good stock.
    >>>

    >>
    >>I remember something I read in a book by Ansel Adams.
    >>He wrote that he was surprised over all those books
    >>that showed how you could save a bad negative. Why not
    >>make good negatives instead? I assume that you can
    >>make wonders with makeup, but why bother if the original
    >>is not good looking to start with?

    >
    >Besides, wouldn't a photographer rather work with a good looking babe
    >than some makeup-covered tart?


    The photographer ain't the one choosing for most of these shots.

    Charlie Self
    "A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never
    learned to walk forward." Franklin D. Roosevelt, radio address, Oct. 26, 1939
     
    Charlie Self, Sep 2, 2004
    #16
  17. Greg

    Tom Nelson Guest

    In article <Xns9558D16E7A3D4klotjohan@130.133.1.4>, Roland Karlsson
    <> wrote:

    > I assume that you can
    > make wonders with makeup, but why bother if the original
    > is not good looking to start with?


    Only a relatively small proportion of gorgeous women are willing to
    take their clothes off for publication. Besides, as technology
    improves, the standard of beauty advances too. I understand that
    essentially all Hollywood glamor shots not only have all facial flaws
    painstakingly removed, they also have noses subtly narrowed and eyes
    slightly enlarged.

    The implication of the above is this: if you look to Hollywood as your
    standard of beauty, not only is it a standard that YOU cannot achieve,
    it's a standard your favorite movie star can't as well.

    Tom Nelson
    Tom Nelson Photography
     
    Tom Nelson, Sep 2, 2004
    #17
  18. Greg

    MarkH Guest

    Tom Nelson <> wrote in
    news:020920041612597231%:

    > In article <Xns9558D16E7A3D4klotjohan@130.133.1.4>, Roland Karlsson
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> I assume that you can
    >> make wonders with makeup, but why bother if the original
    >> is not good looking to start with?

    >
    > Only a relatively small proportion of gorgeous women are willing to
    > take their clothes off for publication. Besides, as technology
    > improves, the standard of beauty advances too. I understand that
    > essentially all Hollywood glamor shots not only have all facial flaws
    > painstakingly removed, they also have noses subtly narrowed and eyes
    > slightly enlarged.
    >
    > The implication of the above is this: if you look to Hollywood as your
    > standard of beauty, not only is it a standard that YOU cannot achieve,
    > it's a standard your favorite movie star can't as well.



    That’s not what the plastic surgery business says!



    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
     
    MarkH, Sep 2, 2004
    #18
  19. Greg

    Al Dykes Guest

    In article <asMZc.628874$>,
    MarkH <> wrote:
    >Tom Nelson <> wrote in
    >news:020920041612597231%:
    >
    >> In article <Xns9558D16E7A3D4klotjohan@130.133.1.4>, Roland Karlsson
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I assume that you can
    >>> make wonders with makeup, but why bother if the original
    >>> is not good looking to start with?

    >>
    >> Only a relatively small proportion of gorgeous women are willing to
    >> take their clothes off for publication. Besides, as technology
    >> improves, the standard of beauty advances too. I understand that
    >> essentially all Hollywood glamor shots not only have all facial flaws
    >> painstakingly removed, they also have noses subtly narrowed and eyes
    >> slightly enlarged.
    >>
    >> The implication of the above is this: if you look to Hollywood as your
    >> standard of beauty, not only is it a standard that YOU cannot achieve,
    >> it's a standard your favorite movie star can't as well.

    >
    >
    >That’s not what the plastic surgery business says!
    >


    A friend who is a Pro wedding photographer says he shrinks everyone he
    photographs a few percent on the horizontal as part of his photoshop
    processing. Do other people photographers do this ?

    --
    Al Dykes
    -----------
    adykes at p a n i x . c o m
     
    Al Dykes, Sep 3, 2004
    #19
  20. Greg

    Guest

    On 2 Sep 2004 18:35:17 GMT, Roland Karlsson
    <> wrote:

    >"Bowser" <> wrote in
    >news:x7IZc.19$:
    >
    >> Truthfully, some of them aren't good looking at all. The makeup
    >> artists and photographers do them a world of good with lighting,
    >> angles, hair, tons of makeup, etc. However, it never hurts to start
    >> with good stock.
    >>

    >
    >I remember something I read in a book by Ansel Adams.
    >He wrote that he was surprised over all those books
    >that showed how you could save a bad negative. Why not
    >make good negatives instead? I assume that you can
    >make wonders with makeup, but why bother if the original
    >is not good looking to start with?


    Cheaper to hire than Kim Basinger.
     
    , Sep 3, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nosey

    Mens Sterling Silver Chains?

    Nosey, May 28, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    569
    Dave Lear
    May 29, 2005
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    489
    The Old Sourdough
    Sep 4, 2006
  3. MENS UNDERWEAR

    , Jun 10, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    389
    Roy G
    Jun 11, 2007
  4. Jacqueline harris

    Longines Evidenza Mens Automatic L2.642.4.51.6 (L26424516)

    Jacqueline harris, Aug 11, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,294
    Jacqueline harris
    Aug 11, 2009
  5. Lauren smith

    Longines Evidenza Mens Power Reserve L2.672.4.51.4

    Lauren smith, Aug 13, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    861
    Lauren smith
    Aug 13, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page