Hollywood Glamour picture

[cucurbi]

Hi everyone,

I rarlely submit photos of my own here, as I am mostly here to learn, but I thought I'd let you know about my attempt at hollywood glamour 1930's photography.
So before and after :

After :


Basically I was satisfied (though that stray of hair bugs me) with the first picture and could have let it be it, but I really wanted to explore that "hollywood 1930's" genre. So here is what I did :

Material : Nikon d60, 105 mm lens, 1/80th, ƒ4 ISO 200. A fresnel lens lamp (useful to heat the whole appartment). The fresnel lamp was the landmark of this photography so I had to use one. Notice the hard shadows it does, too.

1. First I converted to black and white using channel mixer --> orange. It made the red pop less so one can focus on her face.
2. After that, I copied the original layer, used a big (can't recall exactly how big) gaussian blur on it and put a black-filled masked on it. Using a big, soft brush at about 20%, I "added" blur to most of the picture.
3. Some adjustements layers, levels, curves
4. A 50%-grey filled layer set at overaly was used to dodge and burn, mainly I removed some darkness in the shadows and lightened the eyes. You can use the dodge/burn tools directly on this layer, thus not damaging the picture.
5. Finally, added some grain, which is barely noticeble at this size.

So, there we are, I feel I have not been as clear as I could have, feel free to ask me questions, and of course to comment.

[Darkman]

Originally Posted by cucurbi

Hi everyone,

I rarlely submit photos of my own here, as I am mostly here to learn, but I thought I'd let you know about my attempt at hollywood glamour 1930's photography.
So before and after :

After :


Basically I was satisfied (though that stray of hair bugs me) with the first picture and could have let it be it, but I really wanted to explore that "hollywood 1930's" genre. So here is what I did :

Material : Nikon d60, 105 mm lens, 1/80th, ƒ4 ISO 200. A fresnel lens lamp (useful to heat the whole appartment). The fresnel lamp was the landmark of this photography so I had to use one. Notice the hard shadows it does, too.

1. First I converted to black and white using channel mixer --> orange. It made the red pop less so one can focus on her face.
2. After that, I copied the original layer, used a big (can't recall exactly how big) gaussian blur on it and put a black-filled masked on it. Using a big, soft brush at about 20%, I "added" blur to most of the picture.
3. Some adjustements layers, levels, curves
4. A 50%-grey filled layer set at overaly was used to dodge and burn, mainly I removed some darkness in the shadows and lightened the eyes. You can use the dodge/burn tools directly on this layer, thus not damaging the picture.
5. Finally, added some grain, which is barely noticeble at this size.

So, there we are, I feel I have not been as clear as I could have, feel free to ask me questions, and of course to comment.

If I had to do all that to do Old Hollywood Glamour I would stop right there.
First off, try to get it all right, in the camera. If you can do that then all your editing post production will not be needed.

Not trying to be a jerk(It comes naturally) but I don't see any big shift or change that would speak Hollywood glamour to me. and especially not 1930's Hollywood glamour.

One of the things that speaks hallmarks of old Hollywood glamour, that many people don't realize is there was no straight hair. except for Louise Brooks. She was the only woman that I can recall who had straight hair, and it was short at that, like a flapper.

Another thing with your image is there's no drama, and by drama I mean no contrast or ...drama...

They didn't have Gaussian blur back then they had soft focus lenses or shot at a wide open aperture.

They also shot in black and white, but I know some cameras, especially digital, don't shoot in b/w.

I guess what I am asking is what makes this shot special and dramatic and indicative of Old Hollywood Glamour. And it can't be that it's in b/w. that's just a small part of it.
If you want to see more of my work please visit my site.

[Photologyst]

OK, since you asked for comments. . .

Forgive me, but this shot is nothing like the old Hollywood glamor photos.

The girl has an odd posture with her head forward like a chicken. Her eyes—and this is the key—are not sexy or seductive with half closed lids. She raises her eyebrows and therewith wrinkles her brow. She looks as if she’s saying, “What the heck do you want?” Instead of having that “come hither,” look.

Her hair is in her eyes. That’s not sexy, it just looks unkempt.
There is no soft lighting or focus (e. g. vaseline on the lens) as there would be in a glamour shot of old. Her make-up is all wrong. That outfit looks K-Mart 2010 and not 1930s glamour.

In the 30s every hair was in place and make-up was perfect. The women looked ethereal, other-wordly.


Here are some 30s glamour shots:

http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/t...069/hARLOW.jpg

http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/L...1/DHRND00Z.jpg


http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/L...9/ME2T000Z.jpg

http://www.thenewshome.com/wp-conten...ra-202x260.jpg


There are countless examples on the web.

Here is a program that can help you to achieve the glamour effect: Imagenomic Gallery

[happyme]

Don't mean to discourage, but the original piture looks better. Maybe you could play a bit with the colours.