Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Street Fashion

Arthur Woo

Arthur Woo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
595
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New York, NY

I recently worked with a German/NYC actress/model to shoot a series of street style videos. Here's one that was shot on a Scarlet.

Edit: On the advice of a couple of DPs/Directors I used Beauty Box to clear up some of the imperfections on the skin. Thanks for all your feedback to help my work improve!
 
Last edited:
Ouch - visible blemishes have no place in a fashion video, and neither do bags under the eyes. You show me this and it would be like showing bare breasts in a video to an Amish viewer - it's shocking, and not in a good way.

Fashion is not documentary film - This is simply not what fashion is - if you don't like it, work in documentary film. Theres' nothing wrong with documentary film.
 
Robert Ruffo New said:
Ouch - visible blemishes have no place in a fashion video, and neither do bags under the eyes. You show me this and it would be like showing bare breasts in a video to an Amish viewer - it's shocking, and not in a good way.

Fashion is not documentary film - This is simply not what fashion is - if you don't like it, work in documentary film. Theres' nothing wrong with documentary film.
Click to expand...
Robert, I will concede that in general you are correct. However, one of the things that drives me crazy is that a lot times those fashion films are over-processed to the point where there may as well be a mannequin on set because it certainly isn't a human being.

So, if the goal is to actually have a more naturalistic look to it without being over-processed than I think that's okay. I'm not saying that's what they were going for here. That I don't know. And certainly, there is a place somewhere in the middle between too natural and over-processed. Finding the perfect balance of makeup, lighting, and post processing to fit the style of the piece is always paramount, of course.

But my observation is that many of the high-end, highly lauded fashion films seem to go too far for my tastes. But some hit it just right for me.

Anyway, Arthur could probably explain further what they were going for and how it was executed.
 
Robert Ruffo New said:
Ouch - visible blemishes have no place in a fashion video, and neither do bags under the eyes. You show me this and it would be like showing bare breasts in a video to an Amish viewer - it's shocking, and not in a good way.

Fashion is not documentary film - This is simply not what fashion is - if you don't like it, work in documentary film. Theres' nothing wrong with documentary film.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback Robert/Steve. What would be a proper method for fixing these blemishes in post assuming the makeup artist wasn't able to cover everything up? I can do a pretty realistic job in photoshop without showing too much processing on the skin, but I'm not too familiar with this sort of thing for fixing faces in motion. The blurring/rotoscoping techniques I've tried on other videos has given me mixed results. As far as the goal for the video, in this particular case we were focused on the street styling and not so much with the blemishes. But there is definitely room for improvement, any tips would be appreciated!
 
Last edited:
BeautyBox is the plug-in we use for all beauty projects.

http://digitalanarchy.com/beautyVID/main.html

I have to agree with Mr. Ruffo, that if you are looking to shoot beauty, then you have to decide how you wish to address issues of age, skin flaws, wrinkles,bags and neck lines to compete.

The harsh truth is that unless you are skilled at painting with light, filters, cosmetics and post plug-ins, then the world of 4k+ sensors and the way they capture skin and facial flaws can be pretty ugly.

For our cosmetic spots, we tend to use big, soft sources, and ask the makeup artist to keep the skin finish dewy as opposed to matte, use blotting pads instead of powder and in general to go very easy with everything they apply.

If you can see texture and flaws in person, the camera will magnify it and most print/fashion makeup artists are used to the way stobes "fill in" and blend away flaws with a burst of light, so they tend to over-apply products.

You might be surpised to know that with a good deal of our beauty spots,now in broadcast, we ask the makeup artist to apply a basic tinted moisturizer or "bb" cream ,blot off any excess product..and then STOP.

Using an extra light source while shooting to flatten out facial "topography"(simple bounce boards), can be very helpful.

Try downloading a demo of Beautybox or Red Giant Cosmo for basic and VERY Effective beauty cleanup.

Hope that helps!
 
BRANDON JAMESON said:
BeautyBox is the plug-in we use for all beauty projects.

http://digitalanarchy.com/beautyVID/main.html

I have to agree with Mr. Ruffo, that if you are looking to shoot beauty, then you have to decide how you wish to address issues of age, skin flaws, wrinkles,bags and neck lines to compete.

For our cosmetic spots, we tend to use big, soft sources, and ask the makeup artist to keep the skin finish dewy as opposed to matte, use blotting pads instead of powder and in general to go very easy with everything they apply.

If you can see texture and flaws in person, the camera will magnify it.

Using an extra light source while shooting to flatten out facial "topography"(simple bounce boards), can be very helpful.

Try downloading a demo of Beautybox or Red Giant Cosmo for basic and VERY Effective beauty cleanup.

Hope that helps!
Click to expand...
Thank you Brandon, I appreciate the advice! I'm also used to shooting w/ strobes and having the light fill in the imperfections. I'll check those out. How big of a lighting source do you use (power wise)? I use continuous lighting for interviews/narrative but haven't explored the options for beauty.
 
Last edited:
Arthur Woo said:
Thanks! I'll check those out. How big of a lighting source do you use (power wise)?
Click to expand...

Start with a simple bounce board to fill in what may be lacking from your source and work up from there.

Also, Hollywood Black Magic Filters 1/8, 1/4 are a very handy tool!
 
BRANDON JAMESON said:
Try a classic octobox light modifier on a continuous source.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=569815&is=REG&A=details&Q=
Click to expand...

Cool! I've been looking for something simpler like this. I've been using Arris; while they pack a punch they output a ton of heat and I haven't found modifiers that are in the shape of the octobox for them. I'm not too hot on CFLs though, I've owned stuff like this in the past and they breakdown easily and don't out put a lot of light. Would an HMI be a better solution w/ one of profoto's many modifiers http://www.profoto.com/hr-softboxes/hr-softbox-3-octa-rf?
 
Last edited:
I love the cinematography. I do agree, her skin has some skin imperfections, but I do like the video a lot. The feeling in it is great :) I appreciate all the tips on fashion photography. Been wanting to get into it, especially video and would be fantastic to try it!
As I said, I do really like the video in itself. Well done :)
 
Great work, now your making me want an EPIC :)
 
Arthur Woo said:
Thanks for the feedback Robert/Steve. What would be a proper method for fixing these blemishes in post assuming the makeup artist wasn't able to cover everything up? I can do a pretty realistic job in photoshop without showing too much processing on the skin, but I'm not too familiar with this sort of thing for fixing faces in motion. The blurring/rotoscoping techniques I've tried on other videos has given me mixed results. As far as the goal for the video, in this particular case we were focused on the street styling and not so much with the blemishes. But there is definitely room for improvement, any tips would be appreciated!
Click to expand...

I know I'm harsh but thank you for realizing that I am trying to be constructive. it's hard to fix completely in post - it will never look quite the same. A rule of thumb many fashion market cinematographers I know use is if it looks exactly like a high quality fashion magazine page straight out of the camera in the little 5' Epic LCD, you'll be able to fix it enough to look good in HD on a larger monitor. Pushing teh image further than that will start to look very digital.

Beauty box is good, yes, but not if you crank it up too much.

You need makeup, you need a stylist, you need hair - these are as essential to shooting fashion as lighting and a camera. And you need to know how to film and light for each type of hair, each type of complexion. You need to learn even how to direct makeup and hair for the type of scene and lighting. It takes learning and practice, like anything else in this business, but practicing shooting fashion is expensive and/or requires many favors from many friends, so it's not easy. It was not easy for me.
 
Steve Sherrick said:
Robert, I will concede that in general you are correct. However, one of the things that drives me crazy is that a lot times those fashion films are over-processed to the point where there may as well be a mannequin on set because it certainly isn't a human being.

So, if the goal is to actually have a more naturalistic look to it without being over-processed than I think that's okay. I'm not saying that's what they were going for here. That I don't know. And certainly, there is a place somewhere in the middle between too natural and over-processed. Finding the perfect balance of makeup, lighting, and post processing to fit the style of the piece is always paramount, of course.

But my observation is that many of the high-end, highly lauded fashion films seem to go too far for my tastes. But some hit it just right for me.

Anyway, Arthur could probably explain further what they were going for and how it was executed.
Click to expand...

I agree with your criticisms of many fashion films, but the good ones are no different from Hollywood films. You don't see blemishes on Hollywood actresses in AAA titles, and yet they don't look like mannequins, and rarely do the women look over-processed. I'd also say - that is what fashion is and what the clients want. They want a perfect dream world, not reality, ever. Fashion has different ideals and goals than "normal" cinematography.
 
Robert Ruffo New said:
I know I'm harsh but thank you for realizing that I am trying to be constructive. it's hard to fix completely in post - it will never look quite the same. A rule of thumb many fashion market cinematographers I know use is if it looks exactly like a high quality fashion magazine page straight out of the camera in the little 5' Epic LCD, you'll be able to fix it enough to look good in HD on a larger monitor. Pushing teh image further than that will start to look very digital.

Beauty box is good, yes, but not if you crank it up too much.

You need makeup, you need a stylist, you need hair - these are as essential to shooting fashion as lighting and a camera. And you need to know how to film and light for each type of hair, each type of complexion. You need to learn even how to direct makeup and hair for the type of scene and lighting. It takes learning and practice, like anything else in this business, but practicing shooting fashion is expensive and/or requires many favors from many friends, so it's not easy. It was not easy for me.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your expertise Robert. I just hired a team (mua/hair/styling/model) to shoot a few of these in NYC the past weekend. Looking to improve upon what I have in this current one. As far as your learning curve - did you study under someone or was it mostly trial/error/studying on your own? If you're ever in NYC I would love to be on one of your shoots as an assistant if you are open to that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top