minx

Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Fri 29/03/24 16:32:55 GMT

Translate page FROM gb -> TO de fr it nl es pt jp

Translate page TO gb <- FROM de fr it nl es pt jp

WetlookPro

Message # 60850.3.1.1

Subject: Pictures Re:Technical question to producers

Date: Sun 16/03/14 23:23:48 GMT

Name: GeorgeSK uu

Email:

Website:

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help
with running costs: Make Donation (you can change amount)

Previous Reply
Next New Message
Active List Archive

Thanks Edin and Waterman, I agree that Edwin manages to take nice pics even in bright sunlight.

 

Below is an image comparing before (left)and after (right) I edited it, it was the same original sample, just resized. This is what I do before I use an image as a desktop background/wallpaper. (Call me a perfectionist).

 

This can be done even without the original raw, as you can see, just good old Photoshop/phptography techniques like levels, curves, overlaying a second copy of the image as a new layer and adjusting the opacity of the new layer with the added bonus of a more visible wetness of her pantyhose, then the added oomph from Topaz Adjust 5 (colours and detail-clarity).

 

I could/would still add some colour to her skin to achieve a more natural skin tone but I didn't want to go over the top, just slight adjustments which look good to my eye.

 

In reply to Message (60850.3.1) None Re:Technical question to producers

By waterman - de Sun 16/03/14 20:35:20 GMT

Website:


Hello.

Nice BTS discussion about an interesting topic. I wouldn't see myself as a "producer" but certainly a frequent photographer of wetlook. So here is my view.

 

First about the example image: Its taken in broad sunlight. Normally bad light for good photos. In case of wetfoto, their knowledge and technic is high professional. This image is lit very well. The brightness seems intended to me and is kind of an image style.

Styles are taste, and tastes are different.

I get your basic point and share it: Wetlook, as I love it and you seem too, needs some very specific lighting, that brings out the wet effect, sometimes especially in contrast to still dry parts of fabrics.To get this right is an art. It works best under controlled cirumstances like you have in a studio. There are a lot of good wetlook studio shoots around: Wetfoto and Eurowam, downloaddreams and a few more at the top show how it can work, while I certainly see potential in the images of other producers like wetlooker (Dimas images differ quite a lot and many get better when heavily pushed brighter), or even Erik Elsas, whos lighting has grown much better than five or ten years ago, but sometimes is still not really studio-like. Leonmoomin compares to these two and so go many others. To complete the list to the other end I can find lots of "producers", who try to sell me some very average to bad amateur lighting.

 

Thats the exposure part. Lighting and camera have to be set right, take RAW, as Chris proposed, and you can switch to part two, postprocessing.

 

Nearly no photo lives up to its best show without it, even with the pros.

"Normal" postprocessing is cropping, brightness adjustments, color corrections, some sharpening etc. You can do the most in this part what is needed to bring out a fantastic image  as long as your exposure and lighting were good.

"Extensive" postprocessing is mostly done when special styles are intended. Like effects which high clearness values in LR produce, implementing vignettes, setting color shifts and lots more. This kind oft postprocessing is mostly domain of "wetlook art", not the "mass production" of most producers with weekly updates.

 

You can clearly find big differences between studio images and those taken outdoors in natural lighting. EdR shows you how you can manage this even with a bright sun around (or behind the model), you only have to know your lighting skills. But at least for my taste, the best wetlook scenes I remember were (nearly) all taken under studio circumstances. Best controlled, best results. But still a good piece of it is taste...

Regards

waterman

In reply to Message (60850.3) Info Re:Technical question to producers

By Chris - WAM Photography - chris@wetandmessyphotography.com at Sun 16/03/14 19:25:21 GMT

Website: http://www.wetandmessyphotography.com/


Hi George,

 

interesting question. I for my part do quite some post-processing. But also some "pre-processing", meaning I try to set up my lighting as good as possible, before I start to shoot. I use remote flashes (1-2, depending if I shoot indoors or outdoors). But even if you get the lighting good for most of your shots, your model will occasionally move in front of the camera and as your flash usually will be mounted on a tripod it wouldn't keep the exact distance to the model, resulting in over- or underexposure. Even more so if you shoot outdoors, you'll have to take sunlight into account. That's why I shoot my series in RAW format, to be able to do some quick corrections to exposure and color balance and some basic cropping or lense correction. Shooting RAW gives you the chance to "rescue" shots that - at first glance - seem to be over- or underexposed.

 

After I made a selection of "good" shots from a scene I run those through some hand-crafted Photoshop actions to enhance contrast or color-balance. Usually I do not "over-edit" any shots that are sold on my page but there will be no shot unedited-out-of-the-camera.

In reply to Message (60850) Question Technical question to producers

By GeorgeSK - uu Sun 16/03/14 13:49:44 GMT

Website:


A question to producers: Do you do post processing to your pictures or upload as they come out of the camera?

 

I am just asking because I like to use wetlook pics from my favourite producer (Wetfoto) as a desktop background and I noticed lately that many of the pics, especially the ones taken in bright sunlight, seem to be a bit "washed out" and overexposed.

 

When I do my image processing magic, they look like a totally different picture without them looking unnatural - adjusting levels and curves to get more contrast and as a finishing touch, I have a new weapon in my arsenal - Topaz Adjust 5, which gives them the required punch - nicer colours and more detail.

 

This was not meant as a criticism, just a question. I realise that it would be time consuming, but the basic levels and curves could be automated by finding a generic "good value" and use a Photoshop action to batch convert the images.

 

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs: Make Donation (you can change amount)

All WAM Drunk Sex Orgy Clips4Sale
Wetlook-Online

Minx Movies - M12 - Dressed in Wet is now in the Download Store
Download Store

Minx Movies - M15 - Wet Me Now is now in the Download Store
Download Store

Minx Movies - M14 - Get Wet With Me is now in the Download Store
2ipmd65.jpg2ipmdg2.jpgckfbj77.jpgjapgs25.jpgzgjbt99.jpg Download Store 2fpbs94.jpgkijws74.jpgrlsps97.jpglasbjg7.jpg2fptg96.jpg2gpdde7.jpg


Minx Movies - M8 - Mask Of Wetness is now in the Download Store
Download Store



[ This page took 0.022 seconds to generate ]