How do I get that look like in mens magazines?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Greg - 01 Sep 2004 08:50 GMT

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?

Reply to this Message

David Dyer-Bennet - 01 Sep 2004 18:57 GMT

> 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 the model.

Signature

David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/

Reply to this Message

This Guy Here - 02 Sep 2004 16:44 GMT

>> 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 the model.

I disagree -- it's mainly the lighting. These pictures are created
with appropriately sized soft boxes, often with warm (golden)
reflectors in place, plus hairlights & other spot lights to fill in
the dark areas.

Books have been written on glamour lighting techniques -- there isn't
enough space here in this reply to summarize them.

Reply to this Message

Marc 182 - 03 Sep 2004 04:01 GMT

> >> I don't want that heavy airbrushed look but just a nice smooth goldedn
> >> skin look you see in Maxim, FHM, and other mags.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Books have been written on glamour lighting techniques -- there isn't
> enough space here in this reply to summarize them.

I agree, it's mostly lighting. There's also quite a bit of body makeup,
covering up all those boo-boos from childhood softball and such.

Definately not filters and lenses.

BTW, Playboy claims they never photoshop. I haven't heard the same from
the others.

Marc

Reply to this Message

zeitgeist - 04 Sep 2004 02:48 GMT

> 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?

First, they never 'airbrushed' cause they were shot on transparency.
Airbrushing would place opaque pigments down. To airbrush they would have
to make a print, work on it, then copy it for reproduction.

They did body makeup. And usually added a shiny coating, Vaseline or body
oil.

But the most effective thing they did was appropriate lighting. If you saw
a set, its usually built in a large warehouse space, using huge softboxes.
How big? They light like commercial photographers lighting a
semi-reflective item. A light source twice as big as the subject, so
there's a big scrim about 12 feet. Strip lights are placed almost directly
opposite as a separation/hair light.

It seems counter to typical portrait concepts to encourage specularity with
body oils, but using a very large light source and exposing for the large
diffuse highlights you spread the highlight out giving you that smooth skin
tone.

Reply to this Message

Michael Scarpitti - 05 Sep 2004 00:07 GMT

> > 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?
>
> First, they never 'airbrushed' cause they were shot on transparency.

They certainly are airbrushed.

> Airbrushing would place opaque pigments down. To airbrush they would have
> to make a print, work on it, then copy it for reproduction.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> diffuse highlights you spread the highlight out giving you that smooth skin
> tone.

Reply to this Message

zeitgeist - 05 Sep 2004 22:47 GMT

> > > I don't want that heavy airbrushed look but just a nice smooth goldedn
> > > skin look you see in Maxim, FHM, and other mags.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> They certainly are airbrushed.

Please then explain how they airbrushed? I explained why they couldn't.

The images were probably retouched, a project slightly more difficult on
transparency stock than negative, but there were experts in the field who
could do amazing stuff with a tiny brush and those twin eye piece
magnifiers.

It is possible they airbrushed make up on the model, but I doubt that would
be better than mere power brushing with a hair Wisk brush or rubbing creams.

With digital there is an 'airbrush' tool but still the 'healing' brush is
better in paint brush mode.

So...care to back up your opinion?

> Airbrushing would place opaque pigments down. To airbrush they would have
> to make a print, work on it, then copy it for reproduction.

Reply to this Message

Gregory Blank - 06 Sep 2004 03:15 GMT

Quite frankly your explanation sounded/sounds more reasonable.

Now Playboy magazine is another matter we know they airbrush.
<Correct?>

> Please then explain how they airbrushed? I explained why they couldn't.
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> have
> > to make a print, work on it, then copy it for reproduction.

Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Reply to this Message

zeitgeist - 07 Sep 2004 07:22 GMT

It was a former Playboy photographer who categorically denied that any
brushing was ever done, it was from his lecture and demonstrations that I
learned a lot about lighting, and it was his explanation of why airbrush was
incompatible with the methods of image capture used at the time
(transparency film)

Airbrush uses pigments, it is meant to be applied to solid surfaces, you
can't see through it, using it on a transparency would be like spraying
house paint on a stained glass window.

> Quite frankly your explanation sounded/sounds more reasonable.
>
> Now Playboy magazine is another matter we know they airbrush.
> <Correct?

Reply to this Message

otzi - 06 Sep 2004 04:29 GMT

> It is possible they airbrushed make up on the model, but I doubt that would
> be better than mere power brushing with a hair Wisk brush or rubbing creams.

Air brushing is very good although a bit slow. Reduces the chance of
contamination and offers very good gradations. Down side is that the model
can't do it her-self. Some models are very good at doing their own make up.
Allowing the studio team to get on with other things. In the field brushes
are the only option. Both systems are handy to use. Make-up girls come at a
cost as does the airbrush set up but not all make-up girls cut the mustard.

Why did I write this? Must be getting bored by the slow postings to this
group.

Signature

Otzi

Reply to this Message