More crazy post processing

[evil4blue]

In the vein of the other thread, here's a couple more talent post processors.

Amy Dresser, go to retouching, many images have a before and after on mouse over:
http://www.amydresser.com/offtitles.html

Jill Greenberg, she's pretty famous and does a lot of famous people:
http://www.manipulator.com/

[Gordon]

Jill is another example of really fine and complex lighting giving her a big head start in getting that look I think. Her kid & ape portraits in particular have a lot of edge and rim lighting going on.

Certainly more than that, but the lighting is the key starting point again.

[Jake]

I really like this guys uses of textures.
http://jeshderoxweddings.blogspot.com/

[evil4blue]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Jill is another example of really fine and complex lighting giving her a big head start in getting that look I think. Her kid & ape portraits in particular have a lot of edge and rim lighting going on.

Certainly more than that, but the lighting is the key starting point again.

I totally agree, PP is only part and a small part, in some cases, to the final image. Good techinque and an eye for the dramatic goes a long way to making a memorable image.

[Killeenguy]

thanks for the link...i must of spent 20 mins going through it all.

[blonboy]

Hey E4B do you have a link back to the thread you mention? I havent been following but would be interested in looking....... Great stuff here!

[evil4blue]

It started with trying to figure out Dave Hill's PP method. I started this thread so these links didn't get buried in the other thread.

http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...ad.php?t=40564

[blonboy]

Thank you brother........

Good to see you again by the way.....

[evil4blue]

Not necessarily up the PP tree, although I'm sure there is a lot done. This guy is freaking crazy, some of the sets he uses for his portraits are incredible.

Dave LaChapelle:
http://www.davidlachapelle.com/home.html

[evil4blue]

...and some more inspiration.

http://www.patrickhoelck.com/

Man, I could do this all day.

[EDIT]

Here's an interview with Hoelck. He says that he's begun digitally retouching his photos because a lot of his famous clientele request it, but otherwise, his look is accomplished with good lighting technique.

http://www.digitalphotopro.com/artic...t/filmnoir.php

[shutterflypro]

I went through the first link Steve, at what point do you think she quit becoming a photographer and turned into a graphic artist.

There are Graphic artist out there that will make us all blunder about in amazement, but how much should we adhere to our calling as Photographers?

[evil4blue]

Originally Posted by shutterflypro

I went through the first link Steve, at what point do you think she quit becoming a photographer and turned into a graphic artist.

There are Graphic artist out there that will make us all blunder about in amazement, but how much should we adhere to our calling as Photographers?

Well Amy Dresser isn't really a photographer, she's a pro retouch artist. I guess that answers your question.

The neat thing with Amy is that she does all her work in Photoshop with out any expensive plug-ins and such. Most of us are always looking to the quick and dirty fix, but she pours her heart into each piece she does. Now, she is handsomely compensated for her work so it's worth her time.

[shutterflypro]

I understand that but we need to keep this all in perspective when looking at stuff done by David Hill and such. We must continue to ask ourselves when do we quit being a photographer and turn into graphic artists.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by shutterflypro

I understand that but we need to keep this all in perspective when looking at stuff done by David Hill and such. We must continue to ask ourselves when do we quit being a photographer and turn into graphic artists.

I often hear that and have a bit of sympathy with the underlying motivation. But still I'm left asking 'why must we worry about that ?'

I think you quit being a photographer the day you stop using a camera as the starting point. Other than that, it's all good It's an interesting discussion to have, but often I think there's a tendency to get hung up on what tools are used as if some are allowed and some shouldn't be allowed. Either that or a need to place labels on things and say this is or isn't photography. Given that it is all used in the aid of expressing your (or your clients) vision - why does it matter what label gets stuck on it ? Is one somehow better than the other?

[evil4blue]

Originally Posted by shutterflypro

I understand that but we need to keep this all in perspective when looking at stuff done by David Hill and such. We must continue to ask ourselves when do we quit being a photographer and turn into graphic artists.

I would assume that most of these photographers are given an end result (sketch or idea), then they are asked to produce it. So in that vein, they are more graphic artists than photographers.

Like Gordon stated above. A good photographer is needed before a good artist can produce any of this type of work.