# That glowing skin effect...



## AlejandroHernandez (Dec 30, 2007)

This kind of thread has probably been here before but anyway, I always look at fashion magazines for inspiration and because I love that type of photography, but I've always wondered how can you achieve that effect on the model's skin, it's some kind of glow in it. I think it looks really amazing and I wanted to know if that is something you can get from lighting, retouching, or some product you apply to the skin. I've tried post-processing techniques but with no luck. So if you guys can explain that to me in a better way it'll be great.


----------



## Happy Hour (Dec 30, 2007)

Do a search on you tube for makeovers on photoshop. most of them are in fast forward but you can see the concept.


----------



## Joves (Dec 30, 2007)

You can get it from lighting. You might try searching at the strobist to see if they have any good ghetto techniques.  They usually have some off handed way of doing things. http://strobistblogspot.com


----------



## Mike_E (Dec 30, 2007)

A 4'X6' softbox helps too.


----------



## Sideburns (Dec 30, 2007)

HUGEEEEEE softbox.  A nice 6' softbox works wonders.

You can also attain the effect in photoshop.

Soft focus is sometimes used.


----------



## bellavita64 (Dec 30, 2007)

I was trying to find out the same thing. It is done in PP. Check out the thread titled "Autumn Wedding" in the Professional Portraits and Wedding Gallery that was originally posted 11/12/07. I think this is what you were looking for. Sorry I don't know how to do the little link thingy to another thread.


----------



## AlejandroHernandez (Dec 30, 2007)

@bellavita: i'll check that thread.

By the way my softbox it's small i think. It's 24x24" and i only have 2 monolights (100w/s)


----------



## Alpha (Dec 30, 2007)

Could you link to an example? There are any number of lighting and processing techniques you could be referring to.


----------



## AlejandroHernandez (Dec 30, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> Could you link to an example? There are any number of lighting and processing techniques you could be referring to.



Like this photo. The photographer obviously used a lot of light and there's something in the model's skin that i really like.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1019/1487175988_b0fbdb6540.jpg?v=0

Or this one:
http://flickr.com/photos/vitorshalom/2088423546/


----------



## running_with_scissors (Dec 30, 2007)

maybe this will help for doing a touch up in photoshop  http://www.lunacore.com/photoshop/tutorials/tut020_2.htm


----------



## Alpha (Dec 30, 2007)

This is no special effect. It's just light. 

The first shot is simply a single dead-on softbox from above and angled slightly down. There's a gray background lit with an orange gel and a spot aimed behind the subject.

The second shot is achieved simply by shooting against a white cyclorama lit most likely with some very large umbrellas.


----------



## AlejandroHernandez (Dec 30, 2007)

No, I'm not talking about skin smoothing. I have Digital GEM Airbrush for that.
See the first photo i posted, it looks like the guy has oil in his skin.


----------



## Alpha (Dec 30, 2007)

AlejandroHernandez said:


> No, I'm not talking about skin smoothing. I have Digital GEM Airbrush for that.
> See the first photo i posted, it looks like the guy has oil in his skin.



1) Ditch the Digital GEM. It's a very bad way to smooth skin.

2) No, it does not look like he has oil on his skin. It looks like there's a single large softbox. Look in his sunglasses if you don't believe me.


----------



## AlejandroHernandez (Dec 30, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> This is no special effect. It's just light.
> 
> The first shot is simply a single dead-on softbox from above and angled slightly down. There's a gray background lit with an orange gel and a spot aimed behind the subject.
> 
> The second shot is achieved simply by shooting against a white cyclorama lit most likely with some very large umbrellas.



Oh ok. So the thing is just light and how i set it up.


----------



## Alpha (Dec 30, 2007)

AlejandroHernandez said:


> Oh ok. So the thing is just light and how i set it up.



Exactly.

And sorry for #2 in that last post of mine. I didn't realize you were responding to running_with_scissors.


----------



## AlejandroHernandez (Dec 30, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> 1) Ditch the Digital GEM. It's a very bad way to smooth skin.
> 
> I use it because it's easy but the results always look plastic


----------



## Alpha (Dec 30, 2007)

AlejandroHernandez said:


> MaxBloom said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Ditch the Digital GEM. It's a very bad way to smooth skin.
> ...


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 31, 2007)

AlejandroHernandez said:


> Like this photo. The photographer obviously used a lot of light and there's something in the model's skin that i really like.
> 
> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1019/1487175988_b0fbdb6540.jpg?v=0
> 
> ...


 
They discussed how to do this in http://strobist.blogspot.com ... thats a single umbrella from the front. One of the easiest effects to do in real life, but the only point has to be that the rear wall has to be specular (reflective) to work.

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/03/seminar-attendees-shot-in-rhode-island.html

Look about half way down.

Kudos to that site for their Lighting 101 and 102 courses.  I do not think that a better resource for lighting info exists anywhere on the net.  I went through the content from 101 as "course" info, testing it all out.  Lighting 102 even has assignments and things to test out... an awesome way to learn a lot about lighting!


----------



## Alpha (Dec 31, 2007)

JerryPH said:


> They discussed how to do this in http://strobist.blogspot.com ... thats a single umbrella from the front. One of the easiest effects to do in real life, but the only point has to be that the rear wall has to be specular (reflective) to work.
> 
> http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/03/seminar-attendees-shot-in-rhode-island.html
> 
> ...



I'm sorry but that is incorrect. These two shots were done using studio strobes, not portable flashes. I repeat-- check the sunglasses if you don't believe me. 

The strobist stuff is interesting. It is rarely an acceptable substitute for studio equipment when working in a studio.


----------



## bango707 (Dec 31, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> This is no special effect. It's just light.
> 
> The first shot is simply a single dead-on softbox from above and angled slightly down. There's a gray background lit with an orange gel and a spot aimed behind the subject.



Something just doesn't seem right about the soft overhead lighting being his only source.  
I would say that the bounce seen in his glasses was angled up from in front of him and used as a fill. Angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection.  His glasses are angled down so to get a reflection straight into camera the source would have to be angled up. 
There is a lot of shadow in the camera right of the subject which is why I would say that the soft source is coming from high above camera left.

I guess the best way to put it is that there are infinite ways to light a shot. What works for one person doesn't work for another.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 31, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> I'm sorry but that is incorrect. These two shots were done using studio strobes, not portable flashes. I repeat-- check the sunglasses if you don't believe me.
> 
> The strobist stuff is interesting. It is rarely an acceptable substitute for studio equipment when working in a studio.


 
It looks like a simple softbox (looks square, not round like an umbrella would make as an effect in his glasses).

If I put an SB-800 or one of my $600 studio strobes into a softbox, then take pics and look at the reflection they make in sunglasses on the pictures, no one could tell the difference. At least I cannot, and I have tried (but with umbrellas, not softboxes).

Light is light. If the stength of output and temperature is the same, it makes no difference in that one picture, what the source is. It will look the same on the print or digital picture.

Now if you want to talk taking 500 pics in rapid sucession, yes studio strobes are well ahead of the game... but I am not at that level, nor can I easily carry the studio strobes out from Montreal to Flroida conveniently with me... lol.

For a studio professional, I see no other recourse other than a full and powerful setup, however the vast majority of us here are not in that class, but that doesn't mean we cannot recreate some very nice effects like the "halo" with only high end studio strobes.


----------



## Alpha (Jan 1, 2008)

bango707 said:


> Something just doesn't seem right about the soft overhead lighting being his only source.
> I would say that the bounce seen in his glasses was angled up from in front of him and used as a fill. Angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection.  His glasses are angled down so to get a reflection straight into camera the source would have to be angled up.
> There is a lot of shadow in the camera right of the subject which is why I would say that the soft source is coming from high above camera left.
> 
> I guess the best way to put it is that there are infinite ways to light a shot. What works for one person doesn't work for another.



It's a single source at the front, but two other sources as I mentioned...a strobe with an orange gel fired at the background and a spot or snoot aimed directly behind the subject.

The softbox is dead on in the glasses. Perhaps it's level with his upper body. If it were angled up, the forearms would be casting a shadow onto his chest.


----------



## Alpha (Jan 1, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> It looks like a simple softbox (looks square, not round like an umbrella would make as an effect in his glasses).
> 
> If I put an SB-800 or one of my $600 studio strobes into a softbox, then take pics and look at the reflection they make in sunglasses on the pictures, no one could tell the difference. At least I cannot, and I have tried (but with umbrellas, not softboxes).



With brollies you're right. But with boxes I don't believe so. Especially if there's an internal baffle, anything bigger than a hairlight won't do much of anything. I've tried using some of my bigger boxes with my Sunpak 544, and even it struggles sometimes when it's double-baffled.


----------



## Mike_E (Jan 1, 2008)

The first shot is three lights I think. One 2'x6' box below the camera and turned down low and one most likely the same size above the camera used as a main and the third is a spot used as a kicker on the backdrop for separation.

There is a good chance that there is another spot directly above him to help with the definition in his forearms.

The second shot is most likely a straight forward usage of softboxes.


----------



## Alpha (Jan 1, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> The first shot is three lights I think. One 2'x6' box below the camera and turned down low and one most likely the same size above the camera used as a main and the third is a spot used as a kicker on the backdrop for separation.
> 
> There is a good chance that there is another spot directly above him to help with the definition in his forearms.
> 
> The second shot is most likely a straight forward usage of softboxes.



The first shot can't possibly have a 2'x6' box. The entire width of the box is visible in the shades and it's oriented horizontally. It would have to be really really far away for a box that big to be fully visible like that. Doubtful.

I don't see why you'd say boxes in the second shot. I find cycloramas to be much easier to light evenly with brollies, and I think most would agree.


----------



## Mike_E (Jan 1, 2008)

Hi Max, you may be right on the first.  I was thinking 6' because there is very little light reaching the subject (meaning a good distance away) yet it's still bright enough to have the effect shown in the glasses.

On the second, I was looking at how even the light was along her arms and how soft the shadow is on her left inner thigh.  But in any case there are several ways to get it done, as you say.

Happy New Year!!


----------

