Can PWP Achieve This "Look"?

[doug]

Well, there hasn’t been a forum posting for more than two weeks. So it’s well past time to get some forum activity started and I’ve got a question that may trigger some discussion.

Unfortunately, non-US forum members may not be able to participate because I’m trying to learn if it is possible to use PWP to come close to duplicating the look or appearance of some photographs used in advertising on US television. I have looked for -- but haven’t located – similar images that could be linked to enable people to see what I’m asking about. But if someone can find such a representation to post, perhaps we can eventually wrap non-US forum members into the discussion. Those of you who have access to US television will be able to quickly see what I’m asking about and perhaps one of you can concoct a better description of what I am looking for.

Currently, during commercial breaks, the CBS television network is running promotions for some of its situation comedy series’. These promotions include still images (headshots, as it were) of the stars of each promoted program. They aren’t really direct photographs. But I’m pretty sure that they began life as photographs, but have been severely “post-processed”. To me, they look more like photo-realistic “illustrations” that have a sort of Norman Rockwell-like appearance. They are promotions for such shows as “The Big Bang Theory”, “NCIS”, “Person of Interest”, “Elementary”, etc.

Before posting this, I posed the question directly to our resident Guru, Den. But he has not seen the images because he is connected to Canadian TV. Based solely on my description of the images, he suggested experimentation with a process that would Composite Blend an original photographic image with a watercolor version. Perhaps that will give someone who has seen the CBS promotions, but is a more expert PWP user than I am, a place to start.

Doug Haag

[den]

They are promotions for such shows as “The Big Bang Theory”, “NCIS”, “Person of Interest”, “Elementary”, etc.

Doug...

Do any of the resulting search images when using a Google/Bing "_______ promotional images" search have the ambience that you are interested in? and you are asking about still images, right?

...den...

[doug]

Yes, Den, these are still images or illustrations.
Although I tried earlier to find something via Google to link, perhaps I didn't try enough search terms. This time I found a website with some of the images -- but they are not very large.

Go to the following website and then follow my instructions below:

http://www.cbs.com/

Beneath the main photo near the top (which rotates among various shows being promoted) you will find a sub-heading titled "Full Episodes Online". Below that are tabs for each day of the week.
Although most all of the shows promoted here reflect the images/illustrations shown during commercial breaks, perhaps the clearest representation of the effect will be in the "Thursday" tab. The image of the two stars of Two and a Half Men shows the "look" I am asking about.

[den]

Confirmed with Doug that this is the "Look"...

hp_fullep_twohalfmen_193x111_1.jpg (17.98 KiB) Viewed 6138 times

Obvisiously not a 'watercolor' image version blend with its original but possibly an 'equalization' where low frequency detail is reduced due to down-sampling...

Ideals anyone?...

...den...

[jsachs]

This looks to me like a labor-intensive combination of masking out the background, careful lighting, and retouching out all the wrinkles and other minor image defects to make it look more like an illustration.

[tomczak]

In a similar vein, I recently looked at a set of architectural pictures that follow the style of CAD-rendered, 3-D solid object drawings but it seems to me that they are based on regular photographs (I don't know). Would anyone know what would be a general approach to make photographs appear this way (if one is so inclined, of course).

I haven't tried it, but I would increase the contrast, then make an image a bit plasticky with strong noise reduction but protecting major edges (e.g. bilateral sharpen in blurring mode). But that's probably not enough. There is a strange, unnatural colour palette that I'm not sure how to replicate - perhaps artificial sky make it look this way. I don't really know.

http://www.sbs.ac.th/en/uploads/images/ ... /CM_KG.JPG
http://www.sbs.ac.th/en/uploads/images/ ... rimsec.JPG
http://www.sbs.ac.th/en/uploads/images/ ... CM_GYM.JPG
http://www.sbs.ac.th/en/uploads/images/ ... _ADMIN.JPG

[Dieter Mayr]

Maciej, I would believe the buildings are CAD-Renderings composed inside real photographs of the landcape on the (planned) building site.
The reasons I believe this: In the ADMIN and especially in the KG image you see a repetetive pattern in the asphalt of the roads, some kind of parallel stripes.
In CAD such surfaces are made of tiles and so such repetetive pattern in unavoidable.
And on the ADMIN picture, look at the border between the grass and the sidestones of the road. it's too smooth, too straight to be natural.
Looks like the CAD rendering just copied in.
Todays CAD renderings (especially the CAD programs used by architects) are very impressive and realistic.

[doug]

I am the original poster in this thread and wanted to let you know that, based on several e-mail exchanges with Den, I am abandoning my quest to learn if there is a way to use PWP to achieve a post-processed “illustration-like” appearance.

I started on this mission because I saw this “look” last year in over 600 headshots of visitors to our local art museum that were displayed in connection with its 100th anniversary. Assuming that there was no way to share these museum images with you, I referenced currently running CBS television promotion images that have a similar appearance. Subsequently, I discovered that I can share some of the museum images.

They are at the following website under the “Faces of the Museum” category. Among these photos is one picture that shows a portion of the museum gallery where the more than 600 greater-than-lifesize headshot prints were displayed from floor to very tall ceiling. It was pretty impressive to see in person.

http://jimrohmanstudio.com/Artist.asp?A ... y=E4VXEJ79

Aside from any difficulty in developing a PWP “workaround” to produce this appearance, Den tells me that the original photos were likely produced with a hi-key lighting setup which would make the achievement of this appearance in post processing a lot easier than it would be with a run-of-the-mill portrait. I’m not so enamored with this look as to go to this much trouble. Indeed, I talked to the photographer who took the pictures (that’s how I learned about the website) and he described the 5-light setup that was used. It was pretty complicated and included the use of various sized boxes for people of different heights to stand on so that everyone’s face was positioned exactly the same with respect to the lighting setup.

Also of behind-the-scene interest, is the fact that they took about 14,000 exposures and the photographer had to replace the shutter on his Hasselblad shortly thereafter. Also, the museum display did not include shots of the same individual making different, crazy facial expressions. Those images on the website probably came from the silliness that sometimes accompanies a portrait session.

[Dieter Mayr]

Not beeing a expert in portrait studio work, but when analyzing the light at the headshots on the website you provided I see a big softbox centered below the camera and a smaller one above it (look in the refections in the eyes), and there also are big softboxes or strips left and right of the heads ( see the reflections on the cheeks).
So it seems to me it was a lightning effect almost like a light tent, which one uses to have a almost shadow- and reflex-free illumination (lets say for a silver vase). I don't see much softening / bluring effect on the skin, every hair and wrinkle can be seen, just with very few contrast due to the very flat light.
So I think the "magic" of these images is more lightning technique then post processing.

[doug]

Dieter, based on my conversation with the photographer, your analysis of the lighting is amazingly perceptive. The only meaningful difference between your analysis and his description is that the larger light source from the front was aimed down from above and the smaller came from below.

You are correct that there were also lights from either side (he called it a "rim lighting" effect). That accounts for four of the five lights. The fifth was on the background.

Among the post processing steps was the use of an application he called Topaz Adjust. The identical settings in that application were used for every picture -- though the settings were different for men than for women and children.

I assumed that the post processing was the most significant factor in making these images look a little like "illustrations". I thought they had a bit of a Norman Rockwell feel. But you may be correct that lighting played a dominant or essential role. Regardless, everything was so well pre-planned that all of the more than 600 headshots had an identical appearance. There were none that seemed brighter or darker than another.

Heck, in my ignorance, I thought it might be as simple as finding the right sequence of adjustments in PWP. That seemingly incorrect presumption was inspired by seeing the dramatic effect on portraiture in Den's tutorial for the Lazlo Effect.